Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; Federal Implementation Plan for the Rusk-Panola Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area, 68378-68385 [2024-18779]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 165 (Monday, August 26, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68378-68385]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-18779]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2022-0311; FRL-12095-01-R6]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Texas; Federal Implementation Plan for the Rusk-Panola Sulfur Dioxide 
Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a 
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to establish enforceable emission 
limits for attaining the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) 
primary national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for the Rusk and 
Panola Counties, Texas nonattainment area (Rusk-Panola area). The EPA 
is proposing the FIP to address deficiencies in Texas' 2022 Rusk-Panola 
area attainment State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision, as identified 
in the EPA's proposed limited approval and limited disapproval of that 
SIP, and which can be found in the same docket as this action. Under 
the limited approval, if finalized, the entire SIP submission would 
become federally enforceable. The limited disapproval, if finalized, 
would trigger the 2-year deadline for EPA to finalize a FIP that 
addresses the deficiencies in the SIP as well as the 18-month deadline 
to impose mandatory emission offsets and highway funding sanctions. The 
EPA is proposing to determine that the proposed FIP would provide for 
attainment of the 2010 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS in the Rusk-
Panola SO2 nonattainment area and meets the other applicable 
requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 7, 2024.
    Virtual Public hearing: The EPA will hold a virtual public hearing 
to solicit comments on September 5, 2024. The last day to pre-register 
to speak at the hearing will be on September 3, 2024. On September 4, 
2024, the EPA will post a general agenda for the hearing that will list 
pre-registered speakers in approximate order at https://www.epa.gov/tx/rusk-panola-so2-nonattainment-area. If you require the services of a 
translator or a special accommodation such as audio description/closed 
captioning, please pre-register for the hearing and describe your needs 
by August 28, 2024.
    For more information on the virtual public hearing, see 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-
OAR-2022-0311 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at 
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from 
Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish 
any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically 
any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information 
(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA 
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located 
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other 
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact 
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 
For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or 
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective 
comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Lee, EPA Region 6 Office, Ozone 
and Infrastructure Section, 214-665-6750, [email protected]. We 
encourage the public to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov. Please call or email the contact listed above if 
you need alternative access to material indexed but not provided in the 
docket. Modeling files and other files related to the alternative model 
review are available upon request. Copyrighted materials are available 
for review in person at EPA Region 6 office in Dallas.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

Virtual Public Hearing

    The EPA is holding a virtual public hearing to provide interested 
parties the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning 
the proposal. The EPA will hold a virtual public hearing to solicit 
comments on September 5, 2024. The hearing will convene at 3:00 p.m. 
Central Time (CT) with a 30-minute break from 5:00 to 5:30 p.m. CT. The 
hearing will conclude at 7:00 p.m. CT, or 15 minutes after the last 
pre-registered presenter in attendance has presented if there are no 
additional presenters. The EPA will announce further details, including 
information on how to register for the virtual public hearing, on the 
virtual public hearing website at https://www.epa.gov/tx/rusk-panola-so2-nonattainment-are. The EPA will begin pre-registering speakers and 
attendees for the hearing upon publication of this document in the 
Federal Register. To pre-register to attend or speak at the virtual 
public hearing, please use the online registration form available at 
https://www.epa.gov/tx/rusk-panola-so2-nonattainment-area or contact us 
via email at [email protected]. The last day to pre-register to 
speak at the hearing will be on September 3, 2024. On September 4, 
2024, the EPA will post a general agenda for the hearing that will list 
pre-registered speakers in approximate order at https://www.epa.gov/tx/rusk-panola-so2-nonattainment-area. Additionally, requests to speak 
will be taken on the day of the hearing as time allows.
    The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as 
possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the 
hearing to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule. Each 
commenter will have approximately 3 to 5 minutes to provide oral 
testimony. The EPA encourages commenters to provide the EPA with a copy 
of their oral testimony electronically by including it in the 
registration form or emailing it to [email protected]. The EPA may 
ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations but will not 
respond to the presentations at that time. Written statements and 
supporting information submitted during the comment period will be 
considered with the same weight as oral comments and supporting 
information presented at the virtual

[[Page 68379]]

public hearing. A transcript of the virtual public hearing, as well as 
copies of oral presentations submitted to the EPA, will be included in 
the docket for this action.
    The EPA is asking all hearing attendees to pre-register, even those 
who do not intend to speak. The EPA will send information on how to 
join the public hearing to pre-registered attendees and speakers.
    Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing will 
be posted online at https://www.epa.gov/tx/rusk-panola-so2-nonattainment-area. While the EPA expects the hearing to go forward as 
set forth above, please monitor our website or contact us via email at 
[email protected] to determine if there are any updates. The EPA 
does not intend to publish a document in the Federal Register 
announcing updates.
    If you require the services of a translator or a special 
accommodation such as audio description/closed captioning, please pre-
register for the hearing and describe your needs by August 28, 2024. 
The EPA may not be able to arrange accommodations without advance 
notice.

