51686 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Average). Finally, the annual limitation 

for the current fiscal year is calculated 

by multiplying $10,000,000 by the 

Recent Average divided by 214.5. The 

result is expressed as a number, 

rounded to the nearest dollar. 

(e) The formula for calculating the $10 

Million Adjusted Limitation is as 

follows: $10 Million Adjusted 

Limitation = $10,000,000 * (Recent 

Average/214.5). 

§ 3035.16 Exemption from dollar amount 

limitation. 

(a) The Postal Service may request an 

exemption from the $10 Million 

Adjusted Limitation by filing a written 

request with the Commission. In no 

instance shall the request for exemption 

exceed the market test dollar amount 

limitation of $50,000,000 in any fiscal 

year, as adjusted for the change in the 

Consumer Price Index, as specified in 

paragraph (c) of this section ($50 

Million Adjusted Limitation). 

(b) For each fiscal year, the $50 

Million Adjusted Limitation shall reflect 

the average CPI result during the 

previous fiscal year calculated as 

described in 39 CFR 3035.16(c). The 

Commission shall publish this figure on 

its Web site at http://www.prc.gov. 

(c) The calculation of the $50 Million 

Adjusted Limitation involves the 

following steps. First, a simple average 

CPI–U index was calculated for fiscal 

year 2008 by summing the monthly 

CPI–U values from October 2007 

through September 2008 and dividing 

the sum by 12 (Base Average). The 

Resulting Base Average is 214.5. Then, 

a second simple average CPI–U index is 

similarly calculated for each subsequent 

fiscal year by summing the 12 monthly 

CPI–U values for the previous fiscal year 

and dividing the sum by 12 (Recent 

Average). Finally, the annual limitation 

for the current fiscal year is calculated 

by multiplying $50,000,000 by the 

Recent Average divided by 214.5. The 

result is expressed as a number, 

rounded to the nearest dollar. 

(d) The formula for calculating the 

$50 Million Adjusted Limitation is as 

follows: $50 Million Adjusted 

Limitation = $50,000,000 * (Recent 

Average/214.5). 

(e) The Postal Service shall file its 

request for exemption at least 45 days 

before it expects to exceed the $10 

Million Adjusted Limitation. 

(f) The request for exemption shall: 

(1) Explain how the experimental 

product will: 

(i) Benefit the public and meet an 

expected demand; 

(ii) Contribute to the financial 

stability of the Postal Service; and 

(iii) Not result in unfair or otherwise 

inappropriate competition. 

(2) Calculate the total revenue 

received by the Postal Service from the 

market test for each fiscal year the 

market test has been in operation; and 

(3) Estimate the additional revenue 

that is anticipated by the Postal Service 

for each fiscal year prior to the 

conclusion of the extension period of 

the market test, including available 

supporting documentation; 

(g) The Commission shall review the 

request for exemption for consistency 

with the statutory requirements of 39 

U.S.C. 3641 and: 

(1) Find that the exemption is 

consistent with the requirements of 39 

U.S.C. 3641; 

(2) Find that the exemption is 

inconsistent with the requirements of 39 

U.S.C. 3641 and provide an opportunity 

to correct the identified deficiencies; 

(3) Find that the exemption is 

inconsistent with the requirements of 39 

U.S.C. 3641 and deny the exemption; or 

(4) Direct other action as the 

Commission may consider appropriate. 

§ 3035.17 Prevention of market disruption. 

Notwithstanding the $10 Million 

Adjusted Limitation or any adjustment 

granted pursuant to § 3035.16, the 

Commission may limit the amount of 

revenues the Postal Service may obtain 

from any particular geographic market 

as necessary to prevent market 

disruption as defined in 39 U.S.C. 3641 

(b)(2). 

§ 3035.18 Filing for permanent product 

status. 

If the Postal Service determines to 

make an experimental product 

permanent, it shall file a notice, 

pursuant to § 3020.30 of this chapter, 

sufficiently in advance so that the 

market test does not exceed the $10 

Million Adjusted Limitation or any 

authorized adjusted limitation in any 

fiscal year. 

§§ 3035.19 [Reserved] 

§ 3035.20 Data collection and reporting 

requirements. 

(a) A notice of a market test shall 

describe plans for monitoring the 

performance of the market test, 

including plans to collect volume, 

revenue, and other data. Data collection 

reports shall include, at a minimum: 

(1) The revenue by fiscal quarter 

received to date by the Postal Service 

from the market test; 

(2) Attributable costs incurred in 

conducting the market test, including 

administrative and ancillary costs; 

(3) A quantification of start-up costs 

incurred to date associated with the 

market test. 

(b) The Commission may request 

additional information or data as it 

deems appropriate. 

(c) To assess the potential impact of 

a market test in a particular geographic 

market, the Commission may require the 

Postal Service to report the revenues 

from the market test for specified 

geographic markets. 

(d) The Postal Service shall file the 

results of the market test data collection 

within 40 days after the close of each 

fiscal quarter during which the market 

test is offered, or such other period as 

the Commission may prescribe. 

(e) The Postal Service shall file in its 

Annual Compliance Report information 

on each market test conducted during 

the fiscal year pursuant to § 3050.21(h) 

of this chapter. 

[FR Doc. 2013–20178 Filed 8–20–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2013–0227, FRL–9900–27– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Oklahoma; 

Regional Haze and Interstate Transport 

Affecting Visibility State 

Implementation Plan Revisions; 

Withdrawal of Federal Implementation 

Plan for American Electric Power/

Public Service Company of Oklahoma 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

approve a revision to the Oklahoma 

Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) submitted on June 20, 2013 

by the Oklahoma Secretary of 

Environment addressing the Best 

Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 

requirements for sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) for Units 

3 and 4 of the American Electric Power/ 

Public Service Company (AEP/PSO) 

Northeastern Power Station in Rogers 

County, Oklahoma. The EPA is 

proposing to find that this revised BART 

determination meets the requirements of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the 

Regional Haze Rule. We are also 

proposing to approve a related SIP 

revision submitted to address the 

impact of emissions of Northeastern 

Units 3 and 4 as required by CAA 

provisions concerning non-interference 

with programs to protect visibility in 

other states. In conjunction with these 

proposed approvals, we propose to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 51687 

1The state of Oklahoma and AEP/PSO filed 

petitions for review of the FIP, and the parties have 

separately entered into a settlement agreement 

which includes a timeline for preparing and 

processing the SIP revision submitted and reviewed 

in today’s proposal. A copy of the settlement 

agreement may be found in Appendix I of the 

submitted SIP revision. The settlement agreement 

Continued 

withdraw federal implementation plan 

(FIP) emission limits for SO2 that would 

otherwise apply to Northeastern Units 3 

and 4. The EPA is taking this action 

under section 110 of the CAA. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before September 20, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2013–0227 by one of the following 

methods: 

• www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: Mr. Guy Donaldson at 

donaldson.guy@epa.gov. Please also 

send a copy by email to the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section below. 

• Mail or delivery: Mr. Guy 

Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section 

(6PD–L), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. Deliveries 

are accepted only between the hours of 

8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays, and not on 

legal holidays. Special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–2013– 

0227. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

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 www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means the EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA, without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email 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, the 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 the EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the 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 form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically at 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. The file will be made 

available by appointment for public 

inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review 

Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m. 

and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal 

holidays. Contact the person listed in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at 

214–665–7253 to make an appointment. 

If possible, please make the 

appointment at least two working days 

in advance of your visit. There will be 

a fee of 15 cents per page for making 

photocopies of documents. On the day 

of the visit, please check in at the EPA 

Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. 

