We note that this comparison combines TCEQ's 2012 base case year modeling results with EPA's 2016 base case year modeling results. As a result, we would expect some differences due to the differing meteorology of these two base years and the observed DVs in the base years that are used in both the nonattainment and maintenance receptor identification are for different periods. However, despite these differences, we can examine the potential accuracy of future year 2023 estimates by TCEQ and EPA compared to the most recent monitoring values since the 2023 DV is only 3 years away from the 2018-2020 DV and 2 years away from the preliminary 2019-2021 DVs. Meteorology can vary, so this analysis assumes that meteorology will be similar for the 2018-2020, 2019-2021, and 2021-2023 periods since future meteorology is unknown. Since EPA's 2016v2 modeling a utilizes a different base year meteorology than TCEQ, EPA's modeling results are different and did not find Texas linked to the receptors in Colorado, Arizona and Southern California with >= 0.7 ppb.

Colorado
      In general EPA and TCEQ's 2023 model projections for the nonattainment receptor analysis provides generally similar results for the Colorado receptors identified by TCEQ with some variability of 1-2 ppb for some monitors and both seem to underestimate the expected DV based on recent monitoring data. It is interesting to note that TCEQ's maintenance receptor methodology resulted in a 1 ppb lower Maintenance DV than the Nonattainment DV for the Douglas County and Larimer County, Colorado receptors. EPA and TCEQ's Maintenance DVs at Colorado receptors are similar in values despite the difference in base years and methodologies with a couple of monitors varying by 3 ppb (EPA projects 3 ppb higher at one monitor and 3 ppb lower at another monitor).

Arizona
      In general EPA and TCEQ's 2023 model projections for the nonattainment receptor analysis provides generally similar results for the Arizona receptor identified by TCEQ with some variability of 1 ppb between EPA and TCEQ's results and both seem to overestimate the expected DV based on recent monitoring data. It is interesting to note that TCEQ's maintenance receptor methodology resulted in a 2 ppb lower Maintenance DV than the Nonattainment DV for the Cochise County Arizona receptor indicating that it is nonattainment receptor but the value is lower than TCEQ's maintenance receptor methodology yields. EPA and TCEQ's Maintenance DVs at the Cochise receptor vary by 3 ppb with EPA's Maintenance DV being 3 ppb higher.

Southern California
      TCEQ identified 10 receptors in Southern California. In general EPA and TCEQ's 2023 model projections for the nonattainment receptor analysis provides differing results with EPA's projected DVs being higher than TCEQ's for many of the receptors. EPA projected higher nonattainment DVs for five of the ten receptors with values ranging from 1 to 6 ppb higher than TCEQ's. Both TCEQ and EPA underestimate the 2023 DV based on recent monitoring, but EPA's projections are closer to recent monitoring values, therefore EPA's modeled projections seems more accurate than TCEQ's. It is interesting to note that TCEQ's maintenance receptor methodology resulted in a seven of the ten receptors having maintenance DVs lower than the nonattainment DVs (three were 1 ppb lower, one was 2 ppb lower and three were 3 ppb lower) All ten receptors were identified by EPA as potential receptors.

      In Table 3.2, the EPA shows the receptors that Texas was linked as identified by EPA in EPA's 2016v2 2023 Modeling including the 2023 average DV (nonattainment receptor if  >70 ppb) and 2023 Maintenance DV using TCEQ's maintenance methodology (uses only the 2012-2014 base DV).

Table 3.2 Projected 2023 Nonattainment/Maintenance Receptors Identified by EPA Using EPA's 2016 base year modeling
                       Receptor (Site ID, County, State)
                    Nonattainment/ Maintenance (EPA 2016v2)
                     EPA: 2023 Average DV/Maximum DV (ppb)
                  TCEQ: 2023 Average DV/ Maintenance DV (ppb)
                 2018-2020 DV/Preliminary 2019-2021 DV** (ppb)
                                     EPA:

                           Texas Contribution (ppb)
                                    TCEQ:

                           Texas Contribution (ppb)

                          170310001, Cook County, IL
                                  Maintenance
                                   69.6/73.4
                                     60/58
                                     75/71
                                     0.86
                                      1.6

                          170310032, Cook County, IL
                                  Maintenance
                                   69.8/72.4
                                     68/66
                                     74/75
                                     1.46
                                     1.31

                          170314201, Cook County, IL
                                  Maintenance
                                   69.9/73.4
                                     64/62
                                     77/74
                                     1.15
                                     1.25

                          170317002, Cook County, IL
                                  Maintenance
                                   70.1/73.0
                                     66/65
                                     75/73
                                     1.58
                                     1.22

                         550590019, Kenosha County, WI
                                 Nonattainment
                                   72.8/73.7
                                     67/66
                                     74/74
                                     1.72
                                     1.44

                         550590025, Kenosha County, WI
                                  Maintenance
                                   69.2/72.3
                                   No data*
                                     74/72
                                     1.81
                                   No data*

                         551010020, Racine County, WI
                                 Nonattainment
                                   71.3/73.2
                                   No data*
                                     73/73
                                     1.34
                                   No data*

*  Kenosha AQS ID 550590025 was installed and began operating May 13, 2013, so the first three year DV available is 2013-2015. Racine AQS ID 551010020 was installed in April 14, 2014 so the first three year DV available is 2015-2017. TCEQ's modeling used monitored DV data for 2010-2012, 2011-2013, and 2012-2014 to project to the future year. Since these monitors do not have valid DVs for these periods, TCEQ's modeling can't be used to project 2023 values and identify if they would be nonattainment or maintenance receptors.
** 2021 monitoring data is preliminary and still has to undergo Quality Assurance/Quality Control analysis and be certified by the State of Texas, submitted to the EPA, and reviewed and concurred on by EPA.
      The underprediction in the Midwest is a significant concern, especially in light of the fact that TCEQ did not identify any receptors in the Chicago area and downwind of Chicago areas of Wisconsin and Michigan while the EPA did identify receptors in these areas.

Cook County, IL
      In Table 3.2, EPA identified four receptors as maintenance receptors in Cook County, IL. TCEQ's 2023 nonattainment DVs are 9-15 ppb lower than recent monitoring data and TCEQ's modeling underprediction issues discussed previously are a concern. In TCEQ's modeling they project 2023 nonattainment DVs of 60 to 68 ppb, where EPA's 2023 nonattainment DVs range from 69 to 70 ppb for the four receptors. EPA's projected 2023 nonattainment DVs are much higher than TCEQ's projected 2023 nonattainment  DVs and closer to the recently monitored data. EPA identified all four receptors as maintenance receptors. TCEQ's maintenance DVs using only the 2012-2014 monitored DVs projected 2023 maintenance DVs that were 1 -2 ppb lower than the nonattainment DVs. As discussed in the maintenance receptor methodology discussion above, TCEQ's methodology does not protect areas that may struggle with maintaining the standard in the face of inter-annual variability in ozone-conducive conditions when the nonattainment receptor method would be more stringent than the maintenance receptor method. It is worth noting that if TCEQ's modeling had identified any of these four receptors as maintenance receptors, TCEQ's modeling estimates contributions from Texas sources ranging from 1.22 ppb to 1.6 ppb and therefore Texas would have been linked to these receptors for further analysis of potential emission reductions.

