Quiero saber acerca de...

16532

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 30, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
CFR 51.308d3iiii 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 110a2DiII 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 commenters assertion that the finalization of the October 2017 FIP
correlated to the shutdown of Luminants power plants, specifically Big Brown. According to Luminants 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 EPAs 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 110c 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 EPAR06OAR
20160611, Document ID EPAR06OAR2016
06110002.
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 EPAR06OAR201606110186 January 2020
and EPAR06OAR201606110162 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. 15311538, 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 2202 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:FRFM30MRR1.SGM

30MRR1