A. The Submitted Minor NSR Definition of BACT SIP Revision

1. What is the background for the submitted definition of BACT under 30 TAC 116.10(3) as proposed under Docket No. EPAR06OAR 2005TX0025?

2. What is EPA's response to comments on the submitted minor NSR definition of BACT SIP revision?

3. What are the grounds for disapproval of the submitted minor NSR definition of BACT SIP revision?

B. The Submitted AntiBacksliding Major NSR SIP Requirements for the 1hour Ozone NAAQS

1. What is the background for the submitted antibacksliding major NSR SIP requirements for the 1hour ozone NAAQS?

2. What is EPA's response to comments on the submitted anti backsliding major NSR SIP requirements for the 1hour ozone NAAQS? [[Page 56425]]

3. What are the grounds for disapproval of the submitted anti backsliding major NSR SIP requirements for the 1hour ozone NAAQS?

C. The Submitted Major Nonattainment NSR SIP Requirements for the 1997 8hour Ozone NAAQS

1. What is the background for the submitted major nonattainment NSR SIP requirements for the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS?

2. What is EPA's response to comments on the submitted major nonattainment NSR SIP requirements for the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS?

3. What are the grounds for disapproval of the submitted major nonattainment NSR SIP requirements for the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS?

D. The Submitted Major NSR Reform SIP revision for Major NSR with PAL Provisions

1. What is the background for the submitted major NSR reform SIP revision for major NSR with PAL provisions?

2. What is EPA's response to comments on the submitted major NSR reform SIP revision for major NSR with PAL provisions?

3. What are the grounds for disapproval of the submitted major NSR reform SIP revision for major NSR with PAL provisions?

E. The Submitted Non PAL Aspects of the Major NSR SIP Requirements

1. What is the background for the submitted non PAL aspects of the major NSR SIP requirements?

2. What is EPA's response to comments on the submitted non PAL aspects of the major NSR SIP requirements?

3. What are the grounds for disapproval of the submitted nonPAL aspects of the major NSR SIP requirements?

F. The Submitted Minor NSR Standard Permit for Pollution Control Project SIP Revision

1. What is the background for the submitted minor NSR standard permit for pollution control project SIP revision?

2. What is EPA's response to comments on the submitted minor NSR standard permit for pollution control project SIP revision?

3. What are the grounds for disapproval of the submitted minor NSR standard permit for pollution control project SIP revision?

G. No Action on the Revisions to the Definitions under 30 TAC 101.1

H. No Action on Provisions that Implement Section 112(g) of the Act and for Restoring an Explanation that a Portion of 30 TAC 116.115 is not in the SIP Because it Implements Section 112(g) of the Act.

I. No Action on Provision Relating to Emergency and Temporary Orders.

J. Responses to General Comments on the Proposal V. Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is EPA taking?

A. What regulations is EPA disapproving?

We are disapproving the SIP revisions submitted by Texas on June 10, 2005, and February 1, 2006, as not meeting the Act and the 1997 8 hour ozone Major Nonattainment NSR SIP requirements, and as not meeting the Act and Major Nonattainment NSR SIP requirements for the 1hour ozone NAAQS. We are disapproving the SIP revision submitted by Texas on February 1, 2006, as not meeting the Major NSR Reform SIP requirements for PAL provisions and the Major NSR Reform SIP requirements without the PAL provisions. We are disapproving the Standard Permit for PCP submitted February 1, 2006, as not meeting the Act and Minor NSR SIP requirements. We proposed to disapprove the above SIP revision submittals on September 23, 2009 (74 FR 48467). We are disapproving the State's regulatory definition for its Texas Clean Air Act's statutory definition for ``BACT'' that was submitted in 30 TAC 116.10(3) on March 13, 1996, and July 22, 1998, because it is not clearly limited to minor sources and minor modifications. We proposed to disapprove this severable definition of BACT under our action on Qualified Facilities. See 74 FR 48450, at 48463 (September 23, 2009). It is EPA's position that each of these six identified portions in the SIP revision submittals, 8hour ozone, 1hour ozone, PALs, nonPALs, PCP Standard Permit, and Minor NSR definition of BACT, is severable from each other and from the remaining portions of the SIP revision submittals.

We have evaluated the SIP submissions to determine whether they meet the Act and 40 CFR Part 51, and are consistent with EPA's interpretation of the relevant provisions. Based upon our evaluation, EPA has concluded that each of the six portions of the SIP revision submittals, identified below, does not meet the requirements of the Act and 40 CFR part 51. Therefore, each portion of the State submittals is not approvable. As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, where portions of the State submittal are severable, EPA may approve the portions of the submittal that meet the requirements of the Act, take no action on certain portions of the submittal,\1\ and disapprove the portions of the submittal that do not meet the requirements of the Act. When the deficient provisions are not severable from the all of the submitted provisions, EPA must disapprove the submittals, consistent with section 301(a) and 110(k)(3) of the Act. Each of the six portions of the State submittals is severable from each other. Therefore, EPA is disapproving each of the following severable provisions of the submittals:
\1\ In this action, we are taking no action on certain provisions that are either outside the scope of the SIP or which revise an earlier submittal of a base regulation that is currently undergoing review for appropriate action.

The provisions in these submittals for each of the six portions of the SIP revision submittals were not submitted to meet a mandatory requirement of the Act. Therefore, this final action to disapprove the submitted six portions of the State submittals does not trigger a sanctions or Federal Implementation Plan clock. See CAA section 179(a). B. What other actions is EPA taking?

EPA is taking action in a separate rulemaking action published in today's Federal Register on the severable revisions that relate to Prevention of Significant Deterioration. The affected provision that is being acted upon separately in today's Federal Register is 30 TAC 116.160.

We are taking no action on 30 TAC 116.400, 116.402, 116.404, and 116.406, submitted February 1, 2006. These provisions implement section 112(g) of the Act, which is outside the scope of the SIP. We are also making an administrative correction relating to 30 TAC
116.115(c)(2)(B)(ii)(I). In our 2002 approval of 30 TAC 116.115 we included an explanation in 40 CFR 52.2270(c) that 30 TAC
116.115(c)(2)(B)(ii)(I) is not in the SIP because it implements section 112(g) of the Act, which is outside the scope of the SIP. In a separate action published April 2, 2010 (75 FR 16671), we inadvertently removed the explanation that states that this provision is not part of the SIP.

