Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 122 / Tuesday, June 29, 2021 / Proposed Rules

FR Doc. 202113693 Filed 62821; 8:45 am BILLING CODE 656050P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 81
EPAHQOAR20140464; FRL1002428
OAR

Error Correction of the Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide SO2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard NAAQS
in Freestone and Anderson Counties, Rusk and Panola Counties, and Titus County in Texas Environmental Protection Agency EPA.
ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.
AGENCY:

The Environmental Protection Agency EPA is withdrawing its August 22, 2019, proposed rule, which proposed both to determine that the EPA made an error in the area designations for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide SO2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard NAAQS for portions of Freestone and Anderson Counties, Rusk and Panola Counties, and Titus County in Texas, and to correct the proposed error by modifying the designations of those areas to unclassifiable. The EPA is withdrawing the proposed rule because the EPA, informed in part by technical information received during the public comment period on the proposed rule that further supports the EPAs initial designations of these areas, no longer believes the bases identified in the proposed error correction support the proposed conclusion that an error correction is appropriate.
DATES: As of June 29, 2021, the proposed rule published at 84 FR 43757
on August 22, 2019, is withdrawn.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Corey Mocka, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Mail Code C53904, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; phone number: 919 5415142; email address:
mocka.corey@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

SUMMARY:

I. Background On December 13, 2016, the EPA
designated portions of Freestone and Anderson Counties, Rusk and Panola Counties, and Titus County in Texas as nonattainment for the 2010 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS 81 FR 89870,
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:40 Jun 28, 2021

Jkt 253001

codified at 40 CFR 81.344 Round 2
Supplement. On February 13, 2017, Vistra Energy, which owns SO2
emissions sources in each of the three areas, sent the EPA a petition for reconsideration, purportedly pursuant to Clean Air Act CAA section 307d7B and the Administrative Procedure Act 5 U.S.C. 553e, and for administrative stay of the EPAs nonattainment designations for portions of Freestone and Anderson Counties Big Brown Steam Electric Station area, Rusk and Panola Counties Martin Lake Electrical Station area, and Titus County Monticello Steam Electric Station area. On March 15, 2017, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality TCEQ also submitted a request for an administrative stay of the Round 2
Supplement final designations for these areas in Texas.1 On September 21, 2017, the EPA initially responded to Vistra Energys February 2017 petition for reconsideration by indicating an intent to undertake an administrative action with notice and comment to revisit the nonattainment designations for the three areas, but explained that pending completion of such action, the nonattainment designations remained in effect.2 3
The EPA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on August 22, 2019, titled Error Correction of the Area Designations for the 2010 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide SO2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard NAAQS
in Freestone and Anderson Counties, Rusk and Panola Counties, and Titus County in Texas 84 FR 43757
Proposed Error Correction. Under the EPAs CAA authority at section 110k6 to correct errors in acting on state implementation plans SIPs or in issuing designations, redesignations, classifications or reclassifications, the EPA proposed that in designating these areas as nonattainment under CAA
sections 107d1Ai, d1Bii, and d2A, it erred in not giving greater weight to Texass preference to characterize air quality through monitoring, and to steps undertaken by 1 Additionally, TCEQ submitted a petition for reconsideration on December 11, 2017, and on December 19, 2017, Vistra Energy provided additional information regarding facility retirements and the deployment of additional SO2
monitors to support its February 2017 petition for reconsideration and administrative stay.
2 https www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/
2018-09/documents/3143_signed_response.pdf.
3 The EPA recently found that Texas has failed to submit State Implementation Plans to satisfy certain nonattainment planning requirements of the CAA
for portions of Freestone and Anderson Counties, Rusk and Panola Counties, and Titus County. See 85 FR 48111.

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

34187

Texas to begin monitoring in these three areas, when considering all available information; in relying on available air quality analyses in making the initial designations that the EPA recognized included certain limitations; or a combination of these two issues.
Therefore, to correct these proposed errors, the EPA also proposed that the previously designated nonattainment areas in Freestone and Anderson Counties, Rusk and Panola Counties, and Titus County in Texas each be revised to reflect an unclassifiable designation under CAA section 107d1Aiii. The EPA has not finalized the Proposed Error Correction and is not doing so in this action.
Instead, the EPA is now withdrawing the Proposed Error Correction.4
II. Reasons for Withdrawing the Proposed Error Correction A. Additional Air Quality Modeling In the Proposed Error Correction, the EPA proposed that it erred in relying on available air quality modeling submitted by Sierra Club in making the initial nonattainment designations for these three areas. The EPA explained in the proposed action that the modeling submitted by Sierra Club December 2015 and March 2016 modeling, which purported to show nonattainment, was developed in accordance with the general recommendations on modeling provided by the EPA but stated that the modeling contained key limitations and uncertainties. We made this statement in the Proposed Error Correction despite also acknowledging that we had explained in the record for the Round 2 Supplement that individually these key limitations and uncertainties would not significantly change modeled results or, in many cases, could result in underestimation of SO2 concentrations. In the Proposed Error Correction, the EPA also stated that given the possible collective significance of these issues and, in the case of the areas around the Martin Lake and Monticello facilities, given that the maximum modeled concentrations are within about 10 percent of the 2010 SO2
NAAQS, we were less confident in our prior statements that potential adjustments to the Sierra Club modeling would not result in modeled values near 4 Additionally, as detailed in a separate document published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register that has been signed concurrently along with this withdrawal notice, the EPA is also now denying the administrative petitions from Vistra Energy and TCEQ. See https www.regulations.gov under Docket ID No. EPAHQOAR20140464.

E:FRFM29JNP1.SGM

29JNP1