I. SO2 Background

    On June 22, 2010, the EPA published a new 1-hour primary 
SO2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb), which is met at an 
ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year average of the 
annual 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations 
does not exceed 75 ppb, as determined in accordance with appendix T of 
40 CFR part 50. On December 13, 2016, the EPA designated portions of 
Rusk and Panola Counties surrounding the Martin Lake Power Plant 
(``Martin Lake'') in Texas as nonattainment for the 2010 1-hour primary 
SO2 NAAQS, effective January 12, 2017.\1\ Section 191 of the 
CAA directs states to submit SIPs for nonattainment areas to the EPA 
within 18 months of the effective date of the designation, i.e., by no 
later than July 12, 2018, for the Rusk-Panola area. Under CAA section 
192, these SO2 SIPs are required to demonstrate that their 
respective areas will attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, 
but no later than 5 years from the effective date of designation, i.e., 
January 12, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 81 FR 89870; see also 40 CFR part 81, subpart C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Rusk-Panola Background

    On August 10, 2020, the EPA published ``Findings of Failure to 
Submit State Implementation Plans Required for Attainment of the 2010 
1-Hour Primary Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air 
Quality Standard (NAAQS)'' that found Texas failed to submit the 
required SIP for the Rusk-Panola area by the July 12, 2018, CAA 
deadline.\2\ This finding, effective on September 9, 2020, triggered 
CAA section 179(a)'s 18-month and 24-month deadlines (March 9, 2022, 
and September 9, 2022) for the imposition of mandatory emission offsets 
and highway funding sanctions, respectively, unless the state submits a 
SIP revision satisfying the CAA's completeness criteria. Additionally, 
this finding triggered the CAA section 110(c) requirement for the EPA 
to promulgate a FIP within two years of the finding (September 9, 2022) 
unless the state submits, and EPA fully approves a SIP revision before 
the EPA promulgates a FIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 85 FR 48111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 28, 2022, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 
(TCEQ) submitted a Nonattainment SIP for the Rusk-Panola area. The 
TCEQ's SIP includes an Agreed Order between the TCEQ and Luminant 
(Luminant Generation Company LLC, a subsidiary of Vistra) for the 
Martin Lake facility, a coal-fired power plant in the area, signed on 
February 14, 2022. The Agreed Order includes emission limits and 
associated requirements for the Martin Lake facility. On August 24, 
2022, the EPA determined that the February 28, 2022, SIP submittal was 
complete under 40 CFR part 51, App. V, which terminated the mandatory 
emissions offsets sanctions that were in effect and the 24-month 
sanction clock for the imposition of highway funding sanctions.\3\ 
However, the EPA's completeness determination did not affect the EPA's 
FIP obligation, which is only satisfied by the promulgation of a FIP or 
the full approval of a SIP. The EPA did not promulgate a FIP by the CAA 
110(c) deadline of September 9, 2022. As a result, the EPA was sued for 
failure to promulgate a FIP and on January 18, 2024, entered into a 
consent decree \4\ setting a December 13, 2024 deadline for the EPA to 
take action promulgating a FIP or fully approving a SIP for the Rusk-
Panola area. If finalized, this FIP in combination with the limited 
approval and limited disapproval would satisfy the EPA's obligations 
under the Consent Decree.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Completeness Determination Letter from David Garcia, Air and 
Radiation Division Director--EPA Region 6 to Jon Niermann, Chairman, 
TCEQ, (August 24, 2022), available in the docket for this action.
    \4\ Sierra Club v. EPA, et al., No. 3:23-cv-00780-RFL, doc. 45
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Limited Approval/Limited Disapproval Action

