Air Plan Approval; Texas; Interstate Visibility Transport, 16531-16533 [2021-06135]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 30, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
COVID–19. Please call or email the
contact listed above if you need
alternative access to material indexed
but not provided in the docket.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ means the EPA.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R06–OAR–2016–0611; FRL–10021–
20–Region 6]
Air Plan Approval; Texas; Interstate
Visibility Transport
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
Pursuant to the Federal Clean
Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
is disapproving elements of two State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions
from the State of Texas for the 2012
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) and the 2015 Ozone
NAAQS. These submittals address how
the existing SIP provides for
implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of the 2012 PM2.5 and 2015
Ozone NAAQS (infrastructure SIP or iSIP). The i-SIP requirements are to
ensure that the Texas SIP is adequate to
meet the state’s responsibilities under
the CAA for these NAAQS. Specifically,
this disapproval addresses the interstate
visibility transport requirements of the
i-SIP for the 2012 PM2.5 and 2015 Ozone
NAAQS under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). In addition to this
disapproval, we are finalizing our
determination that the requirements of
those i-SIP elements are met through the
Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) in
place for the Texas Regional Haze
program, and no further federal action is
required.
DATES: This rule is effective on April 29,
2021.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R06–OAR–2016–0611. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov
website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet. Publicly available docket
materials are available electronically
through https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jennifer Huser, EPA Region 6 Office,
Regional Haze and SO2 Section, 214–
665–7347, huser.jennifer@epa.gov. Out
of an abundance of caution for members
of the public and our staff, the EPA
Region 6 office will be closed to the
public to reduce the risk of transmitting
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:52 Mar 29, 2021
Jkt 253001
I. Background
The background for this action is
discussed in detail in our October 27,
2020 proposal (85 FR 68021). In that
document, we proposed to disapprove
the interstate visibility transport
elements of two SIP submissions from
the State of Texas: One for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS and the other for 2015
Ozone NAAQS. We simultaneously
proposed, in exercising our authority
under section 110(c) of the Act, to find
that the interstate visibility transport
requirements that were intended to be
addressed by those infrastructure SIPs
are met through the Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART)-alternative
FIPs already in place for the Texas
Regional Haze program, and that no
further action is required.
The public comment period for the
proposed action closed on November
27, 2020. We received one public
comment concerning our proposed
action. The comment is included in the
publicly posted docket associated with
this action at https://
www.regulations.gov. Below we provide
a summary of the comment along with
our detailed responses. After careful
consideration, we have decided to
finalize our action with no changes from
the proposed action.
II. Response to Comments
Comment: The commenter raised
concerns regarding the necessity of
implementing a FIP and stated that a
FIP is a good resource for states that are
not complying with requirements for
NAAQS set under the CAA. However,
the commenter explains that Texas had
submitted multiple SIPs in which
requirements outside of the regional
haze and visibility transport were met.
The commenter asserts that the original
regional haze SIP met EPA requirements
when it was developed, but the D.C.
Circuit remanded the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (‘‘CAIR’’) which was a
central part of Texas’ SIP. The
commenter further contends that when
EPA replaced CAIR with the Cross-State
Air Pollution Rule (‘‘CSAPR’’), the FIP
imposed requirements on sources in
Texas rather than allowing Texas to find
the best method to utilize the new rule
and submit a SIP revision. The
commenter asserts that the final regional
haze FIP imposed the trading program
for SO2 on specific Electric Generating
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
16531
Units (EGUs) and did not allow out-ofstate trading. By the time the final
regional haze FIP for Texas was issued
in 2017, Texas could have proposed a
revised SIP that satisfied the NAAQS
requirements without targeting specific
EGUs. The commenter concludes that
just because CSAPR is better than BART
does not mean it should be the only
option.