The State submittal is also available 

for public inspection during official 

business hours, by appointment, at the 

Oklahoma Department of Environmental 

Quality (ODEQ), Air Quality Division, 

707 North Robinson, P.O. Box 1677, 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101–1677. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Terry Johnson at telephone number 

(214) 665–2154, email: johnson.terry@

epa.gov, or the above address for EPA’s 

Region 6 office. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. Information is organized as 

follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background on the Oklahoma Regional 

Haze SIP and FIP 

II. Background for EPA’s Proposed Action 

A. Definition of Regional Haze 

B. Regional Haze Rules and Regulations 

C. 1997 NAAQS for Ozone and PM2.5 and 

CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

III. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs 

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

B. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

IV. BART Determination for AEP/PSO 

Northeastern Power Station 

A. Oklahoma’s Revised BART 

Determination for AEP/PSO 

Northeastern Power Station 

B. EPA’s Assessment of the State’s Revised 

BART Determinations for Units 3 and 4 

V. Oklahoma’s Interstate Transport Visibility 

SIP Provisions 

VI. What action is EPA proposing? 

A. Regional Haze 

B. Interstate Transport and Visibility 

C. FIP Amendments 

D. Clean Air Act Section 110(l) 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background on the Oklahoma 

Regional Haze SIP and FIP 

The ODEQ submitted a Regional Haze 

SIP (Oklahoma RH SIP) on February 19, 

2010 to address the requirements of the 

regional haze program at 40 CFR 51.308 

for the first implementation period. In 

December 2011, we partially approved, 

partially disapproved, and took no 

action on various portions of this SIP 

submittal (76 FR 81727, December 28, 

2011). Even as significant portions of 

the Oklahoma RH SIP submittal were 

approved, we disapproved ODEQ’s 

BART determinations for SO2 emissions 

from six coal-fired electric generating 

units (EGUs): Units 4 and 5 of the OG&E 

Muskogee plant, Units 1 and 2 of the 

OG&E Sooner plant, and Units 3 and 4 

of the AEP/PSO Northeastern Power 

Station. Related to these disapprovals, 

we also disapproved a portion of a 

revision to the Oklahoma RH SIP that 

was submitted to address the 

requirements of CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it applies to 

visibility for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 

1997 fine particulate matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). Specifically, this disapproval 

found that the SIP submittal had not 

prevented SO2 emissions from abovenamed units from interfering with 

visibility programs in other states. 

Concurrent with these final 

disapprovals, we promulgated a FIP that 

requires SO2 emission limits on the six 

above-named units to address 

deficiencies identified with the BART 

determinations of the SIP submittal. 

Subsequent to this action, 

stakeholders, including AEP/PSO, 

ODEQ, and EPA, entered into 

discussions on the development and 

submittal of a revised SIP (Oklahoma 

RH SIP revision) designed to address 

BART requirements for Units 3 and 4 of 

the AEP/PSO Northeastern Power 

Station for SO2 and NOX and allow for 

withdrawal of FIP requirements for 

controls of SO2 that are applicable to 

those units.1 On June 20, 2013, ODEQ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

51688 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

does not dictate what EPA will propose or finally 

determine with respect to the submitted SIP 

revision; today’s proposal is based on our 

statutorily prescribed role of reviewing the 

submitted SIP revision for consistency with the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act. 

2 In our final action on the Oklahoma RH SIP on 

December 28, 2011, (76 FR 81727), we approved 

BART determinations and, where relevant, 

emission limitations (except those limitations 

proposed as SO2 BART for Northeastern Units 3 and 

4) for several AEP/PSO units: Comanche Power 

Station; Southwestern Power Station; and 

Northeastern Power Station. The pertinent emission 

limitations for these AEP/PSO units, including the 

revised BART limits for Northeastern Power Station 

Units 3 and 4 that we today propose to approve, are 

found in the PSO Regional Haze Agreement, DEQ 

Case No. 10–025 (February 10, 2010) as amended 

by the First Amended Regional Haze Agreement, 

DEQ Case No. 10–025 (March 2013). Consistent 

with today’s proposal and to better clarify our past 

approvals and the federal enforceability of the 

limits for these AEP/PSO units and facilities, we 

today propose to codify our approval of the agreed 

upon order, as amended. 

3Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6,000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks 

that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the 

CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of 

Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 

visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 

69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a 

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 

in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate 

as Class I additional areas which they consider to 

have visibility as an important value, the 

requirements of the visibility program set forth in 

section 169A of the CAA apply only to ‘‘mandatory 

Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I 

Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land 

Manager (FLM).’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use 

the term ‘‘Class I area’’ in this action, we mean a 

‘‘mandatory Class I Federal area.’’ 

4See 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999); see also 70 FR 

39104 (July 6, 2005) and 71 FR 60612 (October 13, 

2006). 

5See 64 FR 35715. 

6 Id. 

7See CAA section 169A(a)(1). 

8See 45 FR 80084. 

9Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico 

must also submit a regional haze SIP to completely 

satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of 

the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico under 

the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 

74–2–4). 

submitted a revised BART 

determination for Units 3 and 4 of the 

Northeastern Power Station for SO2 and 

NOX and a related revision to the SIP 

addressing requirements to prevent 

interstate transport of emissions from 

interfering with other States’ plans to 

address visibility impairment. The 

state’s revised enforceable SO2 and NOX

BART requirements for Units 3 and 4 of 

the Northeastern Power Station are 

contained in the submitted ‘‘First 

Amended Regional Haze Agreement, 

DEQ Case No. 10–025 (March 2013)’’ 

that revises the previously submitted 

‘‘PSO Regional Haze Agreement, DEQ 

Case No. 10–025 (February 10, 2010 2)’’ 

We find that the submitted SIP revision 

meets the completeness criteria in 40 

CFR, Part 51, Appendix V, which must 

be met before formal EPA review. 

This Federal Register notice concerns 

EPA’s review and proposed approval of 

the Oklahoma RH SIP Revision affecting 

the SO2 and NOX BART emission limits 

applying to AEP/PSO’s Northeastern 

Units 3 and 4 and the Interstate 

Transport SIP requirements, and our 

proposed withdrawal of source-specific 

regulatory requirements for 

Northeastern Units 3 and 4 that 

currently apply under the FIP. 

II. Background for EPA’s Proposed 

Action 

In the CAA Amendments of 1977, 

Congress established a program to 

protect and improve visibility in the 

national parks and wilderness areas. See 

CAA section 169A. Congress amended 

the visibility provisions in the CAA in 

1990 to focus attention on the problem 

of regional haze. See CAA section 169B. 

We promulgated regulations in 1999 to 

implement sections 169A and 169B of 

the Act. These regulations require states 

to develop and implement plans to 

ensure reasonable progress toward 

improving visibility in mandatory Class 

I Federal areas 3 (Class I areas) by 

reducing emissions that cause or 

contribute to regional haze.4

A. Definition of Regional Haze 

Regional haze is impairment of visual 

range or colorization caused by 

emissions of air pollution produced by 

numerous sources and activities, located 

across a broad regional area. The 

sources include, but are not limited to, 

major and minor stationary sources, 

mobile sources, and area sources, 

including non-anthropogenic sources. 

Visibility impairment is primarily 

caused by fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

or secondary aerosols formed in the 

atmosphere from precursor gases (e.g., 

SO2, NOX, and in some cases, ammonia 

and volatile organic compounds). 

Atmospheric fine particulate matter 

reduces clarity, color, and visual range 

of scenic areas. Visibility-reducing fine 

particulate matter is primarily 

composed of sulfates, nitrates, organic 

carbon compounds, elemental carbon, 

and soil dust, and impairs visibility by 

scattering and absorbing light. Fine 

particulate matter can also cause serious 

health effects and mortality in humans, 

and contributes to environmental effects 

such as acid rain deposition and 

eutrophication.5

Data from the existing visibility 

monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring 

network, show that visibility 

impairment caused by air pollution 

occurs virtually all the time at most 

national parks and wilderness areas. 