    On August 2, 2024, the EPA proposed a limited approval and limited 
disapproval of Texas' February 28, 2022, SIP submittal.\5\ A limited 
approval and limited disapproval is appropriate when a SIP contains 
regulatory provisions that are SIP strengthening, but also contains a 
non-separable deficiency that prevents the EPA from granting a full 
approval of the SIP as meeting all applicable CAA requirements. A 
limited approval and limited disapproval action allows the EPA to 
codify SIP requirements that ensure the area makes progress towards 
attaining the NAAQS while requiring the deficient portions of the SIP 
be addressed in a timely manner. The EPA's proposed limited approval 
and limited disapproval action would find that Texas' SIP submission 
would bring the area into attainment and otherwise meet the 
requirements of an attainment plan SIP submission but for two 
deficiencies: (1) an untimely compliance date for the emissions 
limitations several months after the area's attainment date, and (2) 
the inclusion of the Agreed Order's force majeure provision. A 
deficiency arose from the Texas SIP due to the compliance date for the 
emission limitations set forth by the state not being effective until 
after the attainment date for the area. The applicable attainment date 
for the Rusk-Panola Nonattainment area was January 12, 2022, but the 
Martin Lake Facility was not required to comply with all of the 
emissions limitations set forth in the SIP submission's control 
strategy until 180 days later, July 11, 2022. A second deficiency was 
identified in the SIP submission due to enforceability concerns arising 
from the force majeure provision included in the submittal. If 
triggered, the force majeure provision in the SIP allows non-compliance 
with the emission limits of an unknown frequency, duration, and 
magnitude. As explained in the EPA's proposed limited approval and 
limited disapproval of the SIP, this force majeure provision prevents 
the EPA from being able to fully approve the modeled attainment 
demonstration and related CAA elements that would otherwise be 
approvable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 89 FR 63117.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA described the CAA section 172(c) statutory requirements for 
a complete SO2 nonattainment area plan in our 2014 
nonattainment area guidance, which includes: an accurate emissions 
inventory of current emissions for all sources of SO2 within

[[Page 68380]]

the nonattainment area; a modeled attainment demonstration; 
demonstration of Reasonable Further Progress (RFP); implementation of 
Reasonable Available Control Measures (RACM) (including Reasonably 
Available Control Technologies (RACT)); nonattainment New Source Review 
(NSR); emissions limitations and control measures as necessary to 
attain the NAAQS; and adequate contingency measures for the affected 
area.\6\ In the proposed limited approval and limited disapproval 
action, the EPA proposed that the SIP would adequately satisfy the 
requirements for a baseline emissions inventory and nonattainment NSR, 
but due to the presence of the force majeure provision affecting the 
enforceability of the limits relied upon in the attainment 
demonstration, cannot fully meet the requirements of CAA sections 110, 
172, 191 and 192, particularly for RACM/RACT, RFP, emissions limits as 
necessary to provide for NAAQS attainment, and contingency measures. 
Based on these deficiencies, the entire SIP submission is proposed to 
be subject to a limited approval and limited disapproval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ On April 23, 2014, EPA issued recommended guidance for 
meeting the statutory requirements in SO2 SIPs in a 
document entitled, ``Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 
Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions,'' available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/20140423guidance_nonattainment_sip.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the development of Texas' 2022 attainment SIP revision, TCEQ 
entered into an Agreed Order with Luminant to establish a control 
strategy and emission limitations for the Martin Lake facility. The 
TCEQ adopted the Agreed Order on February 14, 2022, binding Martin Lake 
to its requirements and incorporating it into the SIP revision. As of 
2023, the Martin Lake facility had implemented all measures required by 
the Agreed Order. The Agreed Order for Martin Lake established revised 
limits for the three electric generating facilities (EGFs) and for the 
two auxiliary boilers that exist at the facility. Source specific 
limits must be permanent and must reflect the assumptions used in the 
SIP demonstrations as required by 40 CFR part 51, subpart G. Since 
triggering the force majeure provision could result in unaccounted 
emissions and exemptions from compliance of unknown frequency, 
duration, and magnitude, the EPA proposed a limited disapproval for 
failing to establish source specific limits that are permanent and 
consistent with the emissions used in the SIP demonstration. Therefore, 
the EPA is promulgating this FIP to establish permanent and enforceable 
limits for the Martin Lake facility as necessary to provide for 
attainment of the NAAQS. For a more detailed explanation of the 
deficiencies identified in Texas' 2022 attainment plan, see Section III 
of EPA's proposed limited approval and limited disapproval.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 89 FR 63121-62122.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finalizing this action will satisfy the EPA's obligation to 
promulgate a FIP, which was initiated by the August 10, 2020, finding 
that Texas had failed to submit the required SO2 
nonattainment plan by the submittal deadline (85 FR 48111). It will 
also satisfy the requirement in the Consent Decree issued on February 
15, 2022, in Sierra Club v. U.S. EPA, et al., No. 3:23-cv-00780-TLT 
(N.D. Cal.), directing the EPA to sign a notice to either approve a SIP 
meeting the applicable CAA requirements or promulgate a FIP for the 
Rusk-Panola area no later than December 13, 2024.