Wisconsin
      In Table 3.2, EPA identified two receptors as nonattainment receptors and one as a maintenance receptor in Wisconsin. As footnoted in Table 3.2, TCEQ modeled a 2012 base case so TCEQ's modeling can only be used for monitors that had a one or more valid DVs in the 2010-2014 period. Only the Kenosha County AQS ID 550590019 monitor had a valid DV during this time, as the other two monitors were not installed until 2013-2014. EPA's modeling uses a 2016 base case, so EPA had valid DVs for all three monitors in Wisconsin to project 2023 DVs. TCEQ's projected nonattainment DV is 5 ppb lower than EPA's 2023 nonattainment DV and 7 ppb lower than recent monitored data. EPA's 2023 nonattainment DVs are 2 ppb, 5 ppb, and 2 ppb lower than recent monitoring data so EPA's modeling does not appear to be underestimating or overestimating 2023 nonattainment method DVs. Again TCEQ's maintenance methodologies prove to be less stringent than the nonattainment methodology and resulted in the maintenance methodology DV being 1 ppb lower than the nonattainment methodology DV. It is worth noting that if TCEQ's modeling had identified the one Wisconsin receptor that they had valid base DVs as nonattainment or maintenance, TCEQ's modeling indicated that contributions from Texas sources was 1.44 ppb and therefore Texas would have been linked to these receptors for further analysis of potential emission reductions.
      Overall, TCEQ's modeling underestimation issues resulted in no receptors being identified in the Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan areas in the TCEQ analysis. While the TCEQ modeling projects lower overall ozone levels for these areas in 2023, TCEQ's modeling does tend to corroborate the amount of projected impact that emissions from Texas may be contributing to 5 of the 7 nonattainment and maintenance receptors identified by EPA's most recent air quality modeling, EPA MP2016v2 modeling, as having a Texas contribution greater than or equal to one percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS (0.7 ppb). EPA's modeling had less of an underprediction bias for these monitors and is more reliable for projecting Future year ozone levels and contributions than TCEQ's modeling. EPA did find that Texas is linked to nonattainment and maintenance receptors in Cook County Illinois, and Wisconsin Counties (Kenosha and Racine).

4. 	Other Potential Modeling Concerns
   a.	TCEQ did not use latest EGU Emissions available at the time they proposed the SIP that incorporated reductions from CSAPR Update/ latest ERTAC projections in their modeling. It is unclear if this made any substantial changes in the modeling analysis without updating the EGU emissions and redoing the modeling.
   b.	TCEQ used an alternate methodology for calculating contributions in determining contributions from Texas emissions at each monitor Texas identified as a receptor in Colorado, Arizona, and Southern California. TCEQ did not use the direct modeled impacts from Texas source apportionment for each day and average for the 5 to 10 days used to generate the Relative Response Factor (RRF) that is used for calculating the future year projected DVs. TCEQ calculated the average of the modeled contribution for the top 10 MDA8 modeled days. TCEQ then adjusted the modeled average impacts (for the 10 days used for the RRF) by multiplying by a ratio. Specifically, TCEQ calculated a ratio by using the 2012 Base Design Value and dividing by the average of the RRF's 5-10 days modeled MDA8 values and then adjusted the average contribution amount. This adjustment made small changes in the Texas contribution amounts, but these adjustments did not change the conclusion that Texas contributions were above 0.7 ppb at nonattainment/maintenance receptors in Colorado, Arizona, and Southern California.
   c.	In generating their future year boundary conditions TCEQ used estimated 2023 emissions for the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) scenario 8.5 developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This includes some estimated changes based on climate modeling. EPA typically has not seen adjustment for climate changes included in SIP modeling; Without a modeling sensitivity analysis, the actual impact can not be quantified, but is expected to be a relatively smaller amount of the total modeled concentrations  in TCEQ's transport SIP modeling, and would not be expected to significantly change the total modeled concentrations.
5.	TCEQ Other Factor Analysis (Weight of Evidence)
   TCEQ stated that the Texas contribution to a receptor should be deemed "significant" only if there is a persistent and consistent pattern of contribution on several days with elevated ozone. To try and assess persistent and consistent patterns, TCEQ did some additional analysis of several different factors such as DV trends, number of elevated ozone days, back trajectory analyses on elevated ozone days, modeled concentrations on future expected elevated ozone days, total interstate contributions at tagged monitors, consideration of conceptual model of downwind area, and responsiveness of ozone to emissions from Texas. Based on their assessment, TCEQ concluded that emissions from Texas do not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS at any downwind monitors.
   TCEQ Summary:
   For Colorado receptors, TCEQ provided analysis of: Design value trends, number of monitored elevated ozone days, back trajectory analysis on elevated ozone days, the modeled contributions on expected elevated ozone days, total interstate contribution, and the responsiveness of ozone formation at the tagged Colorado monitors to Texas NOX emissions. TCEQ evaluated these factors in a general Weight of Evidence approach and concluded that Texas emissions do not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS at the tagged monitors in Colorado.
   For California receptors, TCEQ provided analysis of: design value trends, back trajectory analysis on elevated ozone days, average Texas modeled contributions on projected future elevated ozone days, and collective interstate contributions to future design values, TCEQ evaluated these factors in a general Weight of Evidence approach and concluded that Texas emissions do not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS at the tagged monitors in California.
   While these additional factors can be informative to understand some of the complexities of ozone formation in downwind areas, how ozone is changing in those areas, areas that may contribute to downwind areas, modeled contributions from upwind areas, and potential responsiveness to upwind changes in emissions, most of these do not provide the quantitative assessment that chemical transport modeling with source contribution analyses provides. Chemical transport modeling is the most sophisticated tool available to project future year ozone levels, contributions from upwind states and frequency of the impacts of upwind states.
   EPA has reviewed these analyses that TCEQ provided in a Weight of Evidence approach for receptors in Colorado and California and found significant concerns with some of the analyses and some analyses were not conclusive or didn't provide much information that counters the results of the photochemical modeling.  EPA's assessment of the totality of TCEQ's Weight of Evidence factors for Colorado and California receptors is that they do not provide substantial evidence that refutes the photochemical modeling analysis results including the contribution analysis using EPA's contribution methodology. EPA does not concur with TCEQ's conclusion that Texas emissions do not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS at the tagged monitors in California.  EPA has included some comments, concerns, and limitations with using these factors that Texas used to negate the findings of the chemical transport model below.
   a.	TCEQ indicated that there are problems with DV trends
   TCEQ provided analyses of recent DV trends at the 4 Colorado monitors that they indicated as nonattainment/maintenance receptors. TCEQ summarized that 2013 was a high monitored ozone year but that the most recent 2016 DVs at most monitors show attainment and long-term ozone decreases are modest for the time evaluated (See Figure 1.8 above that is TCEQ's SIP Figure 3-40).
   TCEQ also provided analyses of recent DV trends at the tagged California monitors along with the other monitors located in the Los Angeles CSA. These trends are displayed in TCEQ's SIP Figure 3-56: Eight-Hour Ozone Design Values for Monitors in the Los Angeles Area that is included above (See Figure 1.12 above that is TCEQ's SIP Figure 3-56). TCEQ colored the tagged California monitors and used gray coloring for the other monitors in the Los Angeles CSA.. The 10 monitors tagged had eight-hour ozone design values ranging from 101 ppb to 80 ppb in 2016. TCEQ indicated that 8-hour ozone DVs values in the area have decreased overall for the past 10 years and the 10 monitors tagged for further review have observed eight-hour ozone design value decreases from 2007 through 2016 ranging from 13% at Reseda (AQS ID: 60371201) to 5% at Victorville-Park Avenue (AQS ID: 60710306).
   The most recent monitoring data and trends are useful to help identify if the monitors are still near or above the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The historical trend data is also informative as to whether the modeled year of 2012 was a normal year or lower/higher than normal for monitored ozone levels. The Colorado data for example supports that 2012 was probably more ozone conducive than several other years, but the AQS ID 80690011 (Larimer County, Colorado) monitor 2014-2016 DV is similar to the 2012 monitor DV despite four more years of fleet turnover in the Denver area. In looking at monitoring trends and historical ozone data, 2012 did seem to favor more transport of Texas emissions to western areas. Overall, the DV trends show that ozone levels are reducing at a  slow pace.  Based on the data for the AQS ID 80690011 (Larimer County, Colorado) monitor and the ten California area monitors identified by TCEQ as receptors (See receptors in Table 3.1 above), the long-term trends do not clearly show that the receptors in California or Colorado are expected to be well below the NAAQS, and thus, not be potential nonattainment or maintenance receptors in 2023. Furthermore, the photochemical modeling includes changes in emissions throughout the modeling domain to project 2023 modeling values based on changes from the base period that is more technically sophisticated than ozone monitored trends. The modeling trends analysis for California and Colorado receptors do not provide evidence to that refutes the photochemical modeling analysis results.
   b.	TCEQ evaluated the number of elevated ozone days (over 70 ppb) annually for monitors in the Denver and Southern California areas.
    For the greater Denver area Colorado, TCEQ provided number of days over 70 ppb trends for 2007-2016 indicating decreases in days over the long-term and that 2012 was the highest year at the five monitors evaluated. However, in 2016 3 of 5 monitors had more than 10 days of monitored exceedances and one monitor had more exceedances in 2016 than it had in 2014 and 2015. TCEQ also provided a similar analysis of trends in California for 2012 thru 2016, which shows a general decrease in monitored ozone days above 70 ppb from 2012 for most of the 10 monitors tagged by TCEQ's modeling, but most monitors still have 30-95 monitored exceedance days  (MDA8 > 70 ppb) in 2016. This data supports that the number of ozone exceedance days are improving but neither the Colorado or California analysis of number of exceedance days annually provide any evidence to refute the photochemical modeling analysis results.