Response: First, we note that
comments regarding CAIR and CSAPR,
as well as EPA’s 2012 limited
disapproval of the 2009 Texas Regional
Haze SIP or EPA’s obligation to
promulgate a FIP to address the BART
requirements for EGUs in Texas, are
beyond the scope of this action, and as
such, we will not be responding to
them. However, because we are relying
on the Texas regional haze FIP to fulfill
the visibility transport requirements, we
will address comments only as they are
relevant to the current action. We agree
with the commenter that Texas could
have proposed a revised SIP to address
the requirements. However, in response
to court deadlines and without a revised
Texas SIP submission, EPA was
required to adopt a FIP to address
BART. Texas may submit a SIP to
replace the BART FIP at any point,
including a SIP that includes an
approach to implementing necessary
emission reductions that is different
from the trading program included in
EPA’s FIP, but the State has not done so
to date.
EPA further notes that it is not
implementing a new FIP in this action
but is instead finding that an existing
regional haze FIP also satisfies the
interstate visibility transport
requirements in CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). In our August 12,
2020 final rulemaking on Texas regional
haze,1 we affirmed our previous finding
that Texas’ participation in CSAPR to
satisfy NOX BART and our SO2
intrastate trading program, as amended,
fully addressed Texas’ interstate
visibility transport obligations for the
following six NAAQS: (1) 1997 8-hour
ozone; (2) 1997 PM2.5 (annual and 24
hour); (3) 2006 PM2.5 (24-hour); (4) 2008
8-hour ozone; (5) 2010 1-hour NO2; and
(6) 2010 1-hour SO2. This action was
based on our determination in the
October 2017 FIP that the regional haze
measures in place for Texas are
adequate to ensure that emissions from
the State do not interfere with measures
to protect visibility in nearby states,
because the emission reductions are
consistent with the level of emissions
reductions relied upon by other states
during interstate consultation under 40
1 85
FR 156 (August 12, 2020).
E:\FR\FM\30MRR1.SGM
30MRR1
16532
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 30, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i)–(iii) and when
setting their reasonable progress goals.2
The October 2017 FIP relies on CSAPR
for ozone season NOX as an alternative
to EGU BART for NOX, which exceeds
the NOX emission reductions and that
other states relied upon during
interstate consultation for the first
planning period.3 Similarly, the Texas
SO2 intrastate trading program ensures
emission reductions consistent with and
below the emission levels relied upon
by other states during interstate
consultation. Accordingly, consistent
with our earlier finding that the October
2017 FIP results in emission reductions
adequate to satisfy the requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with
respect to visibility for the six NAAQS
addressed by the August 12, 2020
rulemaking, we find that the FIP also
satisfies these requirements with respect
to the 2012 PM2.5 and 2015 Ozone
NAAQS.
Comment: The commenter raises
concerns regarding the financial
implications of the regional haze FIP,
noting that, in October 2017 when the
FIP was finalized, three of the Luminant
coal-fired power plants listed in the FIP
were announced to be shut down. The
commenter states that the shutdown of
the Big Brown Power plant was
devastating to the small community in
Freestone County, as the power plant
was the largest employer in the area,
providing over 200 jobs and $65 million
in tax revenue for the small town. The
commenter further speculates that while
carbon capture technology may have
been a future option for Luminant, the
application of ‘‘sudden’’ legislation
forced the shutdown, which may have
been avoided had Texas developed a
SIP that showed ‘‘reasonable further
progress’’ and allowed a more stable
adaptation or phase out for the effected
facilities.
Response: We disagree with the
commenter’s assertion that the
finalization of the October 2017 FIP
correlated to the shutdown of
Luminant’s power plants, specifically
Big Brown. According to Luminant’s
website, the plants were ‘‘economically
challenged in the competitive ERCOT
market. Sustained low wholesale power
prices, an oversupplied renewable
generation market, and low natural gas
prices, along with other factors, have
contributed to this decision.’’ 4 We also
note that the FIP did not impose the
addition of site-specific controls, but
rather established an intrastate trading
program with assurance provisions that
resulted in an aggregate visibility impact
from Texas EGU emissions under the
trading program similar to, or less than,
what would have been realized from
Texas participation in the CSAPR SO2
trading program. Finally, we note that
Luminant/Vistra provided a comment
letter in support of EPA’s prior FIP
action in October 2017, and the
affirmation of that rule in August 2020.5
III. Final Action
The EPA is disapproving the
interstate visibility transport elements of
two SIP submissions from the State of
Texas: One for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
and the other for 2015 Ozone NAAQS.