IV. FIP Action

    As discussed in the previous section, the EPA is proposing a FIP to 
address the SIP's deficiencies that prevent the EPA from fully 
approving the SIP as meeting applicable CAA requirements for 
SO2 nonattainment plans. The EPA's FIP requirements include 
an enforcement scheme for the area that results in permanent and 
enforceable emission limitations that provide for attainment of the 
NAAQS. In our limited approval and limited disapproval action, the EPA 
proposed to find that the SIP's emissions limits would be adequate to 
satisfy CAA requirements and provide for attainment of the NAAQS, but 
for the force majeure provision. Therefore, our FIP incorporates the 
same proposed emissions limitations that are consistent with Texas' 
modeled attainment demonstration absent the force majeure provision 
that necessitated proposing limited disapproval.
    In accordance with CAA section 110(a)(2), SIPs must provide for 
enforceable emissions limitations as necessary to meet applicable CAA 
requirements and include programs to provide for enforcement of such 
emission limitations. In the EPA's ``General Preamble for the 
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990'' 
(General Preamble),\8\ the EPA provided guidance on what it means for 
emissions limitations to be enforceable. The preamble outlines 
fundamental principles for SIPs and control strategies, which include 
enforceability. Specifically, SIPs must provide for a legal means of 
ensuring that sources are in compliance with control measures for a 
measure to be enforceable.\9\ The preamble goes on to state, ``a 
regulatory limit is not enforceable if, for example, it is 
impracticable to determine compliance with the published limit.'' \10\ 
Finally, the preamble states, ``source-specific limits should be 
permanent and must reflect the assumptions used in the SIP 
demonstrations.'' \11\ For an SO2 nonattainment plan to be 
fully approved, CAA section 172(c)(6) provides SIPs must include 
enforceable emission limitations as may be necessary or appropriate to 
provide for NAAQS attainment. Further, CAA section 302(k) defines 
``emission limitation'' to mean a requirement that limits the quantity, 
rate, or concentration of air pollutant emissions on a continuous 
basis. For an SO2 attainment plan to be fully approvable, a 
modeled attainment demonstration must be based on the maximum allowable 
emissions permitted under the SIP's emission limitations, and under CAA 
section 172(c)(6) those limitations must be practically and legally 
enforceable and under 302(k) must be continuous. The same is true for 
the demonstration of RACM/RACT, RFP, and contingency measures. 
Satisfying the enforceability criteria ensures that NAAQS attainment 
will be achieved via compliance with the SIP as adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992).
    \9\ General Preamble, 57 FR 13568 (April 16, 1992).
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As mentioned earlier in this proposed action and discussed in our 
proposed limited approval and limited disapproval action, the SIP 
demonstration does not reflect potential unaccounted for emissions or 
exemptions from compliance due to the triggering of a force majeure 
event, making it impracticable to determine compliance, enforce the SIP 
requirements, and ensure attainment of the NAAQS. However, as also 
discussed in the proposed limited approval and limited disapproval 
action, but for the force majeure provision the EPA believes that the 
modeled attainment demonstration, and RACM/RACT, RFP, emission limits 
necessary for attainment, and contingency measures elements would be 
approvable and would not need to be substantively changed if the force 
majeure provision did not exist in the adopted and submitted SIP.
    Therefore, the EPA is proposing a FIP that provides for reporting, 
monitoring, recordkeeping, compliance,

[[Page 68381]]

enforcement, and contingency measures for the source in the area 
without a force majeure provision. The EPA believes that the proposed 
FIP's enforcement scheme would ensure that the emissions limits and SIP 
requirements necessary to provide for attainment are enforceable. Since 
the proposed FIP requirements do not include a force majeure provision, 
the EPA's FIP would address the deficiency in the SIP related to 
determining compliance and ensuring the limits are consistent with 
those used in the SIP demonstration.

Overview of the New Rule Provisions

    The proposed FIP regulatory language incorporates into the FIP 
existing limits from the Agreed Order for the Martin Lake facility that 
are necessary to provide for NAAQS attainment. Additional details on 
compliance, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements are included in 
the FIP proposed regulatory language found in the proposed amendment to 
40 CFR part 52 section 52.2277 in this action.
    The EPA is proposing two separate limits for each type of unit at 
the Martin Lake facility, consistent with the Agreed Order Luminant 
adopted with Texas and incorporated in Texas' February 28, 2022, SIP 
submittal. The three EGF boiler units (S-1, S-2, S-3) would be subject 
to a combined SO2 emission rate of 7,469 lb/hr averaged over 
a 24-hour block period. The three EGF boilers would also be subject to 
a rate limit of 0.32 lbs/MMBtu averaged over a 24-hour block period for 
each unit. The EGF boilers would be required to only burn subbituminous 
coal, No. 2 fuel oil, or natural gas. Furthermore, the owner or 
operator would be required to limit the firing rate (when fired) for 
all three EGF boiler units to a combined rate not to exceed 27,000 
million British thermal units (MMBtu) per hour. To determine compliance 
with these limits, the owner or operator would be required to maintain 
and continuously operate an SO2 continuous emission 
monitoring system (CEMS) as of the effective date of the FIP to measure 
SO2 emissions from the EGF boilers in conformance with 40 
CFR part 60 appendix F procedure 1.
    In addition, the EPA is proposing limits for the two auxiliary 
boilers located at the facility (S-1A and B) consistent with the Agreed 
Order. The two auxiliary boilers would be subject to a SO2 
emission rate of 51.46 lbs/hr on a one-hour basis and 22.54 tpy on an 
annual basis, combined for the boilers.