We are taking no action on severable portions of the June 10, 2005, submittal concerning 30 TAC 101.1 Definitions. We will take action on these portions of the submittal in a later rulemaking.

Finally, we are taking no action on severable portions of the February 1, 2006, submittal which relate to
[[Page 56426]]
Emergency and Temporary Orders. We will take action on these portions of the submittal in a later rulemaking.
II. What is the background?

A. Summary of Our Proposed Action

On September 23, 2009, under Docket No. EPAR06OAR0133, EPA proposed to disapprove revisions to the SIP submitted by the State of Texas that relate to revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP); (1) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), (2) Nonattainment NSR (NNSR) for the 1997 8Hour Ozone Standard, (3) NNSR for the 1Hour Ozone Standard, (4) Major NSR Reform for PAL provisions, (5) The Major NSR Reform SIP requirements without the PAL provisions and (6) The Standard Permit for PCP. See 74 FR 48467. These affected provisions that we proposed to disapprove were 30 TAC 116.12, 116.121, 116.150, 116.151, 116.160, 116.180, 116.182, 116.184, 116.186, 116.188, 116.190, 116.192, 116.194, 116.196, 116.198, 116.610(a), and 116.617 under Chapter 116, Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification. EPA also proposed on September 23, 2009, under Docket No. EPAR06OAR2005TX0025 (see 74 FR 48450, at 48463 48464), to disapprove a revision to the SIP submitted by the State that relates to the State's Minor NSR definition of BACT. The affected definition that we proposed to disapprove was 30 TAC 116.10(3). See 74 FR 48450, at 4846348464. EPA finds that each of these six submitted provisions is severable from each other. EPA also finds that the submitted definition is severable from the other submittals.

EPA is taking action in a separate rulemaking action published in today's Federal Register on the severable revisions that relate to Prevention of Significant Deterioration. The affected provision that is being acted upon separately in today's Federal Register is 30 TAC 116.160.

EPA proposed on September 23, 2009, under Docket No. EPAR06OAR 0133, no action on the following regulations:

Tables 1 and 2 below summarize the changes that are in the SIP revision submittals. A summary of EPA's evaluation of each section and the basis for this final action is discussed in sections III through V of this preamble. The TSD (which is in the docket) includes a detailed evaluation of the submittals.
Table 1Summary of Each SIP Submittal That Is Affected by This Action Date Date of Title of SIP submittal submitted state Regulations affected in this action to EPA adoption Qualified Facilities and Modification to 3/13/1996 2/14/1996 30 TAC 116.10definition of ``BACT''. Existing Facilities.
NSR Rule Revisions; section 112(g) Rule Review 7/22/1998 6/17/1998 30 TAC 116.10(3)definition of for Chapter 116. ``BACT''. New Source Review for EightHour Ozone 6/10/2005 5/25/2005 30 TAC 116.12 and 115.150. Standard.
Federal New Source Review Permit Rules Reform. 2/1/2006 1/11/2006 30 TAC 116.12, 116.121, 116.150, 116.151, 116.180, 116.182, 116.184, 116.186, 116.188, 116.190, 116.192, 116.194, 116.196, 116.198, 116.400, 116.402, 116.404, 116.406, 116.610, 116.617, and 116.1200. Table 2Summary of Each Regulation That Is Affected by This Action Submittal Section Title dates Description of change Final action Chapter 116Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification Subchapter ADefinitions 30 TAC 116.10(3)............... Definition of ``BACT'' 3/13/1996 Added new definition.. Disapproval. 7/22/1998 Repealed and a new definition submitted as paragraph (3). 30 TAC 116.12.................. Nonattainment Review 6/10/2005 Changed several Disapproval. Definitions. definitions to implement Federal phase I rule implementing 8hour ozone standard. Nonattainment Review 2/1/2006 Renamed section and Disapproval. and Prevention of added and revised Significant definitions to Deterioration implement Federal NSR Definitions. Reform regulations. Subchapter BNew Source Review Permits Division 1Permit Application 30 TAC 116.121................. Actual to Projected 2/1/2006 New Section........... Disapproval. Actual Test for
Emissions Increase.
[[Page 56427]]
Division 5Nonattainment Review 30 TAC 116.150................. New Major Source or 6/10/2005 Revised section to Disapproval. Major Modification in implement Federal Ozone Nonattainment phase I rule Area. implementing 8hour ozone standard.
2/1/2006 Revised section to Disapproval. implement Federal NSR Reform regulations.
30 TAC 116.151................. New Major Source or 2/1/2006 Revised section to Disapproval. Major Modification in implement Federal NSR Nonattainment Areas Reform regulations. Other Than Ozone.
Subchapter CPlantWide Applicability Limits Division 1PlantWide Applicability Limits 30 TAC 116.180................. Applicability......... 2/1/2006 New Section........... Disapproval. 30 TAC 116.182................. PlantWide 2/1/2006 New Section........... Disapproval. Applicability Limit
Permit Application.
30 TAC 116.184................. Application Review 2/1/2006 New Section........... Disapproval. Schedule.
30 TAC 116.186................. General and Special 2/1/2006 New Section........... Disapproval. Conditions.
30 TAC 116.188................. PlantWide 2/1/2006 New Section........... Disapproval. Applicability Limit.
30 TAC 116.190................. Federal Nonattainment 2/1/2006 New Section........... Disapproval. and Prevention of
Significant
Deterioration Review.
30 TAC 116.192................. Amendments and 2/1/2006 New Section........... Disapproval. Alterations.
30 TAC 116.194................. Public Notice and 2/1/2006 New Section........... Disapproval. Comment.
30 TAC 116.196................. Renewal of a Plant 2/1/2006 New Section........... Disapproval. Wide Applicability
Limit Permit.
30 TAC 116.198................. Expiration and 2/1/2006 New Section........... Disapproval. Voidance.
Subchapter EHazardous Air Pollutants: Regulations Governing Constructed and Reconstructed Sources (FCAA, Sec. 112(g), 40 CFR Part 63) \a\ 30 TAC 116.400................. Applicability......... 2/1/2006 Recodification from No action. section 116.180. 30 TAC 116.402................. Exclusions............ 2/1/2006 Recodification from No action. section 116.181. 30 TAC 116.404................. Application........... 2/1/2006 Recodification from No action. section 116.182. 30 TAC 116.406................. Public Notice 2/1/2006 Recodification from No action. Requirements. section 116.183. Subchapter FStandard Permits 30 TAC 116.610................. Applicability......... 2/1/2006 Revised paragraphs Disapproval of (a), (a)(1) through paragraph (a) (a)(5), (b), and (d) No action on \b\. paragraph (d) 30 TAC 116.617................. State Pollution 2/1/2006 Replaced former 30 TAC Disapproval. Control Project 116.617Standard Standard Permit. Permit for Pollution Control Projects \c\. Subchapter KEmergency Orders \d\ 30 TAC 116.1200................ Applicability......... 2/1/2006 Recodification from 30 No action. TAC 116.410. \a\ Recodification of former Subchapter C. These provisions are not SIPapproved. \b\ 30 TAC 116.610(d) is not SIPapproved.
\c\ 30 TAC 116.617 is not SIPapproved.
\d\ Recodification of former Subchapter E. These provisions are not SIPapproved. C. Other Relevant Actions on the Texas Permitting SIP Revision Submittals