Average visual range in many Class I 

areas in the Western United States is 

100–150 kilometers, or about one-half to 

two-thirds the visual range that would 

exist without man-made air pollution.6

Visibility impairment also varies day-today and season-to-season depending on 

variations in meteorology and emission 

rates. 

B. Regional Haze Rules and Regulations 

In section 169A of the 1977 CAA 

Amendments, Congress created a 

program for protecting visibility in the 

nation’s national parks and wilderness 

areas. This section of the CAA 

establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in Class I areas, which 

impairment results from man-made air 

pollution.’’ 7 On December 2, 1980, we 

promulgated regulations to address 

visibility impairment in Class I areas 

that is ‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a 

single source or small group of sources, 

i.e., ‘‘reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment.’’ 8 These regulations 

represented the first phase in addressing 

visibility impairment. We deferred 

action on regional haze that results from 

emissions from a variety of sources until 

monitoring, modeling, and scientific 

knowledge about the relationships 

between pollutants and visibility 

impairment were improved. 

Congress added section 169B to the 

CAA in 1990 to further address regional 

haze issues. We promulgated a rule to 

address regional haze on July 1, 1999 

(64 FR 35713) (the Regional Haze Rule 

or RHR). The RHR revised the existing 

visibility regulations by adding 

provisions that address regional haze 

impairment and that establish a 

comprehensive visibility protection 

program for Class I areas. The 

requirements for regional haze, found at 

40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included 

in our visibility protection regulations at 

40 CFR 51.300–309. Some of the main 

elements of the regional haze 

requirements are summarized in section 

III of this rulemaking. The requirement 

to submit a regional haze SIP applies to 

all 50 states, the District of Columbia, 

and the Virgin Islands.9 Pursuant to 40 

CFR 51.308(b), states were required to 

submit the first implementation plan 

addressing regional haze visibility 

impairment no later than December 17, 

2007. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 51689 

10See 62 FR 38652. 

11See 70 FR 21147. 

12See 74 FR 2392 (January 15, 2009). 13See 75 FR 72695 (November 26, 2010). 

14The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ 

potentially subject to BART is listed in CAA section 

169A(g)(7). 

15 70 FR 39104. 

C. 1997 NAAQS for Ozone and PM2.5

and CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

On July 18, 1997, we promulgated 

new NAAQS for 8-hour ozone and 

PM2.5.10 Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA 

requires states to submit SIPs to address 

a new or revised NAAQS within three 

years after promulgation of such 

standards, or within such shorter period 

as we may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) 

of the CAA lists the elements that such 

new SIPs must address, as applicable, 

including section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which 

pertains to the interstate transport of 

certain emissions. 

On April 25, 2005, we published a 

‘‘Finding of Failure to Submit SIPs for 

Interstate Transport for the 8-hour 

Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.’’ 11 This 

action included a finding that Oklahoma 

and other states had failed to submit 

SIPs for interstate transport of air 

pollution affecting visibility and started 

a two-year clock for the promulgation of 

a FIP, unless a state made a submission 

to meet the requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) and we approved the 

submission before promulgating a FIP. 

On August 15, 2006, we issued our 

‘‘Guidance for State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current 

Outstanding Obligations Under Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and 

PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards’’ (2006 Guidance). We 

developed the 2006 Guidance to make 

recommendations to states for making 

submissions to meet the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standards and the 1997 

PM2.5 standards. 

As identified in the 2006 Guidance, 

the ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions in 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA 

require each state to submit a SIP that 

prohibits emissions that adversely affect 

another state in the ways contemplated 

in the statute. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

contains four distinct requirements 

related to the impacts of interstate 

transport. The SIP must prevent sources 

in the state from emitting pollutants in 

amounts which will: (1) Contribute 

significantly to nonattainment of the 

NAAQS in other states; (2) interfere 

with maintenance of the NAAQS in 

other states; (3) interfere with provisions 

to prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality in other states; or (4) interfere 

with efforts to protect visibility in other 

states. 

The 2006 Guidance stated that states 

may make a simple SIP submission 

confirming that it is not possible at that 

time to assess whether there is any 

interference with measures in the 

applicable SIP for another state 

designed to ‘‘protect visibility’’ for the 

8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS until 

Regional Haze SIPs are submitted and 

approved. These SIPs were required to 

be submitted by December 17, 2007.12

On May 10, 2007, we received a SIP 

revision submitted to address the 

interstate transport provisions of CAA 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone and 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (Oklahoma 

Interstate Transport SIP). We received a 

supplement to this SIP revision on 

December 10, 2007. In a prior action, we 

partially approved the submitted 

Oklahoma Interstate Transport SIP for 

the ‘‘interfere with measures to prevent 

significant deterioration’’ prong of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA.13 On 

February 19, 2010, Oklahoma submitted 

the Oklahoma RH SIP to address 

interstate transport of emissions that 

could interfere with efforts to protect 

visibility in other states. Because we 

could only partially approve the 

Oklahoma RH SIP submittal, we issued 

a partial approval and partial 

disapproval of the Oklahoma Interstate 

Transport SIP that addressed the 

requirement that emissions from 

Oklahoma sources do not interfere with 

measures required in the SIP of any 

other state to protect visibility and 

concurrently issued a FIP to address 

defects in the Oklahoma Interstate 

Transport SIP submission. 

III. Requirements for Regional Haze 

SIPs 

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

Regional haze SIPs must assure 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal of achieving natural 

visibility conditions in Class I areas. 

Section 169A of the CAA and EPA’s 

implementing regulations require states 

to establish long-term strategies for 

making reasonable progress toward 

meeting this goal. Implementation plans 

must also give specific attention to 

certain stationary sources that were in 

existence on August 7, 1977, but were 

not in operation before August 7, 1962, 

and require these sources, where 

appropriate, to install BART controls for 

the purpose of eliminating or reducing 

visibility impairment. 

B. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

Section 169A of the CAA directs 

states to evaluate the use of retrofit 

controls at certain larger, often 

uncontrolled, older stationary sources in 

order to address visibility impacts from 

these sources. Specifically, section 

169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires 

States to revise their SIPs to contain 

such measures as may be necessary to 

make reasonable progress towards the 

natural visibility goal, including a 

requirement that certain categories of 

existing major stationary sources 14 built 

between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, 

and operate the ‘‘Best Available Retrofit 

Technology’’ as determined by the state. 

States are directed to conduct BART 

determinations for such sources that 

may be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any visibility impairment 

in a Class I area. Rather than requiring 

source-specific BART controls, states 

also have the flexibility to adopt an 

emissions trading program or other 

alternative program as long as the 

alternative program provides greater 

reasonable progress towards improving 

visibility than BART. 

On July 6, 2005, we published the 

Guidelines for BART Determinations 

Under the Regional Haze Rule at 

appendix Y to 40 CFR Part 51 

(henceforth referred to as the ‘‘BART 

Guidelines’’) to assist states in 

determining which of their sources 

should be subject to the BART 

requirements and in determining 

appropriate emission limits for each 

applicable source.15 In making a BART 

applicability determination for a fossil 

fuel-fired electric generating plant with 

a total generating capacity in excess of 

750 megawatts, a state must use the 

approach set forth in the BART 

Guidelines. A State is encouraged, but 

not required, to follow the BART 

Guidelines in making BART 

determinations for other types of 

sources. Regardless of source size or 

type, however, a state must meet the 

CAA and regulatory requirements for 

selection of BART, and the state’s BART 

analysis and determination must be 

reasonable in light of the overarching 

purpose of the regional haze program. 