V. What action is the EPA taking?

    The EPA is proposing a FIP to address the deficiency identified in 
the EPA's proposed limited approval and limited disapproval action by 
promulgating emissions limits and an enforcement scheme to ensure the 
Rusk-Panola area attains the NAAQS and meets other nonattainment area 
planning requirements.
    The EPA is taking public comments on this FIP for forty days 
following the publication of this proposed action in the Federal 
Register. Comments related to EPA's proposed limited approval and 
limited disapproval of Texas's February 28, 2022, SIP submittal should 
be made on that rulemaking action as described in that separate 
notice.\12\ The EPA will take all relevant comments on this FIP into 
consideration in the final action. If this FIP is finalized, it would 
satisfy the EPA's duty to promulgate a FIP for the area under CAA 
section 110(c) triggered by our previous finding of failure to submit. 
However, the finalized FIP would not affect the sanctions clock started 
under CAA section 179 resulting from the EPA's limited disapproval of 
Texas's February 28, 2022, SIP revision, which would only be terminated 
by an EPA rulemaking approving a revised SIP submitted by Texas 
correcting the deficiency in the limited disapproval action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 89 FR 63117 (August 2, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Environmental Justice Considerations.

    The EPA is providing analyses of environmental justice 
considerations associated with this action. These analyses are being 
provided for informational and transparency purposes, not as a basis of 
our proposed action.
    The EPA conducted a screening analysis using EJSCREEN, an 
environmental justice mapping and screening tool that provides a 
nationally consistent dataset and approach for combining various 
environmental and demographic indicators.\13\ The EJSCREEN tool 
presents these indicators at a census block group (CBG) level or a 
larger user-specified ``buffer'' area that covers multiple CBGs.\14\ An 
individual CBG is a cluster of contiguous blocks within the same census 
tract and generally contains between 600 and 3,000 people. EJSCREEN is 
not a tool for performing in-depth risk analysis, but is instead a 
screening tool that provides an initial representation of indicators 
related to environmental justice and is subject to uncertainty in some 
underlying data (e.g., some environmental indicators are based on 
monitoring data which are not uniformly available; others are based on 
self-reported data).\15\ To help mitigate this uncertainty, we have 
summarized EJSCREEN data within larger ``buffer'' areas covering 
multiple block groups and representing the average resident within the 
buffer area surrounding Martin Lake. We present EJSCREEN environmental 
indicators to help screen for locations where residents may experience 
a higher overall pollution burden than would be expected for a block 
group with the same total population. These indicators of overall 
pollution burden include estimates of ambient particulate matter 
(PM2.5) and ozone concentration, a score for traffic 
proximity and volume, percentage of pre-1960 housing units (lead paint 
indicator), and scores for proximity to Superfund sites, risk 
management plan (RMP) sites, and hazardous waste facilities.\16\ 
Notably, none of these indicators are the topic of the proposed FIP, 
which is specific to implementation of the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 
EJSCREEN also provides information on demographic indicators, including 
percent low-income, communities of color, linguistic isolation, and 
less than high school education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The EJSCREEN tool is available at https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen.
    \14\ See https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/about/glossary.html.
    \15\ In addition, EJSCREEN relies on the five-year block group 
estimates from the U.S. Census American Community Survey. The 
advantage of using five-year over single-year estimates is increased 
statistical reliability of the data (i.e., lower sampling error), 
particularly for small geographic areas and population groups. For 
more information, see https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2020/acs/acs_general_handbook_2020.pdf.
    \16\ For additional information on environmental indicators and 
proximity scores in EJSCREEN, see ``EJSCREEN Environmental Justice 
Mapping and Screening Tool: EJSCREEN Technical Documentation for 
Version 2.2,'' Chapter 3 (July 2023) at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-06/ejscreen-tech-doc-version-2-2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA prepared an EJSCREEN report covering a buffer area of 
approximately 6-mile radius around the Martin Lake facility. Table 1 
presents a summary of results from the EPA's screening-level analysis 
for Martin Lake compared to the U.S. as a whole. From that report, 
Martin Lake did not show EJ indices greater than the 80th percentiles. 
The full, detailed EJSCREEN report is provided in the docket for this 
rulemaking.