Final action on the submitted Major NSR SIP elements and the Standard Permit is required by August 31, 2010, as provided in the Consent Decree entered on January 21, 2010 in BCCA Appeal Group v. EPA, Case No. 3:08cv01491N (N.D. Tex). As required by the Consent Decree, EPA published its final actions for the following SIP revisions: (1) Texas Qualified Facilities
[[Page 56428]]
Program and its associated General Definitions on April 14, 2010 (See 75 FR 19467); and (2) Texas Flexible Permits Program on July 15, 2010 (See 75 FR 41311).

TCEQ submitted on July 16, 2010, a proposed SIP revision addressing the PSD SIP requirements. We are acting upon the previous PSD SIP revision submittal of February 1, 2006, and the newly submitted PSD SIP revision in a separate rulemaking. Additionally, EPA acknowledges that TCEQ is developing a proposed rulemaking package to address EPA's concerns with revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP); Nonattainment NSR (NNSR) for the 1997 8Hour Ozone Standard and the 1Hour Ozone Standard, NSR Reform, and the PCP Standard Permit. We will, of course, consider any rule changes if and when they are submitted to EPA for review. However, the rules before us today are those of Texas's current 1997 8Hour Ozone Standard NNSR Program, 1Hour Ozone Standard NNSR Program, NSR Reform Program, PCP Standard Permit, and we have concluded that these current Programs are not approvable for the reasons set out in this notice.
III. Did we receive public comments on the proposed rulemaking?

In response to our September 23, 2009, proposal, we received comments from the following: Association of Electric Companies of Texas (AECT); Austin Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR); Baker Botts, L.L.P., on behalf of BCCA Appeal Group (BCCA); Baker Botts, L.L.P., on behalf of Texas Industrial Project (TIP); Bracewell & Guiliani, L.L.P., on behalf of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council (ERCC); Citizens of Grayson County; Gulf Coast Lignite Coalition (GCLC); Office of the MayorCity of Houston, Texas (City of Houston); Harris County Public Health and Environmental Services (HCPHES); Sierra ClubHouston Regional Group (Sierra Club); Sierra Club Membership Services (including 2,062 individual comment letters) (SCMS); Texas Chemical Council (TCC); Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ); Texas Association Business; Members of the Texas House of Representatives; Texas Association of Business (TAB); Texas Oil and Gas Association (TxOGA); and University of Texas at Austin School of LawEnvironmental Clinic (the Clinic) on behalf of Environmental Integrity Project, Environmental Defense Fund, GalvestonHouston Association for Smog Prevention, Public Citizen, Citizens for Environmental Justice, Sierra Club Lone Star Chapter, CommunityInPower and Development Association, KIDS for Clean Air, Clean Air Institute of Texas, Sustainable Energy and Economic Development Coalition, Robertson County: Our Land, Our Lives, Texas Protecting Our Land, Water and Environment, Citizens for a Clean Environment, MultiCounty Coalition, and Citizens Opposing Power Plants for Clean Air.

We respond to these comments in our evaluation and review under this final action in section IV below.

IV. What are the grounds for these actions?

This section includes EPA's evaluation of each part of the submitted rules. The evaluation is organized as follows: (1) A discussion of the background of the submitted rules; (2) a summary and response to each comment received on the submitted rule; and (3) the grounds for final action on each rule.
A. The Submitted Minor NSR State BACT Definition SIP Revision

EPA proposed to disapprove this severable definition of BACT in 30 TAC 116.10(3), submitted March 13, 1996, and July 22, 1998, when EPA proposed to disapprove the Texas Qualified Facilities Program (under Docket No. EPAR06OAR2005TX0025). See 74 FR 48450, at 4846348464. The submittals on March 13, 1996, and July 22, 1998, include a new regulatory definition for the Texas Clean Air Act's definition of ``BACT,'' defining it as BACT with consideration given to the technical practicability and economical reasonableness of reducing or eliminating emissions.
1. What is the background for the submitted definition of BACT under 30 TAC 116.10(3) as proposed under Docket No. EPAR06OAR2005TX0025?

On July 27, 1972, the State of Texas revised its January 1972 permitting rules, then Regulation VI at rule 603.16, to add the Texas Clean Air Act statutory requirement that a proposed new facility and proposed modification utilize BACT, with consideration to the technical practicability and economical reasonableness of reducing or eliminating the emissions from the facility. EPA approved the revised 603.16 into the Texas SIP \2\ and that provision is presently codified in the Texas SIP at 30 TAC 116.111(a)(2)(C).
\2\ The January 1972 Texas NSR rules, as revised in July 1972, require a proposed new facility or modification to utilize ``best available control technology, with consideration to the technical practicability and economic reasonableness of reducing or
eliminating the emissions resulting from the facility.'' This definition of BACT is from the Texas Clean Air Act. EPA approved this into the Texas NSR SIP possibly in the 1970's and definitely on August 13, 1982 (47 FR 35193). When EPA approved the Texas PSD program SIP revision submittals, including the State's incorporation by reference of the Federal definition of PSD BACT, in 1992, both EPA and Texas interpreted the use of the TCAA BACT definition to be for Minor NSR SIP permitting purposes only. EPA specifically found that the State's TCAA BACT definition did not meet the Federal PSD BACT definition. We required the use of the Federal PSD BACT definition for PSD SIP permitting purposes. See the proposal and final approval of the Texas PSD SIP at 54 FR 52823 (December 22, 1989) and 57 FR 28093 (June 24, 1992).