States must address all visibilityimpairing pollutants emitted by a source 

in the BART determination process. The 

most significant visibility-impairing 

pollutants are SO2, NOX, and PM2.5. The 

EPA has indicated that states should use 

their best judgment in determining 

whether emissions of volatile organic 

compounds or compounds of ammonia 

contribute to impairment of visibility in 

Class I areas. 

Under the BART Guidelines, States 

may select and document an exemption 

threshold value to determine those 

BART-eligible sources not subject to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

51690 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

16See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). 

17See CAA section 169(g)(4) and 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(1)(iv). 

18We note again that with today’s proposal that 

we propose to codify our approval of this agreedupon order, as amended, because it will confirm 

and clarify our past approvals as well as the 

emission limitations and related schedules for the 

BART determinations we propose to approve today. 

19The company is also required to optimize the 

performance of the DSI through implementation of 

a testing protocol at varying operational parameters. 

If a lower limit is achievable, the company will 

have to revise its permit limits. 

20ODEQ notes that the installation of DSI will 

necessitate the addition of a fabric filter baghouse 

to further control PM emissions. ODEQ explains 

BART. A BART-eligible source with an 

impact below the threshold value would 

not be expected to cause or contribute 

to visibility impairment in any Class I 

area. Any source with emissions great 

enough to result in a visibility impact 

above the threshold value would be 

subject to a BART determination review. 

The BART Guidelines acknowledge 

varying circumstances affecting 

different Class I areas. States should 

consider the number of emission 

sources affecting the Class I areas at 

issue and the magnitude of the 

individual sources’ impacts. Generally, 

an exemption threshold set by the State 

should not be higher than 0.5 deciviews 

(dv). 

In their SIPs, States must identify 

BART-eligible sources that have a 

visibility impact in any Class I area 

above the ‘‘BART-subject’’ exemption 

threshold established by the State and 

thus, are subject to BART. States must 

document their BART control analysis 

and determination for all sources 

subject to BART. 

The term ‘‘BART-eligible source’’ 

used in the BART Guidelines means the 

collection of individual emission units 

at a facility that together comprises the 

BART-eligible source. In making a 

BART determination, section 169A(g)(2) 

of the CAA requires that States consider 

the following factors: (1) The costs of 

compliance, (2) the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance, (3) any existing pollution 

control technology in use at the source, 

(4) the remaining useful life of the 

source, and (5) the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology.16

Each state’s regional haze SIP must 

include source-specific BART emission 

limits and compliance schedules for 

each source subject to BART. Once a 

state has made its BART determination, 

the BART controls must be installed and 

in operation as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than five years 

after the date the EPA approves the 

regional haze SIP.17 In addition to what 

is required by the RHR, general SIP 

requirements mandate that the SIP must 

also include all regulatory requirements 

related to monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting for the BART controls that 

pertain to a source. States have the 

flexibility to choose the type of control 

measures they will ultimately use to 

meet the BART emission limits. 

IV. BART Determination for AEP/PSO 

Northeastern Power Station 

A. Oklahoma’s Revised BART 

Determination for the AEP/PSO 

Northeastern Power Station 

In our prior review and action on the 

Oklahoma RH SIP, we agreed with 

Oklahoma’s identification of sources 

that are BART-eligible and subject to 

BART, including Units 3 and 4 of the 

AEP/PSO Northeastern Power Station. 

76 FR 81727 (December 28, 2011). We 

approved the State’s PM and NOX BART 

determinations and emission limits for 

these two units, with the pertinent 

emissions limitations contained in the 

PSO Regional Haze Agreement, DEQ 

Case No. 10–025 (February 10, 2010), 

while disapproving the State’s SO2

BART determinations and emission 

limits.18 Specifically, we approved the 

NOX BART emission limits of 0.15 lb/ 

MMBtu (based on 30-day rolling 

averages) for Units 3 and 4 and 

disapproved the SO2 BART 

determinations of no additional controls 

for Units 3 and 4. We promulgated an 

SO2 BART emission limit of 0.06 lb/

MMBtu for each unit (based on rolling 

30 boiler operating day averages). 

NOX BART 

The Oklahoma RH SIP Revision 

explains that it ‘‘does not reopen [the 

prior and EPA-approved] NOX

technology determination, but does 

require earlier installation and 

compliance with reduced emission 

limits prior to the original SIP-imposed 

deadline.’’ Oklahoma RH SIP Revision, 

Appendix 2 at 12. Our prior approval of 

NOX BART for Unit 3 and 4 required 

that these units meet a NOX emission 

limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu (based on a 30- 

day rolling average) within five years 

from the effective date of EPA’s 

approval, or by January 27, 2017. 

However, under the Oklahoma RH SIP 

Revision, both units are now required to 

meet an initial NOX emission limit of 

0.23 lb/MMBtu (based on a 30-day 

rolling average) by December 31, 2013, 

with additional limits of 1,098 lb/hr per 

unit on a 30-day rolling average basis 

and a 9,620 tpy combined cap for both 

units. By April 16, 2016, one unit is 

required to be permanently shut down, 

while the remaining unit is required to 

meet a NOX emission limit of 0.15 lb/ 

MMBtu (based on a 30-day rolling 

average), with an additional limit of 716 

lb/hr on a 30-day rolling average basis 

and a cap of 3,137 tpy on a 12-month 

rolling basis. Finally, this second unit is 

required to shut down by December 31, 

2026. These emission limits and 

shutdowns are made enforceable by the 

submitted ‘‘First Amended Regional 

Haze Agreement, DEQ Case No. 10–025 

(March 2013)’’ that revises the 

previously submitted ‘‘PSO Regional 

Haze Agreement, DEQ Case No. 10–025 

(February 10, 2010). This revised NOX

BART determination is more stringent 

than the determination that we 

previously approved because it requires 

compliance with the 0.15 lb/MMBtu 

limit on a more expeditious schedule. 

SO2 BART 

The Oklahoma RH SIP Revision also 

includes a new SO2 BART 

determination for Units 3 and 4, which 

differs from both Oklahoma’s original 

SO2 BART determination of no new 

controls and our SO2 BART emission 

limit of 0.06 lb/MMBtu, which can be 

met by the installation of Dry Flue Gas 

Desulfurization/Spray Dryer Absorber 

technology (DFGD/SDA). Oklahoma’s 

new SO2 BART determination contains 

several elements, including interim 

emission limits, the installation of Dry 

Sorbent Injection (DSI) technology and 

a fabric filter baghouse, phased 

reductions in capacity utilization, and 

enforceable deadlines by which Units 3 

and 4 must be shut down entirely. As 

a consequence, the ‘‘remaining useful 

life’’ of Units 3 and 4 was an important 

consideration in Oklahoma’s new SO2

BART determination. Specifically, the 

Oklahoma RH SIP revision requires the 

following: 

• By January 31, 2014, Units 3 and 4 

must comply with an emission limit of 

0.65 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling 

average basis, to be met through the use 

of low-sulfur coal. An additional limit 

of 3,104 lb/hr on a 30-day rolling 

average basis will also apply to each 

unit; 

• By December 31, 2014, Units 3 and 

4 must comply with a reduced emission 

limit of 0.60 lb/MMBtu on a 12-month 

rolling average basis and a combined 

emissions cap of 25,097 tons/year on a 

12-month rolling basis; 

• By April 16, 2016, one of the two 

units must be permanently shut down, 

while the remaining unit must comply 

with a reduced emission limit of 0.4 lb/ 

MMBtu 19 (based on DSI) 20 on a 30-day 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 51691 

that, despite the installation of this baghouse for the 

purposes of accommodating DSI, ODEQ is not reopening its determination in the original Oklahoma 

RH SIP that no further controls are required to 

satisfy PM BART. See Oklahoma RH SIP Revision, 

Appendix 2 at 3. 

