Proposed Rule2024-18779
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; Federal Implementation Plan for the Rusk-Panola Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
August 26, 2024
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
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 (SO<INF>2</INF>) 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 SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS in the Rusk- Panola SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment area and meets the other applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 165 (Monday, August 26, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[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 [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[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 (SO<INF>2</INF>)
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 SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS in the Rusk-
Panola SO<INF>2</INF> 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 <a href="https://www.epa.gov/tx/rusk-panola-so2-nonattainment-area">https://www.epa.gov/tx/rusk-panola-so2-nonattainment-area</a>. 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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>. For comments submitted at
<a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
<a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>. 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 <a href="http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets">http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Lee, EPA Region 6 Office, Ozone
and Infrastructure Section, 214-665-6750, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6a060f0f440b040e180f1d44092a0f1a0b440d051c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9af6ffffb4fbf4fee8ffedb4f9daffeafbb4fdf5ec">[email protected]</span></a>. We
encourage the public to submit comments via <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. 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 <a href="https://www.epa.gov/tx/rusk-panola-so2-nonattainment-are">https://www.epa.gov/tx/rusk-panola-so2-nonattainment-are</a>. 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
<a href="https://www.epa.gov/tx/rusk-panola-so2-nonattainment-area">https://www.epa.gov/tx/rusk-panola-so2-nonattainment-area</a> or contact us
via email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9bf7fefeb5faf5ffe9feecb5f8dbfeebfab5fcf4ed"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="82eee7e7ace3ece6f0e7f5ace1c2e7f2e3ace5edf4">[email protected]</span></a>. 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 <a href="https://www.epa.gov/tx/rusk-panola-so2-nonattainment-area">https://www.epa.gov/tx/rusk-panola-so2-nonattainment-area</a>. 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#177b72723976797365726039745772677639707861"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="721e17175c131c160017055c11321702135c151d04">[email protected]</span></a>. 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 <a href="https://www.epa.gov/tx/rusk-panola-so2-nonattainment-area">https://www.epa.gov/tx/rusk-panola-so2-nonattainment-area</a>. While the EPA expects the hearing to go forward as
set forth above, please monitor our website or contact us via email at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#147871713a757a706671633a77547164753a737b62"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="422e27276c232c263027356c21022732236c252d34">[email protected]</span></a> 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
SO<INF>2</INF> 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
SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 (SO<INF>2</INF>) 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 SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment area plan in our 2014
nonattainment area guidance, which includes: an accurate emissions
inventory of current emissions for all sources of SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> SIPs in a
document entitled, ``Guidance for 1-Hour SO<INF>2</INF>
Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions,'' available at <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/20140423guidance_nonattainment_sip.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/20140423guidance_nonattainment_sip.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 SO<INF>2</INF>
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
SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> continuous emission
monitoring system (CEMS) as of the effective date of the FIP to measure
SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF>
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
(PM<INF>2.5</INF>) 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen">https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen</a>.
\14\ See <a href="https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/about/glossary.html">https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/about/glossary.html</a>.
\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 <a href="https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2020/acs/acs_general_handbook_2020.pdf">https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2020/acs/acs_general_handbook_2020.pdf</a>.
\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 <a href="https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-06/ejscreen-tech-doc-version-2-2.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-06/ejscreen-tech-doc-version-2-2.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS. The CAA requires this action as it pertains
to the SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS. Information on SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF>
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 <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2010-13947">https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2010-13947</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 SO<INF>2</INF>
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 (SO<INF>2</INF>) national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for the Rusk-Panola SO<INF>2</INF>
nonattainment area does not fully meet the requirements of Clean Air
Act (CAA) section 172 with respect to SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF>
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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> on the EGF
boilers. Compliance with the SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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
SO<INF>2</INF> 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
SO<INF>2</INF> emission rate in lb/hr shall be calculated as the
arithmetic mean of all the hourly SO<INF>2</INF> 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.
SO<INF>2</INF> 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
SO<INF>2</INF> pounds per hour or SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions limits shall be determined based on hourly fuel usage, sulfur
content of the fuel oil, and the SO<INF>2</INF> 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
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on August 26, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.