[[Page 68382]]



                               Table 1--EJSCREEN Analysis Summary for Martin Lake
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        EJSCREEN values for buffer area (radius) for Martin Lake and the U.S.
                                                       (percentile within U.S. where indicated)
             Variables              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Martin Lake (Rusk-Panola area, 6 miles)                 U.S.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollution Burden Indicators:
    Particulate matter (PM2.5),      9.57 [micro]g/m\3\ (77th %ile)................  8.67 [micro]g/m\3\ (--)
     annual average.
    Ozone, summer seasonal average   40.1 ppb (32nd %ile)..........................  42.5 ppb (--)
     of daily 8-hour max.
    Traffic proximity and volume     0.72 (2nd %ile)...............................  760 (--)
     score *.
    Lead paint (percentage pre-1960  0.12% (37th %ile).............................  0.27% (--)
     housing).
    Superfund proximity score *....  0.048 (42nd %ile).............................  0.13 (--)
    RMP proximity score *..........  0.17 (32nd %ile)..............................  0.77 (--)
    Hazardous waste proximity score  0.059 (11th %ile).............................  2.2 (--)
     *.
Demographic Indicators:
    People of color population.....  31% (52nd %ile)...............................  40% (--)
    Low-income population..........  25% (46th %ile)...............................  30% (--)
    Linguistically isolated          2% (62nd %ile)................................  5% (--)
     population.
    Population with less than high   13% (65th %ile)...............................  12% (--)
     school education.
    Population under 5 years of age  9% (82nd %ile)................................  6%
    Population over 64 years of age  14% (44th %ile)...............................  16% (--)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The traffic proximity and volume indicator is a score calculated by daily traffic count divided by distance in
  meters to the road. The Superfund proximity, RMP proximity, and hazardous waste proximity indicators are all
  scores calculated by site or facility counts divided by distance in kilometers.

    This action is proposing a FIP to remedy deficiencies found in 
Texas' February 28, 2022, SIP submittal to meet CAA nonattainment SIP 
requirements for the Rusk-Panola nonattainment area for the 2010 one-
hour SO2 NAAQS. The CAA requires this action as it pertains 
to the SO2 NAAQS. Information on SO2 and its 
relationship to adverse health impacts can be found at final Federal 
Register notice titled ``Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard 
for Sulfur Dioxide'' (75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010).\17\ We expect that 
this action and resulting emissions reductions will generally be 
neutral or contribute to reduced environmental and health impacts on 
all populations in the Rusk-Panola nonattainment area, including 
communities with EJ concerns. At a minimum, this action is not expected 
to worsen existing air quality as it pertains to SO2 
emissions and is expected to ensure the area is meeting requirements to 
attain air quality standards. Further, there is no information in the 
record indicating that this action is expected to have 
disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental 
effects on a particular group of people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2010-13947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review

    This action is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866, as 
amended by Executive Order 14094, because it is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 
51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under 
Executive Orders 12866 and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023). As 
discussed in detail in section IV, the proposed FIP regulatory language 
contains requirements for only one facility. It is therefore not a rule 
of general applicability.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed action does not impose an information collection 
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act because it 
is not a rule of general applicability and affects fewer than 10 
entities. See 5 CFR 1320(c).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    I certify that this action will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule does not 
impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. The Martin 
Lake Steam Electric Station is not a small entity.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of 
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 
1531-1538 for state, local, or tribal governments or the private 
sector. The EPA has determined that Title II of UMRA does not apply to 
this proposed 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 proposed rule is a rule of particular 
applicability relating to specific EGUs located at one named facility, 
the 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: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires the 
EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not have 
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments. Thus, Executive 
Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

[[Page 68383]]

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks 
that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, 
per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of 
the Executive Order.
    Therefore, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 
because it implements a previously promulgated health or safety-based 
federal standard or implements specific standards established by 
Congress in statutes.

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

    This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 
28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory 
action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations and 
Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to 
Environmental Justice for All

    The EPA believes that the human health and environmental 
conditions, around the Martin Lake Steam Electric Station, that exist 
prior to this action do not result in disproportionate and adverse 
effects on communities with Environmental Justice concerns.
    The EPA believes that this action is not likely to result in new 
disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with environmental 
justice concerns. This proposed FIP limits emissions of SO2 
from one facility in Texas.
    The information supporting this Executive Order review is contained 
in VI Environmental Justice Considerations of this action and the file 
EJScreen Report--Martin Lake in the docket for this action.
    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed 
by this proposed action will not have potential disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects on communities with 
environmental justice concerns 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 communities with environmental 
justice concerns.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend 
title 40 CFR part 52 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. Amend Sec.  52.2277 by adding paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.2277  Control strategy and regulations: Sulfur Dioxide.