   c.	TCEQ Back Trajectory Analysis
   TCEQ provided multi-year back trajectory analyses (2012-2016) for all the monitored ozone exceedance days for the five monitors in Colorado and 10 monitors in Southern California using National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) HYbrid Single Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory (HYSPLIT) . TCEQ performed 72 hour back trajectories for both Colorado and California monitors. Given the large distance from Texas to Colorado and Texas to California, 120 hour back trajectories should have been considered. Most of the Colorado back trajectories only reached central or northern Texas so longer back trajectories should have been completed (See TCEQ SIP submission, Figure 3-42). TCEQ used start heights of 500 m AGL, 1000 m AGL, and 1500 m AGL. The EPA would also recommend running a 100 m AGL start height as well since both areas have complex terrain nearby or in the potential pathways that could result in different back trajectory paths due to the difference in meteorology between 100 m AGL and 500 m AGL. Another concern is that TCEQ used the 1[st] hour of the 8-hour exceedance as the start time instead of mid 8-hour or highest 1-hour number as the start time. The EPA typically uses a mid-8-hour or later start time, or runs multiple trajectories with varying start times as the transport patterns often change throughout the monitored 8-hour exceedance. Not running multiple hours for the start time, or at least the highest 1-hour or the middle of the 8-hour period when monitored 1-hour values are typically higher than the 1[st] hour of the 8-hour period, results in some uncertainty that TCEQ's trajectories fully represent transport that occurred during a monitored 8-hr ozone exceedance.
   TCEQ also screened the back trajectories out if they touched down at some point and also screened out any trajectories that were not below the Planetary Boundary Layer (PBL) over Texas.  TCEQ also screened out back trajectories if the back trajectory start height at the point above the receptor was above the PBL. The EPA has multiple concerns with the screening out of trajectories that TCEQ performed.
   Before we explain our specific concerns with the screening out of back trajectories, it is important to understand what HYSPLIT back trajectories represent and their limitations. HYSPLIT back trajectory analyses use archived meteorological modeling that includes actual observed data (surface, upper air, airplane data, etc.) and modeled meteorological fields to estimate the most likely route of an air parcel transported to a receptor at a specified time. The method essentially follows a parcel of air backward in hourly steps for a specified length of time. HYSPLIT estimates the central path in both the vertical and horizontal planes. The HYSPLIT central path represents the centerline with the understanding that there are areas on each side horizontally and vertically that also contribute to the end point at the monitor. The horizontal and vertical areas from the centerline grow wider the further back in time the trajectory goes. Therefore, a HYSPLIT centerline does not have to pass directly over emissions sources or emission source areas, but merely relatively near emission source areas. Nor does the HYPSLIT centerline have to be below the PBL over Texas as the vertical spread area on the centerline for distances of 300 to 600 miles or more would most likely be below the PBL even if the centerline was well above the PBL. Likewise, even if a centerline is indicated as touching down, that adds some uncertainty but does not void the back trajectory. Given the distance from Texas to Colorado receptors and Texas to California receptors, it is unclear how many back trajectories TCEQ inappropriately screened out when the centerline was close to Texas such that the horizontal spread area could encompass areas of Texas but did not directly cross any parts of Texas.  . In addition, Figure 3-42 in TCEQ's SIP submission indicates that many of the 72-hour trajectories that pass over Texas end before they have fully traversed Texas. Some of these trajectories may have been screened out because they were not below the PBL, but may have been below the mix layer in Texas and thus retained for the analysis if  longer 120 hour trajectories had been performed.  Starting the back trajectories with only the 1[st] hour of the 8-hour ozone exceedance means that the trajectory is started when the PBL is usually the lowest.  With a later start hour (middle of the 8-hour, multiple start hours, etc.) the PBL would be higher in most cases. Thus the TCEQ only using the 1[st] hour may have resulted in back trajectories not being performed or screened out when a later start time would have resulted in a back trajectory that passed TCEQ's screening based on start height and PBL. Regardless, the EPA does not agree with screening out of trajectories as TCEQ has done in their analysis. The multiple ways that TCEQ inappropriately screened out trajectories, along with the several other issues mentioned above, limits the information that can be gleaned from TCEQ's HYSPLIT and Endpoint trajectory analysis for receptors in Colorado and California.
   The EPA relies on back trajectory analysis as a corollary analysis along with observation-based meteorological wind fields at multiple heights to examine the general plausibility of the photochemical model "linkages." Since the back trajectory calculations do not account for any air pollution formation, dispersion, transformation, or removal processes as influenced by emissions, chemistry, deposition, etc., the trajectories cannot be used to develop quantitative contributions. Therefore, back trajectories cannot be used to quantitatively evaluate the magnitude of the existing photochemical contributions from upwind states to downwind receptors.
   For Colorado, TCEQ proffered that their trajectory analysis of transport from Texas to Colorado indicates that emissions from Texas are unlikely to affect ozone concentrations in the mixing layer over Colorado on elevated ozone days. TCEQ asserted that filtering the back trajectories by only looking at trajectories during elevated ozone episodes (which EPA agrees is acceptable), that start within Colorado's mixing layer, that do not hit the surface, and that have endpoints within Texas' mixing layer is an attempt to find a clear case where emissions in Texas would affect the ozone in Colorado. TCEQ's conclusion that those filters showed that 6% of elevated ozone days in Colorado had trajectories that reached the mixing layer in Texas and that 66% of days during the 2007-2016 period evaluated where trajectories reached the Texas mixing layer occurred in 2011 and 2012 is flawed by the way TCEQ performed the HYSPLIT back trajectories and by the inappropriate screening out of back trajectories. For these reasons, EPA does not concur with TCEQ's conclusion that there are many years where no trajectories reach Texas from Colorado and that in the years where TCEQ determined that no trajectories reached Texas, the tagged monitors still observed a high number of elevated ozone days and fourth-highest eight-hour ozone concentrations above 70 ppb. EPA also disagrees with TCEQ's conclusion that Texas may not be upwind in 2015 and 2016 during any elevated ozone days at any of the five sites shown in Figure 3-44 of TCEQ's SIP submission. EPA notes that endpoint analysis and percentage of endpoints generally provides limited value but due to the concerns with the overall back trajectory analysis, the EPA finds little value in the endpoint analysis that TCEQ provided.
   TCEQ did indicate that there were also many more elevated eight-hour ozone days observed in 2012 compared to other years and that this may indicate that there were some unusual meteorological patterns that occurred in 2012 that resulted in more severe ozone season. TCEQ noted that overall, trends in the fourth-highest eight-hour ozone concentrations have only slightly decreased at the Colorado receptors that TCEQ identified. EPA concludes that TCEQ's HYSPLIT back trajectory analysis for the Colorado receptors is flawed and does not provide any evidence that Texas should not be linked to these Colorado receptors, as supported by the TCEQ photochemical modeling analysis. We note that based on EPA's analysis using a 2016 base year, Texas is not linked to these receptors likely due to differences in 2016 meteorology compared with the 2012 meteorology that TCEQ used.
   For California, TCEQ performed a similar HYSPLIT back trajectory analysis for ozone exceedance days at the 10 monitors that TCEQ identified in Southern California as Texas being potentially linked. TCEQ performed the HYPSLITs the same way that they did for the Colorado receptors including the inappropriate screening of trajectories, and other issues discussed above in review of TCEQ's back trajectory and endpoint analysis for ozone exceedances for the Colorado receptors.
   For the reasons mentioned above in the Colorado back trajectory and endpoint analyses, the EPA concludes that TCEQ's HYSPLIT back trajectory and endpoint analyses for the California receptors is flawed and does not provide any evidence that Texas should not be linked to these California receptors.