We simultaneously find, in exercising
our authority under section 110(c) of the
Act, that the interstate visibility
transport requirements that were
intended to be addressed by those
infrastructure SIPs are met through the
BART-alternative FIP already in place
for the Texas Regional Haze program,
and that no further action is required.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This final action is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ was therefore not
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget for review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This final action does not impose an
information collection burden under the
PRA because it does not contain any
information collection activities.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
2 See
2009 Texas Regional Haze SIP, section 4.3
titled ‘‘Consultations On Class I Areas In Other
States.’’ The submittal can be found at
www.regulations.gov, Docket ID EPA–R06–OAR–
2016–0611, Document ID EPA–R06–OAR–2016–
0611–0002.
3 The 2018 EGU emission projections for NO
X
used by CENRAP for Texas, which other states
potentially impacted by emissions from Texas
sources agreed upon during interstate consultation
and relied on in their regional haze SIPs, were
approximately 160,000 tons. In contrast, under the
CSAPR ozone season NOX trading program, Texas’
2017 NOX ozone season budget is 52,301 tons of
NOX. See 81 FR 74504, 74508 (Oct. 26, 2016).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:52 Mar 29, 2021
Jkt 253001
I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the RFA. This action merely
disapproves a SIP submission as not
meeting the CAA.
4 https://www.luminant.com/luminant-close-twotexas-power-plants/.
5 EPA–R06–OAR–2016–0611–0186 (January 2020)
and EPA–R06–OAR–2016–0611–0162 (October
2018).
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
This action does not contain any
unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does
not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. The action imposes no
enforceable duty on any state, local or
tribal governments or the private sector.
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
This action does not have tribal
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13175. This action does not apply
on any Indian reservation land, any
other area where EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction, or non-reservation areas of
Indian country. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order
13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern
environmental health or safety risks that
the EPA has reason to believe may
disproportionately affect children, per
the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory
action’’ in section 2–202 of the
Executive Order. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
because it merely disapproves a SIP
submission as not meeting the CAA.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, because it is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
This rulemaking does not involve
technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
EPA believes the human health or
environmental risk addressed by this
action will not have potential
E:\FR\FM\30MRR1.SGM
30MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 30, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority, low-income or indigenous
populations. This action merely
disapproves a SIP submission as not
meeting the CAA.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. The EPA will
submit a report containing this action
and other required information to the
U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to
publication of the rule in the Federal
Register. A major rule cannot take effect
until 60 days after it is published in the
Federal Register. This action is not a
‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
L. Judicial Review
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Visibility transport.
Dated: March 19, 2021.
David Gray,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
40 CFR part 52 is 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.
15:52 Mar 29, 2021
2. Amend § 52.2304 by revising
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.2304
Visibility protection.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Portions of SIPs addressing
noninterference with measures required
to protect visibility in any other state are
disapproved for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006
PM2.5, 1997 ozone, 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, 2010 SO2, 2012 PM2.5, and 2015
ozone NAAQS.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2021–06135 Filed 3–29–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2020–0096; FRL–10015–
36–Region 9]
Partial Approval and Partial
Disapproval of Air Quality State
Implementation Plans; California;
Infrastructure Requirements for Ozone
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by June 1, 2021. Filing a petition
for reconsideration by the Administrator
of this final rule does not affect the
finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the
time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not
postpone the effectiveness of such rule
or action. This action may not be
challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Subpart SS—Texas
Jkt 253001
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking final action to
partially approve and partially
disapprove the state implementation
plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the
State of California pursuant to the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA
or ‘‘Act’’) for the implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of the
2015 national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS or ‘‘standards’’) for
ozone. Specifically, the EPA is
approving the SIP revision for all
elements except those that relate to
prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD). EPA is partially approving and
partially disapproving three elements of
the SIP revision due to PSD deficiencies
in certain air pollution control or air
quality management districts (APCD,
AQMD, or ‘‘district’’). The disapprovals
will not create any new consequences
for these districts or the EPA as the
districts are already subject to the EPA’s
federal PSD program at 40 CFR 52.21.