* * * * *
    (c) The plan submitted by the State on February 28, 2022, to attain 
the 2010 1-hour primary sulfur dioxide (SO2) national 
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for the Rusk-Panola SO2 
nonattainment area does not fully meet the requirements of Clean Air 
Act (CAA) section 172 with respect to SO2 emissions from the 
Martin Lake facility in the Rusk-Panola, Texas area. The EPA has given 
limited disapproval of the plan provisions addressing these 
requirements. The deficiencies associated with SO2 
requirements for the Martin Lake facility identified in the EPA's 
limited disapproval are addressed by 40 CFR 52.2277(d).
    (d) This section addresses and satisfies CAA section 110(c)(1) 
requirements for the Rusk-Panola SO2 nonattainment area by 
specifying the necessary emission limits and other control measures 
applicable to the Martin Lake facility. This section applies to the 
owner and operator of the facility located at 8850 FM 2658 in Tatum, 
Texas.
    (1) SO2 Emission Limits. (i) Beginning on the [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER 
DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], no 
owner or operator shall emit SO2 from the following units in 
excess of the following limits:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Unit                       SO2 emission limit             Time period/operating scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGF Boiler Units S-1, S-2, S-3           7,469 lbs/hr..............  24-hour block average.
 (Combined).
EGF Boiler Units S-1, S-2, S-3.........  0.32 lbs/MMBtu............  24-hour block average.
Auxiliary Boilers S-1A and B (Combined)  51.46 lbs/hr..............  1-hour average.
Auxiliary Boilers S-1A and B (Combined)  22.54 tons per year.......  annual basis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) Beginning on [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the owner or operator shall burn 
only subbituminous coal, No. 2 fuel oil, or natural gas at the EGF 
boilers. The auxiliary boilers shall only fire No. 2 fuel oil with a 
sulfur content of 0.10% by weight or less.
    (iii) For EGF boiler units, beginning on [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE 
OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the owner or 
operator shall limit the firing rate (when fired) for all three EGF 
boiler units to a combined rate not to exceed 27,000 million British 
thermal units (MMBtu) per hour (the firing rate is an operating cap for 
all three EGF boiler units combined).
    (iv) For Auxiliary boiler units, beginning on [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER 
DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the 
owner or operator shall comply with a 10 percent annual capacity factor 
for each of the two Auxiliary Boilers. Annual capacity factor is the 
ratio between the actual heat input from all fuels burned during a 
calendar year and the potential heat input had the boiler been operated 
for 8,760 hours during a year at the

[[Page 68384]]