21ODEQ declined to re-evaluate wet scrubbers 

because EPA had previously determined that the 

emission limit achievable by this control option 

was not BART in our FIP. While the BART 

Guidelines require states to evaluate all technically 

feasible control options when making a BART 

determination, we believe that ODEQ was justified 

in eliminating wet scrubbers based on our prior 

analysis in this instance. 

rolling average basis. Additional limits 

of 1,910 lb/hr on a 30-day rolling 

average basis and 8,366 tons per year on 

a 12-month rolling basis will also apply; 

• The capacity utilization of the 

remaining unit will be capped at 70 

percent by January 1, 2021; 60 percent 

by January 1, 2023; and 50 percent by 

January 1, 2025; and 

• The remaining unit must be 

permanently shut down by December 

31, 2026. 

In its BART analysis, ODEQ identified 

its DSI/shutdown proposal as one 

control option and the FIP scenario of 

two DFGD/SDA systems as the second 

control option.21 In accordance with 

section 169A of the CAA, the RHR, and 

the BART Guidelines, ODEQ weighed 

the five statutory factors in comparing 

its new proposal against our FIP. After 

factoring in a ten-year amortization 

period for DSI (due to the shutdown of 

the second unit in 2026), ODEQ 

determined that DSI would have an 

average cost-effectiveness of $1,005/ton, 

while the installation of two DFGD/SDA 

systems, as contemplated by EPA’s FIP, 

had an average cost-effectiveness of 

$1,544/ton. ODEQ further noted that the 

incremental cost-effectiveness of the 

DSI/shutdown scenario versus the FIP 

scenario was $4,718/ton in the first year, 

with worsening incremental costeffectiveness as the capacity utilization 

of the remaining unit decreased starting 

in 2021. 

ODEQ also conducted a revised 

visibility modeling analysis using 

CALPUFF. ODEQ found that, while two 

DFGD/SDA systems provided the 

greatest visibility improvement across 

all Class I areas, the incremental 

visibility improvement between the 

DSI/shutdown scenario and the FIP 

scenario was small. ODEQ concluded 

that the FIP scenario would result in 

approximately 0.1 dv of additional 

visibility improvement compared with 

the DSI/shutdown scenario at each 

impacted Class I area, with a total 

additional improvement of 

approximately 0.27 dv across all four of 

the nearest Class I areas. 

ODEQ noted that the DSI/shutdown 

scenario would result in additional 

reductions of NOX beyond the NOX FIP 

level and additional reductions of other 

air pollutants, such as PM, and CO2e, 

thereby helping to address local 

formation and interstate transport of 

ozone and reducing Oklahoma’s 

contribution to greenhouse gases. 

Finally, ODEQ considered the non-air 

quality impacts of DSI/shutdown 

scenario and found that it would require 

less water usage, reduce mercury 

deposition, and reduce approximately 

half of the energy consumption as the 

FIP scenario. Given the comparable 

visibility improvement, lower costs, and 

overall reduced environmental impact, 

ODEQ concluded that the DSI/

shutdown scenario was SO2 BART. 

B. EPA’s Assessment of the State’s 

Revised BART Determinations for Units 

3 and 4 

NOX BART 

Oklahoma’s revised NOX BART 

determination for Units 3 and 4 does not 

require us to revisit our earlier approval 

of the State’s NOX BART determination 

for these units, but only to review a 

faster compliance schedule. Sources 

that are subject to BART must install 

and operate those controls ‘‘as 

expeditiously as practicable but in no 

event later than five years after the date 

of approval of a plan revision . . .’’ 

CAA section 169A(g)(4). Here, 

Oklahoma has determined that the NOX

BART limits for Units 3 and 4 that we 

previously approved can be complied 

with more expeditiously than 

previously required. Early 

implementation of the NOX BART limits 

will provide improvements in visibility 

sooner, thus making the Oklahoma RH 

SIP more stringent. We therefore 

propose to approve this part of the 

Oklahoma RH SIP Revision and find 

that it meets the requirements of the 

CAA. We also propose to codify, in the 

approved SIP, the ‘‘PSO Regional Haze 

Agreement, DEQ Case No. 10–025 

(February 10, 2010)’’ as amended by the 

‘‘First Amended Regional Haze 

Agreement, DEQ Case No. 10–025 

(March 2013)’’ because they contain 

NOx BART emission limitations and 

schedules for the AEP/PSO two units 

found therein. 

SO2 BART 

The CAA defines a FIP as ‘‘a plan (or 

portion thereof) promulgated by the 

Administrator to fill all or a portion of 

a gap or otherwise correct all or a 

portion of an inadequacy in a [SIP].’’ 

CAA section 302(y). Because a FIP is 

intended as a gap-filling measure, EPA 

encourages states to submit approvable 

SIP revisions that correct the 

deficiencies that a given FIP remedied. 

Such a SIP revision need not adopt the 

same suite of control options and 

techniques as EPA’s FIP, nor does it 

necessarily have to be as stringent as 

EPA’s FIP in all instances. Rather, when 

a State submits a SIP revision to EPA 

with the intention of replacing a FIP, 

EPA must approve the SIP revision so 

long as the SIP revision does not 

‘‘interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress . . . or any 

other applicable requirement of [the 

Act].’’ CAA section 110(l). In regards to 

regional haze SIPs and the statutory 

requirement to make BART 

determinations for certain older major 

stationary sources, EPA must approve a 

State’s SIP revision so long as the State 

complies with the CAA’s visibility 

protection provisions, the RHR, and the 

BART Guidelines, and makes a 

reasonable control determination based 

on the weighing of the five factors. We 

have analyzed Oklahoma’s new SO2

BART determination with these 

requirements in mind. 

We propose to conclude that ODEQ 

has appropriately met the requirements 

of 40 CFR 308(e) and the BART 

Guidelines of Appendix Y in 

determining BART for emissions of SO2

from AEP/PSO Northeastern Power 

Station Units 3 and 4. This conclusion 

is based on our review of ODEQ’s SIP 

submittal, including the original 

February 19, 2010 Regional Haze 

Submittal and the June 2013 SIP 

revision. 

ODEQ’s revised BART determination 

includes the shutdown of one of the two 

units in April 2016 and the second unit 

in December 2026, so the controlling 

facts for the BART analysis are different 

than the facts that were presented with 

Oklahoma’s 2010 SIP submission. As 

discussed previously, in the 2013 SIP 

revision ODEQ determined that the DSI/ 

shutdown scenario was SO2 BART for 

AEP/PSO Northeastern Power Station 

Units 3 and 4. ODEQ made this 

determination based on an analysis of 

the five BART factors and other 

information. Their analysis of the five 

BART factors included consideration of 

the high incremental cost-effectiveness 

and low incremental visibility 

improvement between the FIP and DSI/ 

shutdown scenarios, as well as the 

additional non-air quality 

environmental and energy benefits of 

the latter. The energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts, e.g., 

reductions in mercury deposition, water 

and energy usage, associated with the 

DSI/shutdown scenario support the 

conclusion that the shutdown/DSI 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

51692 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

22 [T]he State must take into consideration the 

technology available, the costs of compliance, the 

energy and non-air quality environmental impacts 

of compliance, any pollution control equipment in 

use at the source, the remaining useful life of the 

source, and the degree of improvement in visibility 

which may reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology. 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). 

option is BART.22 ODEQ also 

considered the additional air quality 

benefits associated with shutting down 

Units 3 and 4 which, while important, 

these other air quality benefits such as 

reduced ozone and PM formation and 

CO2e are not among the BART factors. 