As part of this action, we are also
reclassifying certain regions of the State
for emergency episode planning
purposes with respect to ozone. We are
also approving into the SIP two updated
state provisions addressing CAA
conflict of interest requirements for the
entire state, and emergency episode
plans for the Amador County APCD,
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
16533
Calaveras County APCD, Mariposa
County APCD, Northern Sierra AQMD,
and Tuolumne County APCD. Finally,
we are approving an exemption from
emergency episode planning
requirements for ozone for the Lake
County AQMD.
DATES: This rule is effective April 29,
2021.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R09–OAR–2020–0096. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov
website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available through https://
www.regulations.gov, or please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section for
additional availability information. If
you need assistance in a language other
than English or if you are a person with
disabilities who needs a reasonable
accommodation at no cost to you, please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Panah Stauffer, Air Planning Office
(AIR–2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415)
972–3247, or by email at
stauffer.panah@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Statutory Requirements
B. NAAQS Addressed by This Final Rule
C. California’s Submittals
D. EPA’s Proposal
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. Final Action
A. Partial Approvals and Partial
Disapprovals
B. Approval of Updated California Code of
Regulations Provisions
C. Approval of Reclassification Requests
for Emergency Episode Planning
D. Approval of Emergency Episode
Contingency Plans
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. Statutory Requirements
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires
each state to submit to the EPA, within
three years after the promulgation of a
E:\FR\FM\30MRR1.SGM
30MRR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 30, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16531-16533]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06135]
[[Page 16531]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R06-OAR-2016-0611; FRL-10021-20-Region 6]
Air Plan Approval; Texas; Interstate Visibility Transport
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is disapproving elements of two
State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions from the State of Texas for
the 2012 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
and the 2015 Ozone NAAQS. These submittals address how the existing SIP
provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the 2012
PM2.5 and 2015 Ozone NAAQS (infrastructure SIP or i-SIP).
The i-SIP requirements are to ensure that the Texas SIP is adequate to
meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA for these NAAQS.
Specifically, this disapproval addresses the interstate visibility
transport requirements of the i-SIP for the 2012 PM2.5 and
2015 Ozone NAAQS under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). In addition to
this disapproval, we are finalizing our determination that the
requirements of those i-SIP elements are met through the Federal
Implementation Plans (FIPs) in place for the Texas Regional Haze
program, and no further federal action is required.
DATES: This rule is effective on April 29, 2021.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2016-0611. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet. Publicly available docket
materials are available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Huser, EPA Region 6 Office,
Regional Haze and SO2 Section, 214-665-7347,
[email protected]ov. Out of an abundance of caution for members of
the public and our staff, the EPA Region 6 office will be closed to the
public to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. Please call or
email the contact listed above if you need alternative access to
material indexed but not provided in the docket.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' means the EPA.
I. Background
The background for this action is discussed in detail in our
October 27, 2020 proposal (85 FR 68021). In that document, we proposed
to disapprove the interstate visibility transport elements of two SIP
submissions from the State of Texas: One for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS and the other for 2015 Ozone NAAQS. We simultaneously proposed,
in exercising our authority under section 110(c) of the Act, to find
that the interstate visibility transport requirements that were
intended to be addressed by those infrastructure SIPs are met through
the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)-alternative FIPs already
in place for the Texas Regional Haze program, and that no further
action is required.