maximum steady state design heat input capacity. The 10 percent annual 
capacity factor limit corresponds to a heat input of 219,000 MMBtu per 
calendar year, per Auxiliary Boiler.
    (2) Monitoring Requirements. (i) Beginning on [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER 
DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the 
owner or operator shall calibrate, maintain and operate Continuous 
Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) for SO2 on the EGF 
boilers. Compliance with the SO2 emission limits for the EGF 
boilers shall be determined by using data from CEMS.
    (ii) Emissions shall be continuously monitored during all periods 
of operation of the EGF boilers, including periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction, except for CEMS breakdowns, repairs, 
calibration checks, and zero and span adjustments. Continuous emission 
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.
    (3) Compliance. (i) EGF Boiler Compliance. To demonstrate 
compliance, the owner or operator must calculate the calendar day 24-
hour block average emissions for each unit subject to the long-term 
average emission limit. A block 24-hour average shall be calculated for 
each 24-hour period, beginning at midnight and continuing through 
midnight of the next day, provided that fuel was combusted in the EGF 
boiler unit.
    To demonstrate compliance with the individual lb/MMBTU emission 
limits described in section (d)(1)(i), the block 24-hour average 
SO2 emission rate in lb/MMBTU shall be calculated as the sum 
of all the hourly mass emissions from an EGF boiler unit during a block 
24-hour period divided by the sum of all the hourly heat input from the 
same EGF boiler unit during the same block 24-hour period.
    To demonstrate compliance with the combined lb/hr emission limit 
described in section (d)(1)(i), the block 24-hour average 
SO2 emission rate in lb/hr shall be calculated as the 
arithmetic mean of all the hourly SO2 emissions from the 
three EGF boiler units combined.
    To demonstrate compliance with the combined MMBtu/hr operating 
limited described in section (d)(1)(iii), the hourly firing rate limit 
in MMBtu/hr shall be calculated as the sum of all the hourly firing 
rates from the three EGF boiler units combined.
    SO2 emissions shall be calculated using continuous 
emission monitoring system (CEMS) data obtained in accordance with the 
procedures specified in 40 CFR part 75, on an hourly basis. Only valid 
operating hours will be included in the calculations for the daily 
emission rates. Valid operating hours include only hours that meet the 
primary equipment hourly operating requirements of 40 CFR 75.10(d). For 
example, if the source only meets 40 CFR 75.10(d) operational 
requirements for one hour in a particular 24-hour block period, the 
compliance with the emissions limit would be calculated by the total 
emissions divided by the one hour of operation that meets 40 CFR 
75.10(d). Therefore, any day with at least one hour that meets 
operational requirements will have a calculated block average that will 
be used to demonstrate compliance with the emissions limits. Hours when 
the units are experiencing startup, shutdown, or malfunction conditions 
will be used for the calculation if they meet the primary equipment 
hourly operating requirements of 40 CFR 75.10(d). When valid 
SO2 pounds per hour or SO2 pounds per million Btu 
emission data cannot be obtained because of continuous emission 
monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, or zero and 
span adjustments, emission data must be obtained by using other 
monitoring systems subject to EPA approval to provide emission data for 
a minimum of 18 hours in each 24-hour period and at least 22 out of 30 
successive operating days.
    (ii) Auxiliary Boiler Compliance. For the auxiliary boilers, to 
determine compliance with Section (d)(1)(ii), the owner or operator 
shall monitor the sulfur content of the liquid fuel in accordance with 
fuel sampling requirements specified in 40 CFR part 75, Appendix D, 2.2 
Oil Sampling and Analysis. Vender fuel certification receipts may be 
used to comply with this condition. Compliance with SO2 
emissions limits shall be determined based on hourly fuel usage, sulfur 
content of the fuel oil, and the SO2 emission factor from 
EPA AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emissions Factors from 
Stationary Sources, Table 1.3-1, version date May 2010. Compliance with 
the tons per year limitations specified in paragraph (d)(1)(i) shall be 
based on the annual average sulfur dioxide emissions for the calendar 
year for the two auxiliary boilers combined.
    (4) Recordkeeping. The owner/operator shall maintain the following 
records continuously for five years beginning on the effective date of 
the FIP:
    (i) All records of firing rate for each emission unit, including 
hourly combined heat input in MMBtu/hr for the three EGF boiler units 
and the two auxiliary boilers.
    (ii) All records of the type of fuel used at the EGF boilers and 
auxiliary boilers, the results of fuel oil sampling or vendor fuel 
certification receipts for the two auxiliary boilers, and the amount of 
fuel oil used on an hourly basis during periods that the auxiliary 
boilers are operated.
    (iii) All records of hourly emissions, 24-hour block average 
emissions, and annual emissions calculated in accordance with the 
requirements laid out in section (d)(3).
    (iv) In accordance with section (d)(3), all CEMS data including: 
the date, place, and time of sampling or measurement; parameters 
sampled or measured; and results.
    (v) Records of quality assurance and quality control activities for 
CEMS including, but not limited to, any records required by 40 CFR part 
60 appendix F Procedure 1.
    (vi) Records of all major maintenance activities performed on 
emission units, air pollution control equipment, CEMS, and other 
production measurement devices.
    (5) Reporting. Unless otherwise stated all requests, reports, 
submittals, notifications, and other communications required by this 
section shall be submitted to Air and Radiation Division Director, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, to the attention of Mail 
Code: ARD, at 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas, Texas 75270. For each 
unit subject to the emissions limitations in this subsection, the owner 
or operator shall comply with the following requirements:
    (i) The owner or operator shall report CEMS data quarterly in 
accordance with CEMS requirements in section (d)(5)(ii-v) and the 
compliance requirements set forth in paragraph (d)(3) no later than the 
30th day following the end of each calendar quarter.
    (ii) The owner or operator shall submit quarterly excess emissions

[[Page 68385]]

reports for all units identified in paragraph (d)(1)(i) no later than 
the 30th day following the end of each calendar quarter. Excess 
emissions mean emissions that exceed the emission limits specified in 
paragraph (d)(1) of this section. The reports shall include the 
magnitude, date(s), and duration of each period of excess emissions, 
specific identification of each period of excess emissions that occurs 
during all periods of operation including startups, shutdowns, and 
malfunctions of the unit, the nature and cause of any malfunction (if 
known), and the corrective action taken, or preventative measures 
adopted.
    (iii) For each unit, the owner or operator shall submit quarterly 
CEMS performance reports, to include dates and duration of each period 
during which the CEMS was inoperative (except for zero and span 
adjustments and calibration checks), reason(s) why the CEMS was 
inoperative, and steps taken to prevent recurrence, and any CEMS 
repairs or adjustments no later than the 30th day following the end of 
each calendar quarter.
    (iv) The owner or operator shall also submit results of any CEMS 
performance tests required by 40 CFR part 60, appendix F, Procedure 1 
(e.g., Relative Accuracy Test Audits, Relative Accuracy Audits, and 
Cylinder Gas Audits) no later than 30 days after the test is performed.
    (v) When no excess emissions have occurred or the CEMS has not been 
inoperative, repaired, or adjusted during the reporting period, such 
information shall be stated in the quarterly reports required by 
paragraphs (d)(5)(iii) of this section.
    (6) 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.

[FR Doc. 2024-18779 Filed 8-23-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P