Regarding the other BART factors, 

while BART determinations are 

typically made on a unit-by-unit basis, 

we believe that ODEQ’s decision to 

evaluate BART on a facility-wide basis 

is a reasonable way to take into account 

the visibility and energy and non-air 

quality environmental benefits 

associated with unit shutdowns. While 

we believe ODEQ’s facility wide 

approach to BART is reasonable, we 

have also analyzed BART on a unit by 

unit analysis. A unit by unit analysis 

includes the consideration of a scenario, 

not considered by ODEQ, in which the 

unit that remains in operation after 

April 16, 2016 installs DFGD/SDA. We 

also made adjustments to ODEQ’s cost 

and visibility calculations to take into 

account more recent information 

regarding the facilities baseline 

‘‘uncontrolled’’ emissions and the 

useful life of the facility. The 

adjustments were necessary to properly 

assess the cost and visibility factors on 

a unit by unit basis but were less 

important when the analysis was 

conducted, as ODEQ did, on a facility 

wide basis. First, we re-calculated costeffectiveness assuming a baseline 

emission rate of 0.6 lb/MMBtu instead 

of the 0.9 lb/MMBtu rate used by ODEQ. 

The 0.6 lb/MMBtu emission rate takes 

into account more recent information 

regarding the actual emissions of Units 

3 and 4 and it is more representative of 

the emission limits Oklahoma requires 

the two units to meet beginning January 

31, 2014. In addition, based on the 

enforceable shutdown deadline, we 

assumed an amortization period of ten 

years for both DSI and DFGD/SDA. We 

used the same heat input of 4,775 

MMBtu/hr and 85% capacity factor as 

ODEQ. 

We calculated that the average costeffectiveness of the DSI/shutdown 

scenario would be $1,758/ton, while the 

average cost-effectiveness of the DFGD/ 

SDA/shutdown scenario would be 

$3,211/ton. The incremental costeffectiveness of installing DFGD/SDA as 

the BART control on the remaining unit 

rather than DSI would be $7362/ton. See 

our TSD for more details of our cost 

analysis. A spreadsheet containing this 

EPA calculated cost effectiveness of 

DFGD/SDA is contained in the docket, 

and a summary of this information is 

presented in Table 1of the Technical 

Support Document accompanying this 

proposed action. 

We reviewed the CALPUFF visibility 

modeling in the proposed SIP revision 

submittal and also performed additional 

analyses (including additional 

CALPUFF model runs). Please see the 

SIP’s Appendix II and EPA’s Technical 

Support Document for more details of 

AEP/PSO’s modeling, ODEQ’s 

evaluation, and EPA’s modeling and 

evaluation. While, as described in the 

TSD, the Oklahoma’s modeling has 

some differences from ours, the relative 

results are similar and the differences 

are not such that it changes our overall 

conclusions. In addition to the scenarios 

considered by Oklahoma, we also 

considered the scenario of one unit 

shutting down and one unit with DFGD/ 

SDA. While we did not model this 

scenario, it is reasonable to approximate 

this scenario would result in one half 

the visibility impairment of the FIP 

scenario of two units operating with 

DFGD/SDA. Based on this assumption, 

this scenario results in an improvement 

of 0.19 deciviews at the most impacted 

Class I area and 0.64 deciviews 

cumulatively, when compared to DSI on 

the remaining operating unit. As 

discussed above, this visibility benefit is 

achieved at relatively high incremental 

cost effectiveness. 

Oklahoma found, and we agree, that 

the DFGD/SDA scenario in the FIP 

would only result in slightly more 

visibility benefit than Oklahoma’s 

chosen BART determination in which 

one unit operates until 2026 using DSI. 

A unit by unit analysis reveals that 

additional visibility benefit can be 

achieved if the unit that remains in 

operation were to implement DFGD/

SDA, but this visibility benefit is 

achieved at a relatively high 

incremental cost. 

In summary, we believe that when 

incremental costs, energy and non-air 

quality impacts, and the remaining 

useful life of the source are taken into 

consideration, ODEQ’s determination 

that DSI is the proper BART control for 

the remaining unit is ultimately 

reasonable. We therefore propose to 

approve ODEQ’s new SO2 BART 

determination in full and propose to 

rescind the emission limits and 

compliance schedule contained in our 

FIP. 

Previously, we disapproved the ‘‘PSO 

Regional Haze Agreement, DEQ Case 

No. 10–025 (February 10, 2010),’’ and its 

emission limitations for SO2. With 

today’s proposed approval of the state’s 

BART determinations, as revised, we 

now propose to approve the ‘‘PSO 

Regional Haze Agreement, DEQ Case 

No. 10–025 (February 10, 2010)’’ as 

amended by the ‘‘First Amended 

Regional Haze Agreement, DEQ Case 

No. 10–025 (March 2013),’’ and the SO2

BART emission limitations for the two 

AEP/PSO units found therein. 

V. Oklahoma’s Interstate Transport 

Visibility SIP Provisions 

Oklahoma submitted its Interstate 

Transport SIP for an Assessment of 

Oklahoma’s Impact on Downwind 

Nonattainment for the National 

Ambient 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 Air 

Quality Standards (‘‘Transport SIP’’) to 

EPA in May 2007 and submitted 

supplemental information in December 

2007. Our December 28, 2011 action on 

the Oklahoma RH SIP also addressed 

the provisions of the Oklahoma 

Interstate Transport SIP relating to 

visibility protection. In that action, we 

partially approved and partially 

disapproved the Oklahoma Interstate 

Transport SIP, which relied in part 

upon the Oklahoma RH SIP to satisfy 

the requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because we could 

only partially approve the Oklahoma RH 

SIP. We also promulgated an Interstate 

Transport FIP for visibility requiring 

source-specific SO2 emission 

limitations. 

As an initial matter, we note that CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) does not 

explicitly specify how we should 

ascertain whether a state’s SIP contains 

adequate provisions to prevent 

emissions from sources in that state 

from interfering with measures required 

in another state to protect visibility. 

Thus, the statute is ambiguous on its 

face, and we must interpret that 

provision in a reasonable fashion. Our 

2006 Guidance recommended that a 

state could meet the visibility prong of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) by 

submitting a fully approvable regional 

haze SIP. We reasoned that the 

development of the regional haze SIPs 

involved collaboration among the states. 

In fact, in developing their respective 

reasonable progress goals, CENRAP 

states consulted with each other through 

CENRAP’s work groups. As a result of 

this process, the common understanding 

was that each state would take action to 

achieve the emissions reductions relied 

upon by other states in their reasonable 

progress demonstrations. CENRAP 

states consulted in the development of 

reasonable progress goals, using the 

products of the technical consultation 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 51693 

23Commitments approved by EPA under section 

110(k)(3) of the CAA are enforceable by EPA and 

citizens under, respectively, sections 113 and 304 

of the CAA. In the past, EPA has approved 

enforceable commitments and courts have enforced 

these actions against states that failed to comply 

with those commitments: See, e.g., American Lung 

Ass’n of N.J. v. Kean, 670 F. Supp. 1285 (D.N.J. 

1987), aff’d, 871 F.2d 319 (3rd Cir. 1989); NRDC, 

Inc. v. N.Y. State Dept. of Env. Conservation, 668 

F. Supp. 848 (S.D.N.Y. 1987); Citizens for a Better 

Env’t v. Deukmejian, 731 F. Supp. 1448, recon. 

granted in par, 746 F. Supp. 976 (N.D. Cal. 1990); 

Coalition for Clean Air v. South Coast Air Quality 

Mgmt. Dist., No. CV 97–6916–HLH (C.D. Cal. Aug. 