The public comment period for the proposed action closed on
November 27, 2020. We received one public comment concerning our
proposed action. The comment is included in the publicly posted docket
associated with this action at https://www.regulations.gov. Below we
provide a summary of the comment along with our detailed responses.
After careful consideration, we have decided to finalize our action
with no changes from the proposed action.
II. Response to Comments
Comment: The commenter raised concerns regarding the necessity of
implementing a FIP and stated that a FIP is a good resource for states
that are not complying with requirements for NAAQS set under the CAA.
However, the commenter explains that Texas had submitted multiple SIPs
in which requirements outside of the regional haze and visibility
transport were met. The commenter asserts that the original regional
haze SIP met EPA requirements when it was developed, but the D.C.
Circuit remanded the Clean Air Interstate Rule (``CAIR'') which was a
central part of Texas' SIP. The commenter further contends that when
EPA replaced CAIR with the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (``CSAPR''),
the FIP imposed requirements on sources in Texas rather than allowing
Texas to find the best method to utilize the new rule and submit a SIP
revision. The commenter asserts that the final regional haze FIP
imposed the trading program for SO2 on specific Electric
Generating Units (EGUs) and did not allow out-of-state trading. By the
time the final regional haze FIP for Texas was issued in 2017, Texas
could have proposed a revised SIP that satisfied the NAAQS requirements
without targeting specific EGUs. The commenter concludes that just
because CSAPR is better than BART does not mean it should be the only
option.
Response: First, we note that comments regarding CAIR and CSAPR, as
well as EPA's 2012 limited disapproval of the 2009 Texas Regional Haze
SIP or EPA's obligation to promulgate a FIP to address the BART
requirements for EGUs in Texas, are beyond the scope of this action,
and as such, we will not be responding to them. However, because we are
relying on the Texas regional haze FIP to fulfill the visibility
transport requirements, we will address comments only as they are
relevant to the current action. We agree with the commenter that Texas
could have proposed a revised SIP to address the requirements. However,
in response to court deadlines and without a revised Texas SIP
submission, EPA was required to adopt a FIP to address BART. Texas may
submit a SIP to replace the BART FIP at any point, including a SIP that
includes an approach to implementing necessary emission reductions that
is different from the trading program included in EPA's FIP, but the
State has not done so to date.
EPA further notes that it is not implementing a new FIP in this
action but is instead finding that an existing regional haze FIP also
satisfies the interstate visibility transport requirements in CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). In our August 12, 2020 final rulemaking on
Texas regional haze,\1\ we affirmed our previous finding that Texas'
participation in CSAPR to satisfy NOX BART and our
SO2 intrastate trading program, as amended, fully addressed
Texas' interstate visibility transport obligations for the following
six NAAQS: (1) 1997 8-hour ozone; (2) 1997 PM2.5 (annual and
24 hour); (3) 2006 PM2.5 (24-hour); (4) 2008 8-hour ozone;
(5) 2010 1-hour NO2; and (6) 2010 1-hour SO2.
This action was based on our determination in the October 2017 FIP that
the regional haze measures in place for Texas are adequate to ensure
that emissions from the State do not interfere with measures to protect
visibility in nearby states, because the emission reductions are
consistent with the level of emissions reductions relied upon by other
states during interstate consultation under 40
[[Page 16532]]
CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i)-(iii) and when setting their reasonable progress
goals.\2\ The October 2017 FIP relies on CSAPR for ozone season
NOX as an alternative to EGU BART for NOX, which
exceeds the NOX emission reductions and that other states
relied upon during interstate consultation for the first planning
period.\3\ Similarly, the Texas SO2 intrastate trading
program ensures emission reductions consistent with and below the
emission levels relied upon by other states during interstate
consultation. Accordingly, consistent with our earlier finding that the
October 2017 FIP results in emission reductions adequate to satisfy the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to
visibility for the six NAAQS addressed by the August 12, 2020
rulemaking, we find that the FIP also satisfies these requirements with
respect to the 2012 PM2.5 and 2015 Ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 85 FR 156 (August 12, 2020).