The Texas NSR SIP includes not only the PSD BACT definition \3\ but also a requirement for a source to perform a BACT analysis. See 30 TAC 116.111(a)(2)(C). EPA relied upon this SIP provision in its 1992 original approval of the Texas PSD SIP as meeting the PSD requirement of 40 CFR 52.21(j). See 54 FR 52823, at 5282452825, and 57 FR 28093, at 2809628096. Both Texas and EPA interpreted this SIP provision to require either a Minor NSR BACT determination or a Major PSD BACT determination. Since EPA's approval of the Texas PSD SIP in 1992, there has been some confusion about the distinction between a State Minor NSR BACT definition and a PSD Major NSR BACT definition and the requirement that a source must perform the relevant BACT analysis.
\3\ Texas's current PSD SIP incorporates by reference the Federal PSD definition of BACT in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(12). See current SIP at 30 TAC 116.160(a). On February 1, 2006, TCEQ submitted a revision that reorganized 30 TAC 116.160 and removed the reference to the BACT definition. On September 23, 2009, EPA proposed to disapprove the 2006 revision to section 116, because of the removal of the reference to the Federal PSD BACT definition. On July 16, 2010, Texas submitted a revision to section 116.160 that reinstated the reference to the PSD BACT definition in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(12). See 30 TAC 116.160(c)(1)(A), submitted July 16, 2010. EPA is addressing the 2006 and 2010 revisions to 30 TAC 116.160 in a separate action published in today's Federal Register.

TCEQ in 1996 submitted a regulatory definition of the TCAA BACT statutory provision but failed to distinguish the submitted regulatory BACT definition as the Minor NSR BACT definition. See the proposed disapproval of the BACT definition in 30 TAC 116.10(3) at 74 FR 48450, at 40453 (footnote 2), 4846348464, TCEQ's proposed revisions to its Qualified Facilities Program rulemaking, and EPA's June 7, 2010, comment letter on TCEQ's Qualified Facilities Program, for further information.
[[Page 56429]]
2. What is EPA's response to comments on the submitted Minor NSR definition of BACT SIP revision?

Comment 1: TCEQ commented (under Docket No. EPAR06OAR2005TX 0025) on the proposed disapproval of BACT in the Qualified Facilities proposal that it will consider EPA's comments in connection with its disapproval of the definition of BACT and plans to revise its definition of BACT to correct the deficiencies identified in the proposal.

Response: EPA acknowledges TCEQ's consideration of our comments regarding our disapproval of the definition of BACT as well as TCEQ's plans to revise its definition of BACT to correct the deficiencies identified in our proposal. TCEQ proposed to revise this definition on March 30, 2010. On June 7, 2010, we forwarded comments to TCEQ on this proposed rule. In our comments, we stated that the definition of the TCAA BACT must be revised to indicate more clearly that the definition is for any air contaminant or facility that is not subject to the Federal permitting requirements for PSD. The proposed substantive revisions to the regulatory definition are acceptable. Nonetheless, as we explained in our comment letter, we believe that the TCAA BACT regulatory definition should be given a distinguishable name, e.g., State, Texas, Minor NSR Best Available Control Technology. We recognize that the State must continue to use the term BACT since it is in the TCAA; we believe that TCEQ could add before ``BACT'' however, Texas, State, or Minor NSR, to clearly distinguish this BACT definition from the Federal PSD BACT definition.

Comment 2: The Clinic commented (under Docket No. EPAR06OAR2005 TX0025) on the proposed disapproval and agrees that this definition cannot be substituted for the Federal definition of BACT for purposes of PSD. The Clinic further comments that rather than limiting the applicability of the definition of ``Texas BACT'' to minor sources and modifications, Texas should use a different acronym for its minor NSR technology requirement. The use of dual definitions of BACT within the same program is too confusing, as evidenced by the ongoing application of Texas BACT in the Texas PSD permitting proceedings.

Response: EPA agrees with the Clinic that the TCAA BACT regulatory definition cannot be substituted for the Federal definition of PSD BACT. EPA takes note of the Clinic's comment regarding the dual use of the definition of ``Texas BACT'' within the same program and ensuing confusion. See Response to Comment 1 above for further information. 3. What are the grounds for disapproval of the submitted Minor NSR definition of BACT SIP revision?

EPA is disapproving the submitted definition of BACT under 30 TAC 116.10(3) as proposed under Docket No. EPAR06OAR2005TX0025. EPA proposed to disapprove this severable definition of BACT in 30 TAC 116.10(3), submitted March 13, 1996, and July 22, 1998, when EPA proposed to disapprove the submitted Texas SIP revisions for Modification of Existing Qualified Facilities Program and General Definitions (under Docket No. EPAR06OAR2005TX0025). See 74 FR 48450, at 4846348464.

EPA received comments from TCEQ and the Clinic regarding the proposed disapproval of this submitted definition as a revision to the Texas NSR SIP. See our response to these comments in section IV.A.2 above. The submitted regulatory BACT definition of the TCAA provision at 30 TAC 116.10(3) fails to apply clearly only for minor sources and minor modifications at major stationary sources. See the proposed disapproval of the BACT definition in 30 TAC 116.10(3) at 74 FR 48450, at 40453 (footnote 2), 4846348464, TCEQ Qualified Facilities proposal, and EPA's Qualified Facilities comment letter, for further information. Moreover, we strongly recommend, as suggested in comments from the Clinic, that Texas adopt a prefatory term before its TCAA BACT definition, e.g., State, Texas, or Minor NSR, to avoid any confusion with the term BACT as used by the CAA and the major source PSD program. B. The Submitted AntiBacksliding Major NSR SIP Requirements for the 1 Hour Ozone NAAQS
1. What is the background for the submitted antibacksliding Major NSR SIP requirements for the 1hour ozone NAAQS?

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a new NAAQS for ozone based upon 8hour average concentrations. The 8hour averaging period replaced the previous 1hour averaging period, and the level of NAAQS was changed from 0.12 parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm (62 FR 38865).\4\ On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951), we published a final rule that addressed key elements related to implementation of the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS including, but not limited to: revocation of the 1hour NAAQS and how antibacksliding principles will ensure continued progress toward attainment of the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS. We codified the anti backsliding provisions governing the transition from the revoked 1hour ozone NAAQS to the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS in 40 CFR 51.905(a). The 1 hour ozone major nonattainment NSR SIP requirements indicated that certain 1hour ozone standard requirements were not part of the list of antibacksliding requirements provided in 40 CFR 51.905(f).
\4\ On March 12, 2008, EPA significantly strengthened the 1997 8hour ozone standard, to a level of 0.075 ppm. EPA is developing rules needed for implementing the 2008 revised 8hour ozone standard and has received the States' submittals identifying areas with their boundaries they identify to be designated nonattainment. EPA is reviewing the States' submitted data.

On December 22, 2006, the DC Circuit vacated the Phase 1 Implementation Rule in its entirety. South Coast Air Quality Management District, et al., v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 2006), reh'g denied 489 F.3d 1245 (2007) (clarifying that the vacatur was limited to the issues on which the court granted the petitions for review). EPA requested rehearing and clarification of the ruling and on June 8, 2007, the Court clarified that it was vacating the rule only to the extent that it had upheld petitioners' challenges. Thus, the Court vacated the provisions in 40 CFR 51.905(e) that waived obligations under the revoked 1hour standard for NSR. The court's ruling, therefore, maintains major nonattainment NSR applicability thresholds and emission offsets pursuant to classifications previously in effect for areas designated nonattainment for the 1hour ozone NAAQS.

On June 10, 2005 and February 1, 2006, Texas submitted SIP revisions to 30 TAC 116.12 and 30 TAC 116.150 which relate to the transition from the major nonattainment NSR requirements applicable for the 1hour ozone NAAQS to implementation of the major nonattainment NSR requirements applicable to the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS. Texas's revisions at 30 TAC 116.12(18) (Footnote 6 under Table I under the definition of ``major modification'') and 30 TAC 116.150(d) introductory paragraph, effective as State law on June 15, 2005, provide that for ``the HoustonGalvestonBrazoria, DallasFort Worth, and BeaumontPort Arthur eight hour ozone nonattainment areas, if the United States Environmental Protection Agency promulgates rules requiring new source review permit applications in these areas to be evaluated for nonattainment new source review according to the area's onehour standard classification,'' then ``each application will be evaluated
[[Page 56430]]
according to that area's onehour standard classification'' and ``* * * the de minimis threshold test (netting) is required for all modifications to existing major sources of VOC or NOX in that area * * *.'' The footnote 6 and the introductory paragraph add a new requirement for an affirmative regulatory action by EPA on the reinstatement of the 1hour ozone NAAQS major nonattainment NSR requirements before the legally applicable major nonattainment NSR requirements under the 1hour ozone standard will be implemented in the Texas 1hour ozone nonattainment areas.

The currently approved Texas major nonattainment NSR SIP does not require such an affirmative regulatory action by EPA before the 1hour ozone major nonattainment NSR requirements come into effect in the Texas 1hour ozone nonattainment areas. The current SIP states at 30 TAC 116.12(18) (Footnote 1 under Table I) that ``Texas nonattainment area designations are specified in 40 Code of Federal Regulations Sec. 81.344.'' That section includes designations for the onehour standard as well as the eighthour standard. Moreover, the submitted revisions to 30 TAC 116.12(18) and 116.150(d) do not comport with the South Coast decision as discussed above.

The court opinion maintains the lower applicability thresholds and more stringent offset ratios for a 1hour ozone nonattainment area whose classification under that standard was higher than its nonattainment classification under the 8hour standard. In the submitted rule revision, the lower applicability thresholds and more stringent offset ratios for a classified 1hour ozone nonattainment area would not be required in a Texas 1hour ozone nonattainment area unless and until EPA promulgated a rulemaking implementing the South Coast decision. Although EPA proposed that the Texas revision relaxes the requirements of the approved SIP and we stated that EPA lacks sufficient information to determine whether this relaxation would not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the Act (see 74 FR 48467, at 48473) we have now determined that it is unnecessary to reach this issue because the revision nonetheless fails to comply with the CAA, whereas, the existing approved SIP meets CAA requirements.
2. What is EPA's response to comments on the submitted antibacksliding Major NSR SIP requirements for the 1Hour Ozone NAAQS?

Comment 1: TCEQ commented that the antibacksliding issue associated with the status of the requirements for compliance with the 1hour ozone NAAQS with the implementation of the 8hour ozone NAAQS was delayed by litigation that took several years to become final. TCEQ adopted changes to 30 TAC 116.12(18) in June, 2005, prior to the resolution of the litigation. After the South Coast decision, EPA subsequently stated it would conduct rulemaking to address the 1hour ozone NAAQS requirements.\5\ TCEQ commits to work with EPA to ensure that the rule is revised to comply with current law.
\5\ See New Source Review (NSR) Aspects of the Decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on the Phase I Rule to Implement the 8Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), from Robert J. Meyers, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, to EPA Regional Administrators, dated October 3, 2007. This memorandum is in the docket for this action numbered EPAR06OAR200601330007 and is available at: http:// www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/
home.html#documentDetail?R=09000064801987ff.

Response: EPA acknowledges TCEQ's commitment to revise its State rules to implement the Major NSR antibacksliding requirement. However, the 2007 Meyers Memorandum cited in the comment did not indicate that States should await EPA rulemaking before taking any necessary steps to comply with the South Coast decision. Rather, the memorandum encouraged the Regions to ``have States comply with the court decision as quickly as possible.'' The memorandum's reference to ``rulemaking to conform our NSR regulations to the court's decision'' was not intended to suggest that States could simply ignore the court's decision until EPA had updated its regulations to reflect the vacatur.

Comment 2: The Clinic commented that Texas rules limit enforcement of the 1hour ozone NAAQS in violation of South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA. As a result of this decision, States must immediately comply with the formerly revoked 1hour ozone requirements, including NNSR applicability thresholds and emission offset requirements. Texas rules include two provisions that require EPA to conduct rulemaking before TCEQ can begin enforcing the onehour standard classification requirements for NAAQS. See 30 TAC 116.12(18), Table I, and 116.150(d).

Response: See response to Comment 1.

Comment 3: BCCA, TIP, TCC, commented that the Texas rules regarding the 1hour/8hour transition are neither inconsistent with the CAA, nor the court's decision in South Coast. With its remand to EPA following vacatur of parts of the Phase 1 transition rule, the South Coast court did not offer specific direction concerning implementation of the backsliding requirements as they apply to NSR. However, the court in its Opinion on Petitions for Rehearing ``urged'' EPA ``to act promptly in promulgating a revised rule that effectuates the statutory mandate by implementing the eighthour standard * * *.'' South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1245, 124849 (DC Cir. 2007).

The commenters note that consistent with the court's direction in South Coast, the language of CAA Sec. 172(e) suggests that EPA must take definite action to implement antibacksliding requirements:

If the Administrator relaxes a national primary ambient air quality standard * * * the Administrator shall, within 12 months after the relaxation, promulgate requirements applicable to all areas which have not attained that standard as of the date of such relaxation. Such requirements shall provide for controls which are not less stringent than the controls applicable to areas designated nonattainment before such relaxation.
42 U.S.C. 7502(e) (emphasis added). Commenters claim that an October 2007 memorandum from EPA Deputy Administrator Robert Meyers stated that EPA intends to undertake rulemaking to conform the Agency's NSR regulations to the South Coast decision and yet EPA has not yet proposed such a rule. The footnote 6 and introductory paragraph cited in EPA's proposed disapproval are consistent with CAA Sec. 172(e) and not a basis for disapproval of the proposed SIP revision. TCC stated that it is reasonable for TCEQ to understand that some EPA action is necessary before it proceeds with appropriate rule changes to reinstate the major NNSR applicability thresholds and emission offset requirements, and this is not a rational basis to justify disapproving the State's rules.

Response: EPA disagrees with the claim that States are under no obligation to take steps to comply with the South Coast decision until EPA updates its regulations. Neither the court's vacatur of the provision that waived States' obligation to include in their SIPs NSR provisions meeting the requirements for the 1hour standard nor section 172(e) mandate that EPA promulgate a rule before such a requirement applies.

As EPA provided in the preamble to the Phase 1 Implementation Rule and as
[[Page 56431]]
recognized by the Court in South Coast, CAA Sec. 172(e) does not apply because the 1997 8hour NAAQS was a strengthening, rather than a relaxation, of the 1hour NAAQS. See 69 FR 23951, at 23972 (April 30, 2004); 489 F.3d at 1248. However, in the preamble to the Phase I Implementation Rule, we cited to section 172(e) of the CAA and stated that ``if Congress intended areas to remain subject to the same level of control where a NAAQS was relaxed, they also intended that such controls not be weakened where the NAAQS is made more stringent.'' See 69 FR 23951, at 23972 (April 30, 2004). Thus, even if, as suggested upon revocation of a standard in the absence of an EPA rule retaining them pursuant to section 172(e), that would hold true only where section 172(e) directly applied, i.e., where EPA had promulgated a less stringent NAAQS. Regardless, EPA disagrees with that interpretation of section 172(e). Rather, EPA interprets the CAA as retaining requirements applicable to any area, but allowing EPA through rulemaking to develop alternatives approaches or processes that would apply, so long as such alternatives ensure that the requirements are no less stringent than what applies under the Act. Thus, in the case, once the Court vacated EPA determination under the principles of section 172(e) that NSR as it applied for the 1hour NAAQS should no longer apply, that requirement, as established under the CAA, once again applied. We do not believe that the interpretation suggested by the commenters is a reasonable interpretation as it would allow areas to discontinue implementing measures mandated by Congress with respect to a revoked standard in the absence of EPA rulemaking specifically retaining such obligations. Such a result would be counter to the healthprotective goals of the CAA and inconsistent with the South Coast decision, which upheld EPA's authority to revoke standards but only where adequate antibacksliding requirements were in place.

Nor do we believe that the language cited by the commenter from the South Coast decision supports their claim that rulemaking is necessary before the statutory 1hour NSR requirement applies. The quoted language from the court's opinion immediately follows a sentence that pertains to the classification issue that was decided by the Court. Specifically, the Court notes that some parties objected to a partial vacatur of the rule because it would ``inequitably exempt Subpart 1 areas from regulation while the remand is pending.'' See 489 F.3d at 1248. In other words, certain States with areas subject to subpart 2 claimed it would be inequitable for such areas to remain subject to planning obligations while subpart 1 areas would be ``exempt.'' The Court responded by saying that a complete vacatur ``would only serve to stall progress where it is most needed'' and then urges EPA ``to act promptly in promulgating a revised rule.'' See 489 F.3d at 1248. Thus, this portion of the opinion expressly addressed the need for EPA to promulgate a rule quickly so that areas that had been classified as subpart 1 would no longer be ``exempt'' from planning requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, which requirements are linked to whether an area is subject only to subpart 1 or also subpart 2 and to an area's classification under subpart 2.

For these reasons, the effect of the portion of the court's ruling that vacated the waiver of the 1hour NSR obligation is to restore the statutory obligation for areas that were nonattainment for the 1hour standard at the time of designation for the 1997 8hour standard to include in their SIPs major nonattainment NSR applicability thresholds and emission offsets pursuant to the area's classifications for the 1 hour ozone NAAQS at the time of designation for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

In addition, the Court specifically concluded that withdrawing 1 hour NSR from a SIP ``would constitute impermissible backsliding.'' See 472 F.3d at 900. Thus, it would be inconsistent with the South Coast decision for Texas to withdraw the 1hour NSR applicability thresholds and emission offsets from its SIP. Texas's proposed addition of SIP language conditioning implementation of the 1hour NSR thresholds and offsets on an affirmative regulatory action by EPA would be equivalent, in terms of human health impact, to a temporary withdrawal of those requirements from the SIP, and therefore would be inconsistent with the Court's decision.

Finally, we note that the 2007 Meyers Memorandum cited in the comment did not indicate that States should await EPA rulemaking before taking any necessary steps to comply with the South Coast decision. Rather, the memorandum encouraged the Regions to ``have States comply with the court decision as quickly as possible.'' The memorandum's reference to ``rulemaking to conform our NSR regulations to the court's decision'' was not intended to suggest that States could simply ignore the court's decision until EPA had updated its regulations to reflect the vacatur. EPA proposed to remove the vacated provisions from its regulations on January 16, 2009 (74 FR 2936).
3. What are the grounds for disapproval of the submitted anti backsliding Major NSR SIP requirements for the 1hour ozone NAAQS?

EPA is disapproving the submitted AntiBacksliding Major NSR SIP revisions for the 1hour ozone NAAQS. This includes the SIP revisions submitted June 10, 2005, and February 1, 2006, with changes to 30 TAC 116.12 and 30 TAC 116.150 which relate to the transition from the major nonattainment NSR requirements applicable for the 1hour ozone NAAQS to implementation of the major nonattainment NSR requirements applicable to the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS. See section B.1, first three paragraphs, for the information regarding EPA's promulgation of the new 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS, EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule, the court history, and the description of the submitted SIP revisions.

The currently approved Texas major nonattainment NSR SIP does not require such an affirmative regulatory action by EPA before the 1hour ozone major nonattainment NSR requirements can be implemented in the Texas 1hour ozone nonattainment areas. However, the submitted revisions to 30 TAC 116.12(18) and 116.150(d) do not comply with the CAA as interpreted by the Court in the South Coast decision because the opinion does not require further action by EPA with respect to NSR, as discussed above.

EPA received comments from TCEQ, the Clinic, and industry regarding the proposed disapproval of these submitted SIP revisions. See our response to these comments in section IV.B.2 above. We are disapproving the revisions as not meeting part D of the Act as interpreted by the Court in South Coast for the Major NNSR SIP requirements for the 1hour ozone NAAQS. See the proposal at 74 FR 48467, at 4847248473, our background for these submitted SIP revisions in section IV.B.1 above, and our response to comments on these submitted SIP revisions in section IV.B.2 above for additional information.
C. The Submitted Major Nonattainment NSR SIP Requirements for the 1997 8Hour Ozone NAAQS
1. What is the background for the submitted Major Nonattainment NSR SIP requirements for the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS?

EPA interprets its Major NSR SIP rules to require that an applicability
[[Page 56432]]
determination regarding whether Major NSR applies for a pollutant should be based upon the designation of the area in which the source is located on the date of issuance of the Major NSR permit. EPA also interprets the Act and its rules that if an area is designated nonattainment on the date of issuance of a Major NSR permit, then the Major NSR permit must be a NNSR permit, not a PSD permit. If the area is designated attainment/unclassifiable, then under EPA's
interpretation of the Act and its rules, the Major NSR permit must be a PSD permit on the date of issuance. See the following: sections 160, 165, 172(c)(5) and 173 of the Act; 40 CFR 51.165(a)(2)(i) and 51.166(a)(7)(i). EPA's interpretation of these statutory and regulatory requirements is guided by the memorandum issued March 11, 1991, and titled ``New Source Review (NSR) Program Transitional Guidance,'' issued March 11, 1991, by John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standard.\6\
\6\ You can access this document at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/nsr/ gen/nstrans.pdf.

Revised 30 TAC 116.150(a), as submitted June 10, 2005 and February 1, 2006, now reads as follows under State law:
(a) This section applies to all new source review authorizations for new construction or modification of facilities as follows: (1) For all applications for facilities that will be located in any area designated as nonattainment for ozone under 42 United States Code (U.S.C.), 7407 et seq. on the effective date of this section, the issuance date of the authorization; and
(2) For all applications for facilities that will be located in counties for which nonattainment designation for ozone under 42 U.S.C. 7407 et seq. becomes effective after the effective date of this section, the date the application is administratively complete.\7\ \7\ It is our understanding of State law, that a ``facility'' can be an ``emissions unit,'' i.e., any part of a stationary source that emits or may have the potential to emit any air contaminant. A ``facility'' also can be a piece of equipment, which is smaller than an ``emissions unit.'' A ``facility'' can be a ``major stationary source'' as defined by Federal law. A ``facility'' under State law can be more than one ``major stationary source.'' It can include every emissions point on a company site, without limiting these emissions points to only those belonging to the same industrial grouping (SIC code).

The submitted rule raises two concerns. First, the revised language in the submitted 30 TAC 116.150(a) is not clear as to when and where the applicability date will be set by the date the application is administratively complete and when and where the applicability date will be set by the issuance date of the authorization. The rule, adopted and submitted in 2005, applies the date of administrative completeness of a permit application, not the date of permit issuance, where setting the date for determination of NSR applicability after June 15, 2004 (the effective date of ozone nonattainment designations). The submitted 2006 rule adds the date of permit issuance.
Unfortunately, the submitted 2006 rule by introducing a bifurcated structure creates vagueness rather than clarity. The effective date of this new bifurcated structure is February 1, 2006. It is unclear whether this means under subsection (1) that the permit issuance date is used in existing nonattainment areas designated nonattainment for ozone before and up through February 1, 2006. Thus, the proposed revision lacks clarity on its face and is therefore not enforceable.

Second, to the extent that the date of application completeness is used in certain instances to establish the applicability date for Nonattainment NSR requirements, such use is contrary to EPA's interpretation of the governing EPA regulations, as discussed above.

Thus, based upon the above and in the absence of any explanation by the State, EPA proposed to disapprove the SIP revision submittals for not meeting the Major NNSR SIP requirements for the 1997 8hour ozone standard. See the proposal at 74 FR 48467, at 4847348474, for additional information.
2. What is EPA's response to comments on the submitted Major Nonattainment NSR SIP requirements for the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS?

Comment 1: TCEQ commented that in 2006 it had revised the rule to clarify and implement EPA interpretation that the applicability date is the date of permit issuance, as well as provide for the possibility of new nonattainment areas. The 2006 submittal also added a new bifurcated structure to the rule for when applicability is based upon date of submittal of a complete application and when applicability is based upon the date of permit issuance. TCEQ further agrees that this new bifurcated structure is unclear. TCEQ commits to work with EPA to comply with current rule and practice.

Response: EPA acknowledges TCEQ's commitment to revise the rule to clarify and implement EPA's interpretation of the Act that the applicability date is the date of permit issuance for all nonattainment areas, including applicability in newly designated nonattainment areas.

Comment 2: TCEQ, the Clinic, BCC, TIP, and TCC commented on the definition of ``facility'' as used in its submitted Major Nonattainment NSR SIP Requirements for the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS. They also commented on this definition under the evaluation of the Submitted Non PAL Aspects of the Major NSR SIP Requirements in section IV.

Response: See section IV.E.2, Comments 1 through 3, for the comments and EPA's response on the definition of facility.

Comment 3: The Clinic commented that TCEQ's rules fail to require all NSR applicability determinations to be based on the applicable attainment status of an area on the date of permit issuance, as required under the CAA. Texas rule authorize certain sources to construct or modify in a nonattainment area to comply with PSD requirements rather than NNSR requirements if the facility's permit application is administratively complete prior to the area's designation to nonattainment. See 30 TAC 116.150(a). While the rules are vague as to what constitutes the ``effective date of this section,'' 30 TAC 116.150(a)(2) clearly is not approvable because it authorizes facilities to base applicability determination on the area's attainment status as of the date their applications are
administratively complete.

Response: EPA agrees with this comment.

Comment 4: BCCA, TIP, TCC, commented that the applicability cutoff established in TCEQ rules is not inconsistent with the CAA or EPA rules. While it may be inconsistent with EPA's interpretation of that rule language, the use of application completeness as an applicability date is not inconsistent with Part 51 itself. As a result, the applicability cutoff dates, established in 30 TAC 116.150(a), are not appropriate grounds for disapproval of the proposed SIP revision. EPA concerns regarding applicability dates are properly addressed through comments on individual permits, and not through a disapproval of the SIP revision. TCC further commented that TCEQ rules state that for facilities located in areas that are designated nonattainment areas after the effective date of TCEQ rules, the NNSR requirements apply the day the application is administratively complete. The day the application is determined to be administratively complete occurs prior to the issuance date of the permit; therefore, the State's rules are more stringent than the Federal rules in this regard.

Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. The applicability cutoff established in the submitted revision is inconsistent with the CAA and EPA rules. EPA interprets EPA's NSR SIP
[[Page 56433]]
rules to require that an applicability determination regarding whether Major NSR applies for a pollutant should be based upon the attainment or nonattainment designation of the area in which the source is located on the date of issuance of the Major NSR permit. EPA also interprets its rules that if an area is designated nonattainment on the date of issuance of a Major NSR permit, then the Major NSR permit must be a NNSR permit, not a PSD permit. If the area is designated attainment/ unclassifiable, then under EPA's interpretation of the Act and its rules, the Major NSR permit must be a PSD permit on the date of issuance. See the following: sections 160, 165, 172(c)(5) and 173 of the Act; 40 CFR 51.165(a)(2)(i) and 51.166(a)(7)(i). EPA's interpretation of these statutory and regulatory requirements is guided by the memorandum issued March 11, 1991, and titled ``New Source Review (NSR) Program Transitional Guidance,'' issued March 11, 1991, by John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standard. See section IV.C.1 above for further information. The submitted revision provides the regulatory framework for administering individual permits, thus it is necessary to ensure it is consistent with the equivalent Federal requirements. The submitted revision applies the date of administrative completeness of a permit application, not the date of permit issuance, where setting the date for determination of NSR applicability after June 15, 2004 (the effective date of ozone nonattainment designations). The submitted revision also appears to apply the date of permit issuance in existing nonattainment areas designated nonattainment for ozone before and up through February 1, 2006. This regulatory structure creates ambiguity and lacks clarity. Thus, the proposed revision lacks clarity on its face and is therefore not enforceable.
3. What are the grounds for disapproval of the submitted Major Nonattainment NSR SIP requirements for the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS?

EPA is disapproving the submitted Major Nonattainment NSR SIP requirements for the 1997 8hour ozone NAAQS. An applicability determination for a Major Nonattainment NSR (NNSR) permit based upon the date of administrative completeness, rather than date of issuance, would allow more sources to avoid the Major NSR requirements where there is a nonattainment designation between the date of administrative completeness and the date of issuance, and thus this submitted revision will reduce the number of sources subject to Major NNSR requirements. The submitted revised rule does not apply the date of permit issuance in all cases and therefore violates the Act, as discussed previously.

The submitted revised 2006 rule by introducing a bifurcated structure creates vagueness rather than clarity. The effective date of this new bifurcated structure is February 1, 2006. Thus, the proposed revision lacks clarity on its face and is therefore not enforceable.

EPA received comments from TCEQ, the Clinic, and industry regarding the proposed disapproval of these submitted SIP revisions. See our response to these comments in section IV.C.2 above. See the proposal at 74 FR 48467, at 4847348474, our background for these submitted SIP revisions in section IV.C.1 above, and our response to comments on these submitted SIP revisions in section IV.C.2 above for additional information.
D. The Submitted Major NSR Reform SIP Revision for Major NSR With PAL Provisions
1. What is the background for the submitted Major NSR reform SIP revision for Major NSR with PAL provisions?

We proposed to disapprove the following nonseverable revisions that address the revised Major NSR SIP requirements with PlantWide Applicability Limitation (PAL) provisions: 30 TAC Chapter 116 submitted February 1, 2006: 30 TAC 116.12Definitions; 30 TAC 116.180
Applicability; 30 TAC 116.182PlantWide Applicability Limit Permit Application; 30 TAC 116.184Application Review Schedule; 30 TAC 116.186General and Special Conditions; 30 TAC 116.188PlantWide Applicability Limit; 30 TAC 116.190Federal Nonattainment and Prevention of Significant Deterioration Review; 30 TAC 116.192 Amendments and Alterations; 30 TAC 116.194Public Notice and Comment; 30 TAC 116.196Renewal of a PlantWide Applicability Limit Permit; 30 TAC 116.198Expiration or Voidance.

We proposed disapproval of the PAL Provisions because of the following:

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

Mr. Stanley M. Spruiell, Air Permits Section (6PDR), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 752022733, telephone (214) 6657212; fax number 2146657263; email address spruiell.stanley@epa.gov.