27, 1999). Further, if a state fails to meet its 

commitments, EPA could make a finding of failure 

to implement the SIP under CAA Section 179(a), 

which starts an 18-month period for the State to 

correct the non-implementation before mandatory 

sanctions are imposed. CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) 

provides that each SIP ‘‘shall include enforceable 

emission limitations and other control measures, 

means or techniques . . . as well as schedules and 

timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or 

appropriate to meet the applicable requirement of 

the Act.’’ Section 172(c)(6) of the Act, which 

applies to nonattainment SIPs, is virtually identical 

to section 110(a)(2)(A). The language in these 

sections of the CAA is quite broad, allowing a SIP 

to contain any ‘‘means or techniques’’ that EPA 

determines are ‘‘necessary or appropriate’’ to meet 

CAA requirements, such that the area will attain as 

expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the 

designated date. Furthermore, the express 

allowance for ‘‘schedules and timetables’’ 

demonstrates that Congress understood that all 

required controls might not have to be in place 

before a SIP could be fully approved. 

24The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 

upheld EPA’s interpretation of CAA sections 

110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6) and the Agency’s use and 

application of the three-factor test in approving 

enforceable commitments in the Houston-Galveston 

ozone SIP. BCCA Appeal Group v. EPA, 355 F.3d 

817 (5th Cir. 2003). 

process to co-develop their reasonable 

progress goals. In developing their 

visibility projections using 

photochemical grid modeling, CENRAP 

states assumed a certain level of 

emissions from sources within 

Oklahoma. This modeling assumed SO2

reductions from AEP/PSO Northeastern 

Power Station Units 3 and 4. We 

understand that the CENRAP states used 

the visibility projection modeling to 

establish their own respective 

reasonable progress goals. Thus, we 

believe that an implementation plan 

that provides for emissions reductions 

consistent with the assumptions used in 

those states’ modeling will ensure that 

emissions from Oklahoma sources do 

not interfere with the measures 

designed to protect visibility in other 

states. 

In the case of Northeastern Units 3 

and 4, the CENRAP modeling assumed 

that each of these units would achieve 

the presumptive limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu 

by 2018. Under the Oklahoma RH SIP 

Revision, one of the two units is 

required to shut down before that date, 

while the remaining unit is required to 

install DSI. To achieve emission levels 

equivalent to the levels assumed in 

other States’ Regional Haze plans, the 

remaining unit must would have to 

meet an emission limit of 0.3 lb/MMBtu 

(0.15 + 0.15) by 2018. Currently, the 

First Amended Regional Haze 

Agreement in the submitted SIP revision 

only requires the remaining unit to meet 

an emission limit of 0.4 lb/MMBtu. 

However, the First Amended Regional 

Haze Agreement also requires the source 

operators to optimize the performance 

of DSI on the remaining unit to ensure 

that the best possible performance is 

achieved and adjust the limit 

accordingly. Further, if the remaining 

operating unit still cannot meet the 

emission limit of 0.3 lb/MMBtu, then 

the Oklahoma RH SIP Revision contains 

an enforceable commitment on behalf of 

ODEQ to ‘‘obtain and/or identify 

additional SO2 reductions within the 

State of Oklahoma to the extent 

necessary to achieve the anticipated 

visibility benefits estimated’’ by 

CENRAP. For example, any additional 

SO2 emissions reductions that can be 

obtained or identified from the 

northeast quadrant of the State will be 

presumed to count toward the emission 

reductions necessary to achieve the 

anticipated visibility benefits associated 

with a 0.30 lb/MMBtu emission limit at 

Northeastern. Emissions reductions 

obtained outside the northeast quadrant 

that are technically justified will also be 

counted. Finally, if necessary, 

additional emissions reductions shall be 

obtained via enforceable emission limits 

or control equipment requirements 

where necessary and submitted to EPA 

as a SIP revision as expeditiously as 

practicable, but in no event later than 

the end of the first full Oklahoma 

legislative session occurring subsequent 

to AEP/PSO’s submission of the 

evaluation and report required by 

Paragraph 1(f) of Attachment A of the 

AEP/PSO Settlement Agreement 

presented in Appendix I of the 2013 SIP 

Submission. Moreover, any additional 

reductions that are obtained prior to the 

2018 Regional Haze SIP revision 

required by 40 CFR § 51.308(f) but not 

accounted for in the above referenced 

modeling will be identified in the 2018 

revision. 

Therefore, if the SO2 emission rate for 

the remaining coal-fired unit is not 

reduced to 0.30 lb/MMBtu after the 

implementation of the control 

requirements required by the First 

Amended Regional Haze Agreement, 

then there will not be the emissions 

reductions relied upon in the CENRAP 

modeling. These emission reductions 

must be obtained from elsewhere to 

meet the requirements of the Visibility 

Interstate Transport SIP/FIP. We are 

proposing to find that the state already 

has provided the majority of required 

emissions reductions for the Visibility 

interstate transport statutory 

requirement. The balance of the needed 

reductions is in the form of enforceable 

commitments from the ODEQ. We 

believe, consistent with past practice, 

that the CAA allows for the approval of 

enforceable commitments that are 

limited in scope where circumstances 

exist that warrant the use of such 

commitments in place of adopted 

measures.23 Once we determine that 

circumstances warrant consideration of 

an enforceable commitment, we 

consider three factors in determining 

whether to approve the enforceable 

commitment: (a) Does the commitment 

address a limited portion of the 

statutorily-required program; (b) is the 

state capable of fulfilling its 

commitment; and (c) is the commitment 

for a reasonable and appropriate period 

of time.24 Oklahoma has met these 

criteria because the enforceable 

commitment addresses only a small 

potential shortfall in the emission 

reductions necessary to ensure that the 

State’s SIP will not interfere with other 

states’ plans to protect visibility. Under 

the DSI/shutdown scenario, the 

Northeastern Power Station will achieve 

at least 70% of the approximately 75% 

reduction in SO2 emissions necessary to 

meet the level projected in the CENRAP 

modeling (based on a baseline of 0.6 lb/ 

MMBtu). Further, this is only a possible 

shortfall, as the facility is required to 

optimize the performance of the DSI and 

may well be able to achieve further 

reductions. Oklahoma is capable of 

fulfilling its commitment because it has 

the authority to adopt measures if 

necessary and likely will be able to 

identify federally enforceable reductions 

through other measures not anticipated 

in CENRAP modeling, such as EPA’s 

Modeled Attainment Test Software 

(MATS). Finally, we believe that 

Oklahoma has committed to address any 

shortfall as expeditiously as practical 

given the time needed for the source to 

conduct the optimization study and for 

ODEQ to complete the State’s SIP 

adoption process. 

In conclusion, we propose to approve 

the enforceable commitments made in 

the Oklahoma RH SIP Revision as 

satisfying Oklahoma’s interstate 

transport obligations for visibility. We 

also propose to find that the SO2

emissions reductions associated with 

Northeastern Units 3 and 4, when 

combined with the enforceable 

commitments, will be consistent with 

the levels of control assumed in the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

51694 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

25The proposed amendatory language for this 

proposed revision of the earlier promulgated FIP is 

set forth at the end of this proposal. If the action 

is finalized as proposed, the final action will also 

present additional amendatory language reflecting 

our approval of the submitted SIP revision. 

CENRAP modeling and relied on by 

other states as part of their reasonable 

progress demonstrations. 