\2\ See 2009 Texas Regional Haze SIP, section 4.3 titled
``Consultations On Class I Areas In Other States.'' The submittal
can be found at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID EPA-R06-OAR-2016-
0611, Document ID EPA-R06-OAR-2016-0611-0002.
\3\ The 2018 EGU emission projections for NOX used by
CENRAP for Texas, which other states potentially impacted by
emissions from Texas sources agreed upon during interstate
consultation and relied on in their regional haze SIPs, were
approximately 160,000 tons. In contrast, under the CSAPR ozone
season NOX trading program, Texas' 2017 NOX
ozone season budget is 52,301 tons of NOX. See 81 FR
74504, 74508 (Oct. 26, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: The commenter raises concerns regarding the financial
implications of the regional haze FIP, noting that, in October 2017
when the FIP was finalized, three of the Luminant coal-fired power
plants listed in the FIP were announced to be shut down. The commenter
states that the shutdown of the Big Brown Power plant was devastating
to the small community in Freestone County, as the power plant was the
largest employer in the area, providing over 200 jobs and $65 million
in tax revenue for the small town. The commenter further speculates
that while carbon capture technology may have been a future option for
Luminant, the application of ``sudden'' legislation forced the
shutdown, which may have been avoided had Texas developed a SIP that
showed ``reasonable further progress'' and allowed a more stable
adaptation or phase out for the effected facilities.
Response: We disagree with the commenter's assertion that the
finalization of the October 2017 FIP correlated to the shutdown of
Luminant's power plants, specifically Big Brown. According to
Luminant's website, the plants were ``economically challenged in the
competitive ERCOT market. Sustained low wholesale power prices, an
oversupplied renewable generation market, and low natural gas prices,
along with other factors, have contributed to this decision.'' \4\ We
also note that the FIP did not impose the addition of site-specific
controls, but rather established an intrastate trading program with
assurance provisions that resulted in an aggregate visibility impact
from Texas EGU emissions under the trading program similar to, or less
than, what would have been realized from Texas participation in the
CSAPR SO2 trading program. Finally, we note that Luminant/
Vistra provided a comment letter in support of EPA's prior FIP action
in October 2017, and the affirmation of that rule in August 2020.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.luminant.com/luminant-close-two-texas-power-plants/.
\5\ EPA-R06-OAR-2016-0611-0186 (January 2020) and EPA-R06-OAR-
2016-0611-0162 (October 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Final Action
The EPA is disapproving the interstate visibility transport
elements of two SIP submissions from the State of Texas: One for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and the other for 2015 Ozone NAAQS. We
simultaneously find, in exercising our authority under section 110(c)
of the Act, that the interstate visibility transport requirements that
were intended to be addressed by those infrastructure SIPs are met
through the BART-alternative FIP already in place for the Texas
Regional Haze program, and that no further action is required.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This final action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for
review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This final action does not impose an information collection burden
under the PRA because it does not contain any information collection
activities.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action merely disapproves a SIP submission as not meeting the CAA.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local or tribal governments or the private sector.
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
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This action does not apply on any Indian
reservation land, any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, or non-reservation areas of
Indian country. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it merely disapproves a SIP submission as
not meeting the CAA.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by
this action will not have potential
[[Page 16533]]
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations. This action
merely disapproves a SIP submission as not meeting the CAA.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
L. Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by June 1, 2021. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Visibility transport.
Dated: March 19, 2021.
David Gray,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart SS--Texas
0
2. Amend Sec. 52.2304 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2304 Visibility protection.
* * * * *
(d) Portions of SIPs addressing noninterference with measures
required to protect visibility in any other state are disapproved for
the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 1997 ozone, 2008
ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, 2012 PM2.5,
and 2015 ozone NAAQS.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-06135 Filed 3-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P