   d.	Texas contribution on high ozone days modeled greater than 70 ppb.
   TCEQ evaluated contributions from Texas on projected future year elevated ozone days in their chemical transport modeling. TCEQ evaluated the subset of 2023 days with modeled MDA8 greater than 70 ppb, and TCEQ calculated the average modeled Texas contributions for this subset of days. Table 3-14 in TCEQ's SIP submission is included below as Table 5.1. TCEQ also provided this same analysis for the receptors identified in Southern California and included the results in in its SIP submission in Table 3-17, which is included below as Table 5.2.
Table 5.1 TCEQ evaluation of Texas contribution to 2023 modeled days with MDA8 values greater than 70 ppb at receptors in Colorado.

TCEQ proffered in assessing this information that for the Colorado monitors, the expected average Texas contribution on projected future elevated ozone days is a small percentage of the projected average MDA8 on these days. As a result, TCEQ argued that these impacts are not significant, since the average contribution is less than one ppb for all the monitors on a relative few number of days (2-11 days), especially when considering the uncertainties associated with model predictions.

Table 5.2 TCEQ evaluation of Texas contribution to 2023 modeled days with MDA8 values greater than 70 ppb at receptors in Southern California.

For California monitors, TCEQ indicated that the calculated average Texas contribution on projected future elevated ozone days (2023 modeled days with MDA8 greater than 70 ppb) is less than 1% of the projected average MDA8 at all of the monitors on these days. The EPA has concern that this is not tied to evaluating contribution on the days that are used in calculating and determining the 2023 DVs used in the nonattainment and maintenance tests. The EPA uses the same days for the test to also determine contributions from upwind states to have a clear relationship that the contributions are tied to days that determined the receptor is a nonattainment or maintenance receptor. TCEQ's alternate contribution analysis does not have this relationship and TCEQ's approach could result in averaging in days that were modeled above the standard but are not necessarily the days driving the future DV levels that indicate there are nonattainment and/or maintenance receptors. The EPA's approach uses the days that were highest in the base year in the calculation of the future year DV and nonattainment and/or maintenance receptor identification and this process of selection of days to be used is the same process used in Attainment Demonstration SIPs for determining whether modeling projects that an area will attain the NAAQS. TCEQ's method has the potential to decouple these days by just relying on the future year modeling values regardless if those were the days that resulted in the future year DV being projected above the NAAQS. The EPA's approach targets the days driving the ability to attain the NAAQS in the future, whereas the inclusion of all days could average in many days with lesser ozone levels that are not as consequential to the area attaining as targeting the highest base case modeled days. The EPA's methodology is designed to address CAA requirements of not interfering with other State's ability to attain and maintain attainment, not address all attainment demonstration requirements of a downwind nonattainment area in another state and uses the same 5-10 days used for determining if the area will have problems attaining or maintain attainment due to upwind contributions to local ozone levels from another State.
   For Colorado, TCEQ's modeling only has 2 days modeled above 70 ppb at the Fort Collins-West monitor in 2023 which does not seem reasonable considering the 2018-2020 DV is 77 and the preliminary 2019-2021 DV is 80 ppb, so this analysis is likely impacted by the underestimation issues. The EPA has concerns that TCEQ's modeling has underprediction both with base case and future ozone levels at DFW and HGB monitors (indicating underestimation of Texas emissions/ozone levels that are transported to downwind areas), concerns that there is also underestimation in the base case of higher monitored ozone levels at these Colorado and California monitors, and also an underestimation of the future year 2023 model projections at these Colorado and California monitors (see discussions in Section 2 of this document).

   EPA uses at least 5 days and up to 10 days to calculate the average contributions and EPA does use values lower than 70 ppb in order to obtain 10 days for the calculation of average contribution from upwind states because of potential uncertainties in using the modeled values as a hard cut point (in TCEQ's case >70 ppb was used regardless of how many days this included in the calculations). We note that for three of the five Colorado receptors TCEQ's alternate contribution analysis does indicate an average contribution of more than 1% (0.7 ppb) using 9, 10, or 11 days in the average contribution calculation.
   In addition to the concerns raise above, TCEQ's method also included many more days in the California analysis than EPA's method. Adding in all days modeled above 70 ppb greatly  increases the number of days used in the contribution averages from 10 days to 50-60 days for a number of receptors. Adding in many more days that may be more locally driven and/or not have as high monitored/modeled ozone levels could result in averaging in days with lower contributions from Texas sources and that are not critical to demonstrating attainment as the days that are used in the projection of Future year DVs in the nonattainment and maintenance tests.
   TCEQ's alternate contribution method analysis for California and Colorado receptors does not provide substantial evidence that refutes the photochemical modeling analysis results including the contribution analysis using EPA's contribution methodology.
   e	Collective Interstate Contribution to Future DV
      TCEQ provided an analysis of collective interstate contribution to the 2023 DV for the five Colorado and ten California receptors. The collective interstate contribution at tagged Colorado receptors ranges from 9.32% to 10.27% (See Table 5.3 below). The collective interstate contribution at tagged California receptors ranges from 3.2% to 4.58% (See Table 5.4 below). TCEQ argues that these are small percentages (Colorado and California) and not as high as the collective interstate contribution percentages the EPA calculated for monitors in Eastern States, which ranged from 17% to 67%. TCEQ also notes that a significant portion of the tagged Colorado monitors' 2023 modeled DVs is due to background emissions (sum of contributions from to biogenic, fires, and boundary conditions). For the California receptors TCEQ argues that these percentages are small compared to Intra-State contribution.
      As an initial matter, the EPA is not solely relying on TCEQ's findings of linkages to Colorado and California but is also relying on its own findings of linkages to areas in the Midwest Region. As such, TCEQ's analysis of collective contributions to Colorado and California does not provide justification for not addressing downwind impacts. Nonetheless, EPA has found in the past that certain California receptors are so heavily impacted by local emissions, and total upwind contribution is so low, that those receptors may not be considered to be affected by interstate ozone transport. See 81 FR 15200 (Mar. 22, 2016). However, this is a narrow circumstance that does not apply in the vast majority of cases and has never been applied outside of California. EPA has previously found, for instance, that receptors in Colorado are heavily impacted by upwind-state contribution. See 82 FR 9155 (Feb. 3, 2017); 81 FR 71991 (Oct. 19, 2016). EPA need not draw any conclusions here regarding whether the California sites TCEQ identified should or should not be considered receptors for ozone-transport purposes. EPA affirms, contrary to TCEQ's suggestion, that the Colorado receptors TCEQ analyzed are impacted by upwind state contributions. However, the EPA's finding that Texas is linked to receptors in other states is based on still other linkages found in EPA's modeling to receptors in other states, which are clearly impacted by the collective contribution of multiple upwind states, including Texas. Under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), downwind states are not obligated to reduce emissions on their own to resolve nonattainment or maintenance problems. Rather, states are obligated to eliminate their own significant contribution or interference with the ability of other states to attain or maintain the NAAQS.
   Table 5.3  -  from TCEQ's SIP Table 3-15: Collective Interstate Contribution to Future Design Value at Tagged Colorado Monitors

   Table 5.4  -  from TCEQ's SIP Table 3-18: Collective Interstate Contribution to Future Design Value at Tagged California Monitors

   f.	TCEQ also performed Direct Decoupled Method (DDM) modeling for receptors in Colorado.
   DDM provides a first derivative of the changes in ozone (linear relationship where the DDM value is the slope of the line for changes in ozone) from changes in NOx emissions in this case.

                 Figure 5.1 TCEQ DDM results for select monitors

   TCEQ indicated that Rocky Flats (AQS ID: 80590006) shows a small (approximately 2 ppb) responsiveness to Texas NOx emissions in mid to late July. However, when ozone at the monitor is responsive to Texas NOx emissions, elevated ozone was not modeled except for a minor response on one day, July 23.
   TCEQ summarized their DDM modeling analysis indicating that there is some minor responsiveness to Texas' NOX emissions on two high ozone days in the third week of July, but similar to other Colorado monitors studied, the degree of responsiveness is much smaller than the responsiveness to Colorado NOX and "Other NOX" emissions.
   We note that TCEQ plotted modeled ozone levels in 2023, but did not provide information or analysis indicating if the 2012 base case modeling was replicating the 2012 monitored ozone or if the base case modeling had underestimation/overestimation issues on specific days/hours that Texas modeled non-zero and larger DDM values. The DDM modeling does show some response to Texas NOx emissions but from the scale it is hard to discern the level of response.  The response to Texas NOX emissions appears to be in the 0-2 ppb range in general with some values in the 0.2-2 ppb range for modeled values over 60 ppb. Since the TCEQ modeling has underprediction and underestimation issues, a lower future year modeled threshold is appropriate to consider. The DDM modeling does show much more responsiveness to Colorado NOx group and Other NOx group (which represents many other states), but the responsiveness to Texas NOx group is not zero for some of the time including some days that modeled over 60 ppb. Overall, the DDM modeling is inconclusive and does not provide evidence that NOx reductions in Texas would not provide some benefit at receptors in Colorado.

   g.	TCEQ briefly discussed conceptual model for ozone in Southern California indicating the topography and climate of the area's severe air pollution problem is a consequence of the combination of emissions from the nation's second largest urban area and meteorological conditions that are adverse to the dispersion of those emissions. TCEQ asserted that the unique features of Southern California result in the Southern California basin area make it a relative isolated area. We note that TCEQ's modeling already takes into account the unique meteorological, topographical, and amount of local emissions in Southern California and in the rest of the Continental U.S. (CONUS) including Texas emissions. TCEQ's assessment of the Southern California conceptual model does not provide substantial evidence that refutes the photochemical modeling analysis results.
   Overall, these additional analyses performed by TCEQ do not provide sufficient evidence to refute the modeling results that TCEQ's modeling indicates downwind nonattainment and/or maintenance receptors in Colorado and Southern California are impacted by Texas emissions and Texas' contribution is 0.7 ppb or greater. In fact, the monitored ozone design value trends provide evidence that future year modeled ozone levels are underestimated by TCEQ's modeling and there are likely more receptors that should have been identified with additional potential linkages. Although Texas asserted that its additional air quality factor analysis is a permissible way to interpret which contributions are "significant" because that analysis examines whether there was a "persistent and consistent pattern of contribution on several days with elevated ozone" we find that such pattern is already established by a modeled linkage at Step 2.
   In addition, EPA 2016v2 modeling using 2016 base year meteorology indicates linkages from Texas to receptors in the Midwest Region but does not indicate impacts from Texas emissions on the Colorado and other western receptors identified by TCEQ. With a different base period such as TCEQ's 2012 base period meteorology and the EPA's 2016 base period meteorology, it is not uncommon that the potential downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptors could change. These differing results about receptors and linkages can be affected by the varying meteorology from year to year and the selection of different base years, but we do not think the differing results mean that the modeling or the EPA methodology for identifying receptors or linkages is inherently unreliable. Rather, these separate modeling runs indicated (1) that there were receptors that would struggle with nonattainment or maintenance in the future, and (2) that Texas was linked to some set of these receptors, even if the receptors and linkages differed from one another in their specifics (e.g., a different set of receptors were identified to have nonattainment or maintenance problems, or Texas was linked to different receptors in one modeling run versus another). We think this common result indicates that Texas's emissions were substantial enough to generate linkages at Steps 1 and 2 to some set of downwind receptors, under varying assumptions and meteorological conditions, even if the precise set of linkages changed between modeling runs.
   In sum, the EPA's more recent and robust 2016 base year modeling platform indicates that Texas is linked to several receptors in the Midwest Region as does the EPA's earlier 2011 base year modeling. TCEQ's 2012 base case modeling showed linkages to states in the west. As discussed, the EPA does not find the additional weight of evidence evaluations conducted by TCEQ provide compelling reasons to discount the impacts indicated in Colorado and California by the TCEQ modeling. In fact, we think TCEQ's modeling likely underestimates these issues.

6.	EPA Summary
   EPA has reviewed TCEQ's modeling, alternate maintenance receptor methodology, recent monitoring data, underestimation concerns with TCEQ's modeling, and TCEQ's Weight of Evidence analyses (other factors analyses). Overall, we find the TCEQ's alternate maintenance receptor methodology to be flawed and not acceptable because it is not protective of receptors that may have difficulty maintaining the standard in the future. We did identify underprediction biases in TCEQ's modeling analysis including future year projections that are likely underestimating future year ozone DVs and likely have resulted in TCEQ's modeling analysis not identifying nonattainment or maintenance receptors in Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan whereas the EPA's modeling using both 2011 and 2016 base years did find nonattainment and/or maintenance receptors with linkages to emissions from Texas.
   Photochemical modeling simulations for ozone interstate transport assessment is relied upon by the EPA to simulate the formation and fate of oxidant precursors, primary and secondary particulate matter concentrations, and deposition over regional and urban spatial scales. Photochemical modeling is the most sophisticated tool available to estimate future ozone levels and contributions to those modeled future ozone levels. Consideration of the different processes that affect primary and secondary pollutants at the regional scale in different locations is fundamental to understanding and assessing the effects of emissions on air quality concentrations. For the 2015 ozone NAAQS interstate transport analysis, the EPA performed nationwide, state-level ozone source apportionment modeling using CAMx to quantify the contribution of NOx and VOC emissions from all sources in each state to project 2023 ozone concentrations at ozone monitoring sites. Detailed information for the EPA's modeling may be found in the Air Quality Modeling TSD in Docket No EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663.
   We recognize that the results of the EPA (2011 and 2016 base year) and TCEQ (2012 base year) modeling indicated different receptors and linkages at Steps 1 and 2 of the framework. These differing results regarding receptors and linkages can be affected by the varying meteorology from year to year and base year DVs used to project future year DVs, but we do not think the differing results mean that the general modeling approach for identifying receptors or linkages is inherently unreliable.  Rather, these separate modeling runs indicated that: (1) There were receptors that would struggle with nonattainment or maintenance in the future, and (2) That Texas was linked to some set of these receptors, even if the receptors and linkages differed from one another in their specifics (e.g., a different set of receptors were identified to have nonattainment or maintenance problems, or Texas was linked to different receptors in one modeling run versus another). We think this common result indicates that Texas's emissions were substantial enough to generate linkages at Steps 1 and 2 to some downwind receptors, under varying assumptions and meteorological conditions, even if the precise set of linkages changed between modeling runs.
   We propose to find that TCEQ's maintenance methodology is not sufficiently supported or protective but we do note that the maintenance receptors in Colorado and California that were identified by TCEQ would also be identified using EPA's maintenance methodology if applied to TCEQ's modeling results using the 2012 meteorology. Thus, the EPA agrees that the receptors that TCEQ identified as maintenance receptors are maintenance receptors in TCEQ's modeling analysis using the 2012 base year.  While EPA is concerned that TCEQ's modeling has some underestimation that resulted in not identifying receptors in the Midwest, TCEQ's modeling still identified receptors and identified linkages to receptors in Colorado and Southern California that EPA considers valid based on the 2012 base year modeling performed by TCEQ. EPA's primary concern is the underestimation biases may have resulted in less receptors than if the modeling did not have the biases. TCEQ's model performance issues may have prevented TCEQ from identifying receptors in Illinois, Wisconsin and Michigan for which Texas would be linked. We acknowledge that TCEQ's modeling an alternate meteorology year (2012) that had different ozone conduciveness in separate areas of the country may also have had some impact on the 2023 projected ozone. We note that 2012 does appear to have been a higher ozone conduciveness for the Denver area than average and also the transport patterns in the 2012 ozone season were more conducive for transport from Texas to the west than in other years. Additionally, these meteorology patterns also indicate that 2012 may have had less transport from Texas to typical downwind areas in the Midwest and eastern half of the continental United States. Regardless of the meteorology and transport to downwind area differences that the different base year modeling provides, having multiple base years modeled actually provides a more robust analysis for review. These three separate modeling runs all indicated 1) that there were receptors that would struggle with nonattainment or maintenance in the future, and 2) that Texas was linked to some set of these receptors in each of the three base years modeled, even if the receptors and linkages differed from one another in their specifics (e.g., a different set of receptors were identified to have nonattainment or maintenance problems, or Texas was linked to different receptors in one modeling run versus another). We think this common result indicates that Texas' emissions were substantial enough to generate linkages at steps 1 and 2 to some set of downwind receptors, under varying assumptions and meteorological conditions, even if the precise set of linkages changed between modeling runs.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 222 (Friday, November 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 68797]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27887]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3355-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Rhode Island; Emergency and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an
emergency for the State of Rhode Island (FEMA-3355-EM), dated October
29, 2012, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: October 29, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated October 29, 2012, the President issued an emergency declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as
follows:

    I have determined that the emergency conditions in certain areas
of the State of Rhode Island resulting from Hurricane Sandy
beginning on October 26, 2012, and continuing, are of sufficient
severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration under the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (``the Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare
that such an emergency exists in the State of Rhode Island.
    You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for
required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the
Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public
health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a
catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are
authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures
(Category B), limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public
Assistance program.
    Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are
hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these
purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal emergency
assistance and administrative expenses.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department
of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, James N.
Russo, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer
for this declared emergency.
    The following areas of the State of Rhode Island have been
designated as adversely affected by this declared emergency:

    All counties in the State of Rhode Island for emergency
protective measures (Category B), limited to direct federal
assistance, under the Public Assistance program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-27887 Filed 11-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


                                 Attachment D
                            Record of Consultations
This attachment is available as part of the electronic docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-1036 and is part of the ICR's Supporting Statement

Companies Contacted:

   A. Stanley Culpepper
University of Georgia
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>229-386-3328
   B. Mike Stanghellini
TriCal, Inc.
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>831-637-0195
   C. Husein Ajwa
University of California - Davis
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>831-755-2823
   D. Laura Anderson
Arkema, Inc.
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>610-205-7819
   E. Vincent Picirilo
VJP Consulting, Inc.
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>703-858-5894

Summary of Questions and Responses:
(1)	Publicly Available Data
i.       Is the information that the Agency requests available from any public source, or already collected by another office at EPA or by another agency?

      A. Not that I am aware.
      B. Industry has already commented the EPA on the cost burden of all of the mitigation requirements.
      C. Part of the information is available in the public domain.  The industry has already compiled the information and provided the EPA with the cost burden of the mitigations measures.
      D. None of the public training documents, labeling, or Fumigation Management Plan (FMP) information is available in the EPA Fumigant Tool Box for DMDS.   While DMDS is subject to the requirements of the new mitigation measures, the availability of the supporting documentation does not appear to be public on the EPA site.
      E. This information is not available from public sources or another office of EPA or another Agency.  It can only be retrieved from work records of fumigant applicators.

         o Agency Response:  The Agency would like to clarify that the focus of this question is on the information collected in the FMP and Post Application Summary (PAS) required by fumigant labels. The Agency does not believe this kind of information can be made available unless provided by fumigant applicators performing the application.  However, the Agency notes the other kinds of information available, as noted in comment (1) D, and will make sure that it is available through the Agency's website.
i.       If yes, where can you find the information?  (Does your answer indicate a true duplication, or does the input indicate that certain data elements are available, but that they don't meet our data needs very well?)

       C.  	USEPA dockets. It is not "a true duplication". Some of it is, but not all of it is a duplication.
       D.  Some other documentation is available at paladin.com

(2)	Frequency of Collection
*       Can the applicators record the information less frequently and still produce the same outcome?

      A. I cannot figure out how the information could be taken less frequently unless the EPA 1) allowed us to do FMP on a subset of our fumigated acres or 2) allowed us to develop a single FMP for the entire farm at one time (no subsequent FMP's).
      B. EPA dockets.  Not necessarily true duplication, but might be close.  EPA should have the comments from industry already.
      C. Not really. Applicators need to record the information for every application. However, the amount of information can be tremendously reduced because it is either redundant or not needed. A large portion of the FMP is redundant and is a waste of time and papers.
      D. It is possible that fumigations repeated in same field under same or similar conditions may be able to refer to earlier FMPs in lieu of repeating data entry.  It would be necessary to retain earlier FMPs as a reference.
      E. Because of the amount of information needed, reducing the frequency may not produce the same outcome.

(3)	Clarity of Instructions
 i. 	The ICR is intended to require that respondents provide certain information to decrease the likelihood of applicator and bystander exposure to soil fumigants.

       a. Based on the instructions (regulations, PR Notices, etc.), is it clear what you are required to do and how to submit such information (if requested)?
       b. If not, what suggestions do you have to clarify the instructions?

      A. For most growers, the answer would be NO.  The reason that the information is not clear to most growers is the overwhelming number and volume of new regulations (even prior to the new buffer restriction regulations).  Although the EPA has done an excellent job with the website and educating registrants and academia, many growers still are simply overwhelmed.  The process of using registrants to train applicators will be critical for grower understanding.  If it was feasible, a single page flyer from the EPA that is EASY to understand and educates growers on the changes (not specifics) would be beneficial, in essence to compliment the registrant trainings (registrants could even use this in their trainings as information coming from the EPA has more validity).
      B. The instructions are clear.
      C. The instructions are very clear.
      D. This reporting is clear.
      E. The instructions are clear and the procedures to submit the requested information are relatively straightforward.

         o Agency Response:  The Agency has acknowledged the volume of changes throughout the Reregistration Eligibility Decision implementation process, and is the reason the Agency selected a phased approach to the mitigation implementation. For additional information on the phased mitigation approach, please visit http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/soil_fumigants/implementing-new-safety-measures.html.
            The Agency has also conducted and participated in extensive outreach efforts, and continues to work closely with stakeholders to help ensure that users and enforcement personnel are prepared when these changes take effect.  EPA's fumigant webpage contains a number of implementation resources, such as fact sheets, that can be found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/soil_fumigants/index.htm.
 ii.	 Do you understand that respondents are required to maintain records?

      A. I would estimate yes for 98% of our applicators.
      B. Yes, assuming you mean that we are required to keep the FMPs and post-application summaries (PASs) for two years.  If you mean that I, as a respondent to this ICR, need to maintain records for future feedback to the ICR, then no.  I do not plan on keeping any records specifically to address any future ICR's related to this one.
      C. Yes. The FMP and PAS require keeping the records for two years.
      D. Yes.
      E. Yes.

 iii.	For the activities associated with submitting information upon request, will it be difficult to submit information in ways that are clear, logical and easy to complete?

      A. I do not understand "submitting information upon request".  As far as we know we are to document the FMP and save it for at least 2 years.  If the Georgia Department of Ag shows up at the farm and wants to see our records then we will provide our records, including the FMP, to them.  I am not aware of submitting any information and have not communicated such a need to any grower.
      B. No.  The FMPs and PASs are clear; but do contain redundant recording of information that is easily cited on the labels, which must also be available.  Instead of requiring applications to copy and paste from labels to FMPs, we should be allowed to simple cite the labels via a singular checkbox (i.e., "Have the specific GAPs for the method you are using being followed?").
      C. No, not difficult. However, it can be reduced by eliminating the redundancy in the FMP and PAS.
      D. This is clear and not difficult.
      E. This will depend on the training and experience of the data collector for the applicator.

         o Agency Response:	The Agency would like to confirm that the only information that must be submitted, is the FMP and PAS if requested, and notification of fumigant applications to states and tribes if required. To identify which states and tribes require notice, please visit http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/soil_fumigants/statenotices/.
 iv.	Are there forms available to assist in recording the information the Agency requests?  Are they clear, logical, and easy to complete?

      A. The FMP examples developed by (EPA) were absolutely priceless and simplified this complicated process immensely. Additionally, the PowerPoint presentations they made and allowed us to use for trainings were greatly beneficial.  For the new buffer restrictions being implemented in 2013 we need the following:  an additional PowerPoint presentation focused just on buffers and a web site (or some type of program that could be downloaded to a computer) that can be used to make these calculations for growers.......IT MUST BE SIMPLE!
      B. The FMP and PAS forms are clear.
      C. The FMPs and PASs are clear and easy to complete. However, they can be simplified by removing redundancy in requiring information already listed in the label.
      D. There are public documents for most fumigants on the EPA site, would be helpful to include DMDS and other registered fumigants (if any).
      E. Applicators have their own specific forms.  In general, the recordkeeping is clear, logical and easy to complete.

         o Agency Response:  The Agency's fumigant webpage contains a number of fact sheets, which can be found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/soil_fumigants/index.htm.  The Agency has also been working to develop a buffer zone calculator to make the process of calculating buffer zones easier for users.  This tool is still under development, but will also be available at the Agency's fumigant webpage, which can be reached at the previously provided link.
(4)	Burden and Costs
 i. 	Are the labor rates accurate?

      A. No real experience here, looks fair to me????
      B. They seem reasonable.
      C. Yes, to the best of my judgment.
       E.  The labor rates are generally accurate.

 ii.	The Agency assumes there is no capital cost associated with this activity.  Is that correct?

      A. Not if you assume capital costs are fixed costs for equipment?? Equipment has to be purchased in direct response to these new regulations such as gas measuring devices, safety equipment, etc...
      B. Not really.  What about the costs of buffer zone signs (signs, staples, staple guns, wood stakes)? Multiply 12,000 applications per year by 3-30 buffer zone signs per application, and industry and growers will have to consume vast quantities of paper signs (heavy paper), loads of staples, and 36,000-360,000 or more wood stakes.  The signs cannot be reused due to environmental wear on the paper, but the wooden stakes can be reused in theory. What about the cost to vacate people from occupied structures, when needed, from buffer zones?  What about the cost associated with static buffer zones around "difficult-to-evacuate" sites, such as prisons, which can never be unoccupied?  What about the cost of air monitoring equipment?  What about the costs associated with EPA's oversized buffer zones that will be implemented with the express purpose for forcing users to use more costly tarps?
      C. For most part, yes.  However, there are costs that are not listed.  For example, air monitoring equipment/supplies are very expensive and are not listed.  Also, the cost of buffer zone posting in terms of supplies cost (to make the posts) and also the cost of gas used to drive back and forth to collect the posts can sum up to a high cost.
      D. There are expenses associated with on line training that were not "capital."
      E. Yes.

         o Agency Response:  The Agency would like to clarify that certain aspects of the RED mitigation requirements are captured by other ICRs, such as the Worker Protection ICR, and the Data Call-In (DCI) notices that were sent to the fumigant registrants.  For burden and activities for the registrants that fall outside of the scope of other ICRs, the Agency has captured them in the fumigant ICR.  In addition, EPA has adjusted the costs in the revised Supporting Statement to include cost of air monitoring equipment, cost of signs, and time for removal of signs.
 iii.	Bearing in mind that the burden and cost estimates include only burden hours and costs associated with the paperwork involved with this ICR, e.g., the ICR does not include estimated burden hours and costs for conducting studies, are the estimated burden hours and labor rates accurate? If you provide burden and cost estimates that are substantially different from EPA's, please provide an explanation of how you arrived at your estimates.

      A. I think the costs to generate and document paperwork in this document is quite accurate.  Of course, it must be clear that the amount of time required to obtain the information (i.e., actual time to get fit tested, or safety trained, etc.) is not included in these calculations and are of much greater costs than the paperwork.  See comments below on concerns with calculations.
      B. Labor rates seem reasonable, as already asked two bullet points above.  The time burdens listed in this document need revision.
            # For example, it will take much longer than 0.5 hour to read these new labels.  The final Phase II labels are a labyrinth of complex and interconnected information.  I would estimate that it'll take certified applicators 3 hours to read and understand each label.  This is based on the number of pages (40+ pages per label) and the highly detailed and complex information on each page.

                  o Agency Response:  The Agency has modified this activity to "Understanding Requirements."  Reading the label is the law for all pesticide products, but the Agency did want to capture the additional time it may take to understand the suite of fumigant mitigation measures, aside from taking the Applicator Training.

            # Table 6 suggests that it take "0 hours" to post signs.  This is not accurate.  Consider a field that is 30 acres large and may require 30 or more buffer zone signs.  It could take 1-2 hours to post all of these signs in the appropriate places, not counting the time it takes to map the field to determine where to place the signs in the first place.

                  o Agency Response:  The Agency would like to clarify that the supporting statement included 0.13 hours for applicators to fill out the information, and 0.5 hours for handlers to post the signs.  The Agency also notes that these times are taken as an average, where some fields may have many points of entry to post, and others may not.  However, the Agency has decided to increase this time to 1 hour, to account for both posting and removal.

            # 12 hours for the initial FMP is a reasonable estimate.  However, subsequent FMPs may not take just one hour.  If it is a grower-applied application and the grower is treating the same field as the year before, then, yes, maybe consecutive year FMPs may only take one hour to complete.  However, several thousand applications per year are done by custom applicators, and these fields, product, rate, and other details can change from year to year.  In these cases, each FMP may take 6-12 hours per year.

                  o Agency Response:  The Agency has estimated 12 hours for the initial FMP for every application and 1 hour to complete a FMP for the same site in subsequent years in table 6.  Since the site owner and certified applicator must retain a signed copy of the FMP for 2 years, changes in product, rate, and other details may quickly be made to the FMP.  The total annual burden and cost for this activity is multiplied by the number of applications, and is outlined in Table 7. Templates and online tools are currently being developed by EPA and the private sector to assist with the preparation of FMPs.

            # One hour for the post-application summary sounds about right.

            # Table 10, no cost is assigned to distributing fumigant training materials, handler safety information, or first responder/medical expert training materials.  All of these activities require hardcopy paper documents.  Applicator training manuals to prepare applicators will be dozens to hundreds of paper each.  Handler safety information is just one page per person, but each application will have 2-10 handlers, times 12,000 applications per year = 24,000-120,000 handler training sheets are consumed. First responder and medical expert training documents will also consume paper.

                  o Agency Response:  Many of the materials discussed in the comment above are available on-line.  There is no requirement that these materials must be made available in paper. Initially, the Agency included the distribution of materials as a "clerical task" in all cases so the time associated with this activity is listed in the "clerical task" column.  However, the Agency has since added 10 technical hours for maintaining the fumigant training materials.

            # Table 11.  There is a typo in the "Year 1" x "Managerial Hours and Costs" box. "230.938" should be "230,938".

                  o Agency Response:  The Agency has made this change.

            # States need to provide their own feedback, but I would guess that state personnel will need more than 15 minutes (per Table 12) to review paperwork for compliance and enforcement.  It might take them 30-60 minutes per application, but you need to ask the states directly.

            # Table 14.  Only EPA can give feedback on whether these time and cost estimates are accurate.

            # Tables 16 and 17 are probably low, given that these are some missing costs (see above), and underestimates of how long some of these documentation requirements take.
                  o Agency Response:  Please see the Agency's responses to the other points on question 4 made by respondent B.

      A. Table 6, Posting: posting large fields take a long time (2 hours for measuring, mapping, and posting).

                  o Agency Response:  The Agency has changed this to 1 hour for posting and removal.

          Table 6, FMP: It is true that it takes 12 hours for the initial FMP, but it might take 3 to 6 hours the next year.  If the area is slightly changed, then a minimum of 6 hours is needed.

                  o Agency Response:  Please see the Agency's response on FMPs in the response to (4) B.

          Table 10, Fumigant training materials, etc. can have a high cost. My estimates are that the items in Table 10 cost at least twice the listed costs.

                  o Agency Response:  The Agency acknowledges the high cost of fumigant training materials, which is why the estimate in Table 10 is actually multiplied by the number of registrant task forces to yield the total registrant burden for fumigant training.  Additionally, while the Agency has required the availability of Applicator Training that must include certain elements, the ICR does not account for activities that exceed the Agency required elements.

      A. Arkema (uses a percentage of) the time of one employee to conduct the applicator training (and the cost is greater than that listed in the table).

                  o Agency Response:  Please see the Agency's response to the cost of fumigant training materials directly before this comment.

      A. There are some areas that need further consideration as follows:
         * Table 6, Page 14 has the assumption that reading the label has a burden of (1/2) hour per year. As the metam labels are 68 pages in length, this estimate is very low.  Also, applicators may be involved in multiple applications over the course of the season/year. A more reasonable estimate would be 2-3 hours.
         * Table 6, Page 14 indicates (1/2) hour to post field signs.  However, sign removal is not accounted for.  Sign removal requires a separate, specific trip to remove the signs.  An additional 1 hour of labor as well as fuel and transportation costs should be added.

                  o Agency Response:  The Agency has changed the "reading the label" activity to "Understand Requirements" as discussed in 4, bullet 3, response to B.  The Agency has changed the posting burden to 1 hour for posting and removal.

 iv.	Are there other costs that should be accounted for that may have been missed?

      A. On page 15, the EPA is not correct to assume fumigation occurs once every two years.

                  o Agency Response:  The Agency's assumption is per fumigated field.

          On page 15, the EPA needs to define what they are determining as a fumigant application because it appears that this document is assuming that a single fumigant application equals a single FMP.  I think the EPA is underestimating the number of subsequent FMPs being developed.  I may have 3 or more FMP for any day of fumigation.

                  o Agency Response:  The Agency would like to clarify that it intends for one FMP to be developed for each application.  There could be multiple applications being conducted during one day.

          Page 15, there are far more handlers per certified applicator than 3:1.  In my program, I have a 12:2 ratio and it is likely a larger ratio with growers.

                  o Agency Response:  The Agency notes that 3:1 was taken as an average, but it will depend on the fumigant used and application method.  For example, metam shank applications may be made by the one certified applicator on site.

          I really cannot comment on registrant burden and costs but you are not calculating in the time that Extension will be required to respond to the newly required community outreach program.  The time to address community concerns such as educational circular/bulletin will likely be significant if this process is not handled very carefully.

                  o Agency Response:  The community outreach program targets specific emergency responders and poison control and should not place any additional burden on extension agents.

          Cannot respond to state burden but again the assumption of one fumigant application every two years is not accurate.

                  o Agency Response:  The Agency's assumption is per fumigated field.

      A. See bullets points above.

      A. I cannot think of any other items beyond what is mentioned in the ICR.

      A. There are expenses associated with on line training that were not "capital" but include outside cost to develop the on-line training program (ex: annual maintenance cost for the on-line service).

                  o Agency Response:  The Agency has modified Table 10 to include 10 technical hours for maintenance and distribution.

      A. Registrant burden includes activities not directly covered.
      * Registrants provide training outside of the "Achieva" training and also are involved in other sponsored training programs by the States.  A company representative attended 9 such seminars in Washington, Oregon and Idaho.  These seminars are well attended and 3-4 hours in length.  The purpose for the company representatives being present are to be available to handle questions that other trainers may not be able to answer.  Travel costs to attend these seminars also need to be considered.

                  o Agency Response:  Additional training registrants provide voluntarily (i.e. any fumigant training other than the certified applicator training) is not required by the fumigant REDs, and are therefore outside of the scope of this ICR.

      * It is planned that registrant personnel will review all training materials on an annual basis to assure that any additions or changes are included in the training materials for the coming season. It is estimated that this review will require 15-20 hours to develop.

                  o Agency Response:  The Agency has modified Table 10 to include 10 technical hours for maintenance and distribution. This is in addition to the 12 clerical hours already listed in the table.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31964-31965]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14476]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER17-1937-000]

Robinson Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Robinson Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is July 25, 2017.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies

of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 5, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-14476 Filed 7-10-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 29, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34139-34141]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13771]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2021-0177; FRL-10024-83-Region 6]

Air Plan Approval; Texas; Clean Air Act Requirements for
Emissions Inventories for Nonattainment Areas for the 2015 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the
portions of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State
of Texas to meet the Emissions Inventory (EI) requirements of the
Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), for the Dallas-Fort Worth
(DFW), Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB), and Bexar County ozone
nonattainment areas for the 2015 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS). EPA is approving this action pursuant to
section 110 and part D of the CAA and EPA's regulations.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 29, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action Docket No.
EPA-R06-OAR-2021-0177. All documents in the docket are listed on the
https://www.regulations.gov. 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 and will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nevine Salem, EPA Region 6 Office,
Infrastructure and Ozone Section,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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 wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

I. Background

    On March 26, 2021 (86 FR 16171), the EPA published a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of Texas, for approval of the
State's 2017 base year emissions inventories for the DFW, HGB, and the
Bexar County marginal ozone nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. The background for this action and rational for EPA's proposed
action are explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here.

II. Response to Comments

    We received one anonymous comment that did not raise any
substantive issues with the proposed rule. The comment did not explain
(or provide any legal basis for) how the proposed action should differ
in any way. We determined that the comment is not germane to the final
rulemaking and therefore requires no further response. We also noted a
typographical error in the NPRM--the numbers in Tables 1, 2 and 3 that
summarize the 2017 NOX and VOC emissions inventory

in DFW, HGB and Bexar County marginal nonattainment areas, were
transposed for the On-road Mobile and Non-road Mobile sources. This
correction does not change or affect the total NOX or VOC
emissions in the 2017 emission inventory for these marginal
nonattainment areas for typical ozone season day emissions. In the
interest of good government, we are including the corrected Tables 1, 2
and 3 below. We also note that the original and correct tables were
included in the State's SIP revision submittal and are included in the
docket for this rule making.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A copy of the SIP revision is available online at
www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R06-OAR-2021-0177.

                  Table 1--DFW 2017 Emissions Inventory
                             [Tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Source type                       NOX          VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.........................................        29.90        21.04
Nonpoint (Area)...............................        41.82       293.62
Non-road Mobile...............................        74.79        31.74
On-road Mobile................................       125.13        60.56
                                               -------------------------
    Total.....................................       271.64       406.96
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Table 2--HGB 2017 Emissions Inventory
                             [Tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Source type                       NOX          VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.........................................        97.31        73.34
Nonpoint (Area)...............................        32.12       287.74
Non-road Mobile...............................        86.34        32.29
On-road Mobile................................       101.49        58.65
                                               -------------------------
    Total.....................................       317.26       452.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------

             Table 3--Bexar County 2017 Emissions Inventory
                             [Tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Source type                       NOX          VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.........................................        29.88         3.56
Nonpoint (Area)...............................         6.62        74.61
Non-road Mobile...............................        11.42         7.09
On-road Mobile................................        35.70        20.84
                                               -------------------------
    Total.....................................        83.62       106.10
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the portion of the Texas SIP revisions submitted
on June 24, 2020 to address the emissions inventory requirements for
the DFW, HGB, and Bexar County nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will
not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November
9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and record keeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: June 22, 2021.
David Gray,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 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.

Subpart SS--Texas

0
2. In Sec.  52.2270, the second table in paragraph (e), titled ``EPA
Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the
Texas SIP,'' is amended by adding an entry for ``2017 Emissions
Inventory for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS'' at the end of the table to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2270  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

              EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           State
                                        Applicable       submittal/
      Name of SIP provision           geographic or      effective    EPA approval date          Comments
                                    nonattainment area      date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
2017 Emissions Inventory for the   Dallas-Fort Worth,      June 24,  June 29, 2021
 2015 Ozone NAAQS.                  Houston Galveston-         2020   [Insert Federal
                                    Brazoria, and                     Register citation].
                                    Bexar County Ozone
                                    Nonattainment
                                    Areas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-13771 Filed 6-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P