VI. What action is EPA proposing? 

A. Regional Haze 

For the reasons explained above, we 

are proposing to approve ODEQ’s 

revised SO2 BART determination for 

Units 3 and 4 of the AEP/PSO 

Northeastern Power Station. This 

revised SO2 BART determination (and 

related control measures) includes the 

following emission control 

requirements: (1) By January 31, 2014, 

the facility will comply with an interim 

SO2 emission limit of 0.65 lb/MMBtu 

per unit on a 30-day rolling average 

basis, with an additional limit of 3,104 

lb/hr per unit on a 30-day rolling 

average basis; (2) by December 31, 2014, 

the facility will comply with a reduced 

interim SO2 emission limit of 0.60 lb/

MMBtu per unit on a 12-month rolling 

average basis, with an additional 25,097 

tpy combined cap for Units 3 and 4 on 

a 12-month rolling basis; (3) the facility 

will shut down one of the subject units 

(either Unit 3 or Unit 4) no later than 

April 16, 2016; (4) the facility will 

install and operate a dry sorbent 

injection (DSI) system on the unit that 

remains in operation past April 16, 

2016; (5) the unit remaining in 

operation will comply with an SO2

emission limit of 0.40 lb/MMBtu on a 

30-day rolling average basis from April 

16, 2016 through December 31, 2026, 

with additional limits of 1,910 lb/hr on 

a 30-day rolling average basis and 8,366 

tpy on a 12-month rolling basis (this 

limit may be lowered pursuant to the 

results of an optimization study to be 

conducted by AEP/PSO); and (6) the 

facility will incrementally decrease 

capacity utilization for the remaining 

unit between 2021 and 2026, 

culminating with the complete 

shutdown of the remaining unit no later 

than December 31, 2026. Consequently, 

we are proposing to approve for SO2, the 

‘‘PSO Regional Haze Agreement, DEQ 

Case No. 10–025 (February 10, 2010), as 

amended by the ‘‘First Amended 

Regional Haze Agreement, DEQ Case 

No. 10–025 (March 2013).’’ 

The newly submitted regional haze 

SIP revision also includes, and we are 

proposing to approve, an accelerated 

NOX BART compliance schedule: (1) By 

December 31, 2013, the facility will 

comply with an emission limit of 0.23 

lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average 

basis with an additional limit of 1,098 

lb/hr per unit on a 30-day rolling 

average basis and a 9,620 tpy combined 

cap for both units; and (2) the unit that 

remains in operation shall undergo 

further control system tuning and by 

April 16, 2016 comply with an emission 

limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day 

rolling average basis with an additional 

limit of 716 lb/hr on a 30-day rolling 

average basis and a cap of 3,137 tpy on 

a 12-month rolling basis. For NOx, we 

are proposing to codify our approval of 

the PSO Regional Haze Agreement, DEQ 

Case No. 10–025 (February 10, 2010) as 

amended by the First Amended 

Regional Haze Agreement, DEQ Case 

No. 10–025 (March 2013), because it 

contains the NOx BART emission 

limitations and schedules for AEP/

PSO’s BART subject units in Oklahoma. 

B. Interstate Transport and Visibility 

Because we are proposing to approve 

the State’s new SO2 BART 

determination for AEP/PSO 

Northeastern Power Station Units 3 and 

4, we accordingly propose to approve 

that portion of the Oklahoma RH SIP 

Revision concerning Oklahoma’s 

interstate transport obligations, which 

we found were not appropriately 

addressed by the prior, disapproved 

submittal. We propose to find that the 

Oklahoma RH SIP Revision addresses 

the requirements of the interstate 

transport provisions of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as applied to this 

source and its associated impacts on 

other states’ programs to protect 

visibility in Class I Areas. Relatedly, we 

propose to approve the ODEQ’s 

enforceable commitment in the SIP 

Narrative at page 10. 

C. FIP Amendments 

We are proposing to withdraw those 

portions of the FIP at 40 CFR § 52.1923 

that impose SO2 requirements on AEP/ 

PSO Northeastern Units 3 and 4.25 We 

note that finalization of this portion of 

today’s proposal may follow our 

finalized approval of the SIP revisions 

via a separate Administrator-signed 

action. 

D. Clean Air Act Section 110(l) 

Section 110(l) of the CAA states that 

‘‘[t]he Administrator shall not approve a 

revision of a plan if the revision would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress or any other 

applicable requirement of this chapter.’’ 

42 U.S.C. 7410(l). EPA does not 

interpret section 110(l) to require a full 

attainment or maintenance 

demonstration before any changes to a 

SIP may be approved. Generally, a SIP 

revision may be approved under section 

110(l) if EPA finds that it will at least 

preserve status quo air quality, 

particularly where the pollutants at 

issue are those for which an area has not 

been designated nonattainment. 

We do not believe an approval, as 

proposed, will interfere with CAA 

requirements for BART or for preventing 

interference with other states’ programs 

to protect visibility because our 

proposal is supported by an evaluation 

that those CAA requirements are met. 

An approval will not result in any 

substantive changes to the BART 

requirements or other CAA 

requirements, and the AEP/PSO units 

will continue to be subject to the CAA 

requirements for BART. The SIP 

replaces a federal determination that 

was based on different underlying facts. 

Because of this, the submitted SIP 

cannot be said to be less stringent than 

the determination in the FIP. We also 

believe that approval of the submitted 

SIP revision will not interfere with 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS within the state of Oklahoma. 

The submitted SIP revision, if approved, 

will reduce emissions from the current 

levels allowed to impact local air 

quality. The area where the 

Northeastern facility is located has not 

been designated nonattainment for any 

NAAQS pollutants nor have any nearby 

areas. The revision being approved here 

will result in reductions in NOx and 

SO2 over existing levels, and therefore, 

we do not deem this to be an instance 

where a full attainment or maintenance 

demonstration is needed to bolster our 

determination that approval of the 

submitted SIP revision would not 

interfere with attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. The FIP, 

were it to remain in place, would 

assuredly also preserve, if not improve 

upon, status quo air quality. However, 

the requirement for BART takes its form 

in future implemented emission 

reductions. We are not aware of any 

basis for concluding or demonstrating 

that the regional haze SIP revisions, 

when implemented, would interfere 

with the maintenance of the NAAQS in 

Oklahoma. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 162 / Wednesday, August 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 51695 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000) because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Regional haze, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

dioxide, Visibility, and Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: August 12, 2013. 

Samuel Coleman, 

P.E., Acting 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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Section 52.1923 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the section heading; and 

■ b. Revising paragraphs (a), (c), and 

(e)(1). 

The revised text read as follows: 

§ 52.1923 Best Available Retrofit 

Requirements (BART) for SO2 and Interstate 

pollutant transport provisions; What are the 

FIP requirements for Units 4 and 5 of the 

Oklahoma Gas and Electric Muskogee 

plant; and Units 1 and 2 of the Oklahoma 

Gas and Electric Sooner plant affecting 

visibility? 

(a) 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: Units 4 or 5 of 

the Oklahoma Gas and Electric 

Muskogee plant; and Units 1 or 2 of the 

Oklahoma Gas and Electric Sooner 

plant. 

* * * * * 

(c) Definitions. All terms used in this 

part but not defined herein shall have 

the meaning given them in the CAA and 

in parts 51 and 60 of this chapter. 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 that 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 as: 

Unit 4 of the Oklahoma Gas and Electric 

Muskogee plant; or 

Unit 5 of the Oklahoma Gas and Electric 

Muskogee plant; or 

Unit 1 of the Oklahoma Gas and Electric 

Sooner plant; or 

Unit 2 of the Oklahoma Gas and Electric 

Sooner plant. 

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), 

above. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) 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 

Units 4 and 5 of the Oklahoma Gas and 

Electric Muskogee plant; and Units 1 

and 2 of the Oklahoma Gas and Electric 

Sooner plant 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. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–20317 Filed 8–20–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 770 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2012–0018; FRL–9397–2] 

RIN 2070–AJ92 

Formaldehyde Emissions Standards 

for Composite Wood Products; 

Extension of Comment Period 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: EPA issued a proposed rule in 

the Federal Register of June 10, 2013, 

concerning formaldehyde emissions 

standards for composite wood products. 

After receiving requests for an 

extension, EPA extended the comment 

period from August 9, 2013, to 

September 9, 2013. EPA received 

additional comments and believes it is 

appropriate to further extend the 

comment period in order to give 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS