66626 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

of a category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule involves 

creation of safety zones from mile 38.0 

to mile 46.0, and from mile 78.0 to mile 

81.0 UMR. This rule is categorically 

excluded from further review under 

paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2–1 of the 

Commandant Instruction. An 

environmental analysis checklist and a 

categorical exclusion determination will 

be made available as indicated under 

the ADDRESSES. We seek any comments 

or information that may lead to the 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from this rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1 

■ 2. A new § 165.842 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 165.842 Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi 

River between mile 38.0 and mile 46.0, 

Thebes, IL; and between mile 78.0 and mile 

81.0, Grand Tower, IL. 

(a) Location. The following areas are 

safety zones: All waters of the Upper 

Mississippi River from mile 38.0 to mile 

46.0, Thebes, IL; and from mile 78.0 to 

mile 81.0, Grand Tower, IL, extending 

the entire width of the river. 

(b) Effective dates. These safety zones 

are effective beginning November 10, 

2014. Enforcement times and the 

requirements of this safety zones will be 

noticed as soon as is practicable before 

subsurface rock removal operations 

begin, actual notice will be used and 

additional notices made through 

Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNM), or 

Local Notices to Mariners (LNM). 

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with 

the general regulations in § 165.23 of 

this part, entry into this area is 

prohibited unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port (COTP) Ohio Valley 

or a designated representative. 

(2) The Captain of the Port (COTP) 

Ohio Valley may prescribe, for all or 

specific portions of the safety zones, 

periods of enforcement and minimum 

operational requirements necessary to 

enter, transit through, or stop within the 

safety zone in order to preserve safe 

navigation on the Upper Mississippi 

River during subsurface rock removal 

operations and clearing of vessel queues 

following rock removal operations, 

including, but not limited to, the 

required use of assist vessels; and 

restrictions on the following: 

(i) Tow size; 

(ii) Tow configuration; 

(iii) Vessel/barge draft; 

(iv) Speed; 

(v) Under keel clearance; 

(vi) Hours of transit; and 

(vii) One way traffic. 

(3) All persons and vessels must 

comply with any requirement 

prescribed under paragraph (c)(2) of this 

section. 

(4) Persons or vessels may request an 

exception from any requirement 

prescribed under paragraph (c)(2) of this 

section from the COTP Ohio Valley or 

a designated representative who may be 

a commissioned, warrant, or petty 

officer of the Coast Guard. The COTP 

Ohio Valley may be contacted by 

telephone at 1–800–253–7465 or on 

VHF–FM channel 16. 

(d) Enforcement. The COTP Ohio 

Valley will notify the public of the 

specific requirements prescribed under 

paragraph (c)(2) of this section and of 

the times when those requirements will 

be enforced or when enforcement will 

be suspended, using means designed to 

ensure maximum effectual notice 

including, but not limited to, broadcast 

notices to mariners (BNM) and 

communications through the River 

Industry Action Committee. 

Dated: September 16, 2014. 

R.V. Timme, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Ohio Valley. 

[FR Doc. 2014–26669 Filed 11–7–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2013–0808; FRL–9912–51– 

OAR] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration; 

Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule 

Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving portions of 

two revisions to the Texas State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to the 

EPA on October 5, 2010, and April 16, 

2014. Together, these two SIP submittals 

revise the Texas Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) Program 

to provide for the regulation of 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and 

clarify the applicability of Best 

Available Control Technology (BACT) 

for all PSD permit applications. The 

EPA is approving portions of the 

October 5, 2010, and April 16, 2014, SIP 

revisions to the Texas SIP and New 

Source Review (NSR) permitting 

program as consistent with federal 

requirements for PSD permitting of GHG 

emissions. The EPA is taking no action 

on the portion of the October 5, 2010, 

SIP revision which pertains to the Texas 

Minor NSR program for Qualified 

Facilities and portions of the April 16, 

2014, submittal that appear no longer 

appropriate for inclusion in the Texas 

SIP after the recent United States 

Supreme Court decision discussing 

greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA is 

approving this action under Section 110 

and Part C of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

In a separate but simultaneous action 

published elsewhere in this issue of the 

Federal Register, the EPA is also 

rescinding the GHG PSD Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) for Texas, 

with three limited circumstances for 

retained authority. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

November 10, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R06–OAR–2013–0808. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. 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 http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. Contact the person listed 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT paragraph below to make an 

appointment. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Adina Wiley, Air Permits Section (6PD– 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 66627 

1See Prevention of Significant Deterioration and 

Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule.’’ 

75 FR 31514 June 3, 2010. See also our February 

18, 2014, Proposal (79 FR 9123) for a full 

background discussion. 

R), telephone (214) 665–2115, email 

wiley.adina@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Recent UARG v. EPA U.S. Supreme Court 

Decision 

A. Overview of the Decision and 

Implications for this Action 

B. Demonstration that the Texas PSD 

Program is consistent with the 

application of the CAA and UARG v. 

EPA 

C. Provisions where the EPA is Taking No 

Action 

D. Provisions where the EPA is Finalizing 

Action 

III. Response to Comments 

IV. Effective Date of Final Action 

V. Final Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

This final action approves portions of 

two revisions to the Texas SIP 

submitted on October 5, 2010 and April 

16, 2014. The April 16, 2014, submittal 

includes revisions to the Texas SIP to 

provide the State of Texas with the 

authority to regulate GHG emissions, 

issue PSD permits governing GHG 

emissions, establish emission thresholds 

for new stationary sources and 

modifications to existing stationary 

sources that are subject to Texas’ PSD 

permitting requirements for their GHG 

emissions based on their emissions of 

air pollutants other than GHGs (also 

known as ‘‘Step 1’’ or ‘‘anyway’’ 

sources), and revises several Minor NSR 

provisions to specify that Minor NSR 

permit mechanisms cannot be used for 

authorizing GHG emissions. The 

October 5, 2010, submittal revises the 

Texas SIP to clarify that all PSD permits 

must undergo BACT review consistent 

with the requirements in the Federal 

and Texas PSD programs. 

The background for this final 

approval of the revisions to the Texas 

SIP and the background for the separate, 

but simultaneous action to rescind the 

Texas GHG PSD FIP, arediscussed in 

detail in our February 18, 2014, 

proposal (79 FR 9123). In that 

document, we proposed to approve 

portions of two revisions to the Texas 

SIP submitted by the TCEQ on October 

5, 2010, and December 2, 2013. The 

December 2, 2013, submittal was a 

request for parallel processing of 

revisions proposed by the TCEQ on 

October 23, 2013. Our February 18, 

2014, proposed approval and 

accompanying Technical Support 

Document provide the EPA’s evaluation 

of the October 5, 2010, and December 2, 

2013, revisions to the Texas SIP that 

would provide for the regulation of GHG 

emissions in the Texas PSD program 

and clarify the applicability of BACT for 

all PSD permit applications. We 

preliminarily determined that the 

revisions were consistent with the CAA 

and the EPA’s regulations and guidance 

for the permitting of GHG emissions in 

the PSD program. As such, we proposed 

approval of the SIP revisions and 

simultaneously proposed to rescind the 

majority of the GHG PSD FIP for Texas. 

Under the EPA’s ‘‘parallel processing’’ 

procedure, the EPA proposes a 

rulemaking action on a proposed SIP 

revision concurrently with the State’s 

public review process. If the State’s 

proposed SIP revision is not 

significantly or substantively changed, 

the EPA will finalize the rulemaking on 

the SIP revision as proposed after 

responding to any submitted comments. 

Final rulemaking action by the EPA will 

occur only after the final SIP revision 

has been fully adopted by the TCEQ and 

submitted formally to the EPA for 

approval as a revision to the Texas SIP. 

See 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V. 

The TCEQ completed their state 

rulemaking process and adopted 

revisions on March 26, 2014. The TCEQ 

submitted these adopted changes as a 

revision to the Texas SIP on April 16, 

2014. The EPA has evaluated the State’s 

final SIP revision for any changes made 

from the time of proposal. See 

‘‘Addendum to the TSD’’ for EPA–R06– 

OAR–2013–0808, available in the 

rulemaking docket. Our evaluation 

indicates that the revisions made by the 

TCEQ at adoption are not material 

changes to the regulations that we 

proposed to approve; and therefore, do 

not alter our rationale presented in the 

February 18, 2014, proposed approval. 

As such, the EPA is proceeding with our 

final approval of the majority of the 

revisions to the Texas SIP, consistent 

with the parallel processing provisions 

in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V. 

Additionally, the EPA is not acting at 

this time on certain sections of the April 

16, 2014, submittal that appear no 

longer appropriate after the recent 

United States Supreme Court decision, 

UARG v. EPA, as discussed in Section 

II of this notice. We are taking a separate 

but simultaneous action elsewhere in 

this issue of the Federal Register to 

rescind the Texas GHG PSD FIP, with 

the exception of three limited 

circumstances for retained federal 

permitting authority. 

II. Recent UARG v. EPA U.S. Supreme 

Court Decision 

A. Overview of the Decision and 

Implications for This Action 

On June 23, 2014, the United States 

Supreme Court issued a decision 

addressing the application of stationary 

source permitting requirements to GHGs 

in Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) 

v. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), 134 S.Ct. 2427 (2014). The 

Supreme Court held that the EPA may 

not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for 

purposes of determining whether a 

source is a major source required to 

obtain a PSD permit, but that the EPA 

could continue to require that PSD 

permits, otherwise required based on a 

source’s emissions of conventional 

pollutants (‘‘anyway’’ sources), contain 

limitations on GHG emissions based on 

the application of BACT. 

The Supreme Court reversed in part 

and affirmed in part the decision of the 

D.C. Circuit Court that upheld several 

EPA actions addressing PSD permitting 

requirements for greenhouse gases 

including the Tailoring Rule.1 Although 

the Supreme Court concluded that ‘‘EPA 

exceeded its statutory authority when it 

interpreted the Clean Air Act to require 

PSD and Title V permitting for 

stationary sources based on their 

greenhouse-gas emissions,’’ 134 S.Ct. at 

2449, it did not specifically identify 

particular provisions of the EPA 

regulations it was striking down. Thus, 

pending further action by the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit (the D.C. Circuit) 

and EPA action to revise the regulations 

in accordance with a more specific 

remedy ordered by the D.C. Circuit, the 

provisions of 40 CFR 51.166 that 

provide criteria for EPA approval of 

state PSD permit programs remain in the 

Code of Federal Regulations. This 

includes Section 51.166(b)(48)(v), which 

addresses state permitting of ‘‘Step 2’’ 

sources that emit greenhouse gases in 

excess of 100,000 tons per year and no 

other pollutants over the major source 

thresholds. In light of UARG, EPA is not 

requiring PSD permits, either directly or 

through state implementation plans, for 

sources emitting greenhouse gases at 

any level unless a source emits a 

regulated pollutant other than 

greenhouse gases above the statutory 

major source thresholds. That means 

that the EPA will not apply or enforce 

regulations that would require states to 

include in their SIPs a requirement that 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
66628 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

2On October 1, 2014, the TCEQ sent EPA Region 

6 a clarification letter in light of the UARG v. EPA 

decision. That letter is also posted in the public 

docket to this rulemaking. 

‘‘Step 2’’ sources obtain PSD permits. 

Thus, despite the fact that section 

51.166(b)(48)(v) remains in the Code of 

Federal Regulations at this time, in light 

of the Supreme Court decision the EPA 

is not taking action on the provisions of 

the Texas SIP that would require a 

stationary source to obtain a PSD permit 

if GHGs are the only pollutant (i) that 

the source emits or has the potential to 

emit above the major sources 

thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a 

significant emissions increase and a 

significant net emissions increase from 

a modification. 

The Supreme Court also affirmed the 

lower court’s decision that the BACT 

requirement applies to GHG emissions 

from new and modified sources that 

trigger PSD permitting obligations on 

the basis of their emissions of air 

pollutants other than GHG (also known 

as ‘‘Step 1’’ or ‘‘anyway’’ sources). The 

Court concluded that ‘‘EPA may 

continue to treat greenhouse gases as a 

‘pollutant subject to regulation under 

[the Clean Air Act]’ for purposes of 

requiring BACT for ‘anyway’ sources.’’ 

134 S.Ct. at 2449. Accordingly, the PSD 

BACT requirement continues to apply to 

greenhouse gas emissions from any new 

or modified source that is otherwise 

subject to PSD requirements as a result 

of its emissions of another regulated 

pollutant (i.e. to an ‘‘anyway’’ source), 

and EPA will continue to implement 

existing regulations that limit 

application of the statutory BACT 

requirement to greenhouse gases where 

the construction project to be completed 

would emit at or above a level of 75,000 

tpy of CO2e as provided in 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(48)(iv). 

The EPA and D.C. Circuit have long 

recognized, and the D.C. Circuit’s 

decision affirmed by the Supreme Court 

further confirmed, that PSD 

requirements apply to emissions of PSD 

pollutants ‘‘by automatic operation of’’ 

the Clean Air Act. Coalition for 

Responsible Regulation v. EPA, 684 F.3f 

102, 115 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The Supreme 

Court rejected ‘‘a greenhouse-gasinclusive interpretation of the PSD and 

Title V triggers,’’ because the CAA does 

not allow the Agency to ‘‘treat 

greenhouse gases as a pollutant for 

purposes of defining a ‘major emitting 

facility’ (or a ‘modification’ thereof) in 

the PSD context.’’ 134 S.Ct. at 2442, 

2449. But the Court did not question the 

longstanding interpretation of the EPA 

and the D.C. Circuit court that the CAA 

PSD permitting requirements 

automatically apply to major source 

emissions of pollutants that are ‘‘subject 

to regulation’’ under the Act. 134 S.Ct. 

at 2442 n. 6. See also UARG, 134 S.Ct. 

at 2435 (‘‘it is unlawful to construct or 

modify a ‘major emitting facility’ in ‘any 

area to which [the PSD program] 

applies’ without first obtaining a 

permit.’’). To the contrary, UARG 

affirmed the portion of the D.C. Circuit’s 

decision holding that the BACT 

requirement clearly applies to 

greenhouse gas emissions from 

‘‘anyway’’ sources and that such PSD 

requirements apply to sources 

automatically by operation of the Clean 

Air Act. Accordingly, the EPA does not 

interpret UARG to alter the settled 

understanding that the BACT 

requirement automatically applies to a 

pollutant (including greenhouse gases) 

once it becomes subject to regulation 

under the Clean Air Act. Thus, 

consistent with the Supreme Court’s 

holding that EPA can ‘‘continue to’’ 

require compliance with the BACT 

requirement in the Clean Air Act, 134 

S.Ct. 2449, the EPA will continue to 

apply the BACT requirement to 

greenhouse gases under existing 

regulations applicable to EPA’s review 

of state implementation plans, including 

40 CFR 51.166(j), 40 CFR 51.166(b)(12), 

40 CFR 51.166(b)(49), and 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(48)(i)–(iv). 

The Supreme Court noted that the 

EPA could exercise its discretion to 

limit application of BACT to sources 

with the potential to emit greenhouse 

gases above a de minimis threshold, but 

that if EPA wished to do so, it would 

need to justify such threshold for 

application of BACT to GHGs on proper 

grounds. The Court observed that when 

EPA established the existing 75,000 tpy 

threshold the Agency did not 

characterize it as a de minimis level. 134 

S.Ct. at 2449. Rather, that threshold 

represents a level that EPA determined 

to be both administratively feasible for 

permitting authorities to implement and 

reasonable for sources to comply with. 

75 FR 31514, 31560 (June 3, 2010). EPA 

is considering additional action to 

establish a de minimis threshold for 

application of the BACT requirement to 

GHGs. Pending additional action by 

EPA addressing the threshold for 

application of the BACT requirement to 

greenhouse gases, the Agency will 

continue to apply the existing 

regulations that require a state PSD 

program to apply the PSD BACT 

requirement to GHG emissions from 

‘‘anyway’’ sources that emit or have the 

potential to emit 75,000 tons per year 

tpy or more of GHG on a carbon dioxide 

(CO2e) basis. With respect to modified 

‘‘anyway’’ sources, the EPA is presently 

reading its regulations to require that 

state PSD programs apply the PSD 

BACT requirements to GHG if both of 

the following circumstances are present: 

(1) The modification is otherwise 

subject to PSD for a pollutant other than 

GHG; (2) the modification results in a 

GHG emissions increase and a net GHG 

emissions increase equal to or greater 

than 75,000 tpy CO2e and greater than 

zero on a mass basis. 

Based on information submitted by 

TCEQ, the EPA concluded in its Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking that TCEQ had 

provided sufficient assurance that it has 

the legal authority, personnel, and 

funding to implement PSD permitting 

requirements for greenhouse gases. 

Following the UARG decision, the State 

of Texas has argued in litigation before 

the D.C. Circuit that GHGs are not 

presently subject to regulation under the 

PSD program and that the EPA must 

conduct additional rulemaking to 

establish a de minimis level before the 

BACT requirement can be applied to 

greenhouse gas emissions in PSD 

permits required for construction at 

anyway sources. As noted above, the 

EPA disagrees with this position. 

Nevertheless, the TCEQ has 

communicated to the EPA that it 

‘‘continues to pursue EPA approval of 

[its] SIP submittal . . . so our agency 

has the full authority to implement the 

greenhouse gas permitting program in 

Texas.’’ 2 The State has further stated 

that ‘‘[r]egardless of litigation positions, 

we are currently advocating and might 

pursue in the future, we think it is 

necessary for TCEQ to assume this 

permitting role and issue PSD permits 

for greenhouse gas emissions.’’ Based on 

information supplied by TCEQ before 

the proposed rule and this additional 

assurance, EPA concludes that Texas 

intends to implement the PSD 

permitting requirements for greenhouse 

gases consistent with EPA’s 

understanding of those requirements, as 

articulated above, and that TCEQ 

continues to have sufficient legal 

authority to do so. Furthermore, TCEQ 

has confirmed that it will commit the 

personnel and funding necessary to 

issue PSD permits addressing 

greenhouse gases, notwithstanding the 

State’s ongoing efforts to persuade the 

court that such permits are not required 

under the Clean Air Act until EPA 

conducts further rulemaking. EPA’s 

rescission of the majority of the FIP and 

its approval of the majority of the Texas 

GHG SIP are predicated on the 

understanding that the State of Texas 

will implement the PSD program 

requirements for greenhouse gases in 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 66629 

3Note the Texas PSD SIP incorporates the major 

modification levels at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23). 

4Note that the EPA is approving the renumbering 

of the Definitions in 30 TAC Section 116.12, which 

will include the renumbering of the existing SIPapproved definition of ‘‘major stationary source’’ 

from 30 TAC Section 116.12(17) to 30 TAC Section 

116.12(19). 

5Note that the EPA is approving the renumbering 

of the Definitions in 30 TAC Section 116.12, which 

will include the renumbering of the existing SIPapproved definition of ‘‘major modification’’ from 

30 TAC Section 116.12(18) to 30 TAC Section 

116.12(20). We are also approving other nonsubstantive revisions to the name of the Figure 

within the definition, and to footnotes 1 and 5 of 

the Figure. 

accordance with TCEQ’s 

representations. 

In sum, therefore, the EPA is taking 

no action on the portion of the Texas 

SIP submittal requiring sources to 

obtain PSD permits based solely on their 

emissions of GHGs, but is otherwise 

finalizing its approval of the Texas SIP 

submittals and its rescission of the FIP 

and as discussed in the separate final 

FIP action published elsewhere in this 

issue of the Federal Register. 

B. Demonstration That the Texas PSD 

Program Is Consistent With the 

Application of the CAA and UARG v. 

EPA 

The following analysis explains how 

the Texas PSD program for GHGs meets 

the requirements of the Clean Air Act 

and the EPA’s regulations, and fits 

within the parameters of the Supreme 

Court’s decision. First, the revised Texas 

PSD SIP recognizes GHGs and 

appropriately applies GHG requirements 

to PSD through the new definitions of 

‘‘greenhouse gases’’ in 30 TAC Sections 

101.1 and 116.12 and the definitions 

adopted at 30 TAC Section 116.12 for 

‘‘carbon dioxide equivalent’’ and 

‘‘federally regulated air pollutant.’’ The 

‘‘carbon dioxide equivalent’’ definition 

is necessary to calculate the amount of 

GHG emissions in PSD permit 

applications and the revised definition 

of ‘‘federally regulated new source 

review pollutant’’ explicitly identifies 

GHGs as regulated NSR pollutants. In 

addition, this definition references 

thresholds outlined in 30 TAC Section 

116.164(a)(1) and (a)(2), which include 

the 75,000 tpy CO2e threshold for 

application of BACT to GHGs as 

discussed above. Second, once a GHG 

source is determined to be otherwise 

subject to PSD, the Texas PSD program 

elements at 30 TAC Sections 116.160, 

116.164(a)(1), 116.164(a)(2), and 

116.169 apply in the following way: 

1. The applicability of the Texas PSD 

program is governed by 30 TAC Section 

116.160(a) and applies to each proposed 

new major source or major modification 

in an attainment or unclassifiable area. 

To ensure that the Texas PSD program 

approved into the SIP does not use GHG 

emissions alone to determine whether a 

source is a major stationary source or a 

major modification subject to PSD, the 

EPA is taking no action at this time on 

the substantive revisions in 116.160(a) 

pertaining to GHGs, or to the revisions 

to the definitions in 30 TAC Section 

116.12(19) and (20) that expanded 

‘‘major stationary source’’ and ‘‘major 

modification’’ to apply to sources that 

emit only GHGs above major source 

levels and modifications that increase 

only GHGs above applicable levels. This 

ensures that the portion of the existing 

Texas PSD program at 30 TAC Section 

116.160(a) that is part of the approved 

Texas SIP does not extend PSD 

applicability to sources not already 

subject to PSD based on emissions of 

pollutants other than GHGs and limits 

the scope of the approved SIP solely to 

‘‘anyway sources’’ and modifications. 

2. After it has been determined that an 

existing source proposing to modify is a 

major source potentially subject to PSD 

requirements, the next step in the Texas 

PSD program is to apply the netting test 

as required under 30 TAC Section 

116.160(b). Under the Texas regulations, 

this netting test is to determine whether 

the modification requires a PSD permit 

because it results in a net significant 

increase of federally regulated new 

source review pollutants. The EPA is 

taking no action at this time on the 

substantive revisions to the definition in 

30 TAC Section 116.12(20) of ‘‘major 

modification’’ so that the PSD 

requirements in the approved Texas SIP 

will only apply to a modified source 

when there is a net significant increase 

of a regulated pollutant other than 

GHGs. 

3. Finally, if the emissions from 

construction of a new source or net 

emission increase from a major 

modification are greater than the levels 

at 52.21(b)(23) for a particular pollutant 

or the interim thresholds for GHGs at 30 

TAC Section 116.164(a)(1) and (a)(2), 

then BACT is required to be applied to 

each such pollutant under 30 TAC 

Section 116.160(c).3 This section 

incorporates Section 52.21(j) of EPA’s 

regulation, which requires BACT for 

each ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ that a 

new source emits or that a major 

modification increases in a significant 

amount. The Texas regulations do not 

incorporate the definition of ‘‘regulated 

NSR pollutant’’ in Section 52.21(b)(50) 

of EPA’s regulations, but rather contain 

a Texas-specific definition of ‘‘federallyregulated NSR pollutant’’ in Section 

116.12(15), which covers greenhouse 

gases. Because the Texas regulations 

approved into the SIP in this action 

explicitly identify GHGs as a federallyregulated NSR pollutant above the 

interim thresholds in 30 TAC Section 

116.164(a)(1) and (a)(2), the 75,000 tpy 

CO2e threshold will be used for GHGs 

rather than the default of any amount 

greater than 0 tpy for a pollutant not 

listed at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23). Therefore, 

with only the provisions approved in 

this action identified above, the 

approved portions of the Texas PSD 

program in the state’s SIP will apply 

BACT for GHG emissions at the interim 

thresholds to only ‘‘anyway’’ sources 

and modifications. 

The EPA concludes that the Texas SIP 

and PSD program regulate GHGs 

through the PSD program as consistent 

with the June 23, 2014, UARG v. EPA 

decision for ‘‘anyway sources’’. 

C. Provisions Where the EPA Is Taking 

No Action 

Because of the Supreme Court’s 

ruling, the EPA is not taking final action 

at this time on certain SIP provisions. 

We are not taking action at this time on 

the provisions listed below as they are 

not necessary to appropriately regulate 

‘‘anyway’’ sources. We believe these 

provisions are severable from other 

portions of the Texas SIP submissions 

and we do not need to act on them now 

to finalize approval of all other 

provisions of the submittal. 

• Revisions to 30 TAC Section 

106.4(a)(1), (a)(3) and (a)(4) adopted on 

March 26, 2014, and submitted on April 

16, 2014; 

• Substantive revisions to the 

definition of ‘‘major stationary source’’ 

at 30 TAC Section 116.12(19) adopted 

on March 26, 2014, and submitted on 

April 16, 2014; 4

• Substantive revisions to the 

definition of ‘‘major modification’’ at 30 

TAC Section 116.12(20) adopted on 

March 26, 2014, and submitted on April 

16, 2014; 5

• Revisions to 30 TAC Section 

116.111(a)(2)(I) adopted on March 26, 

2014, and submitted on April 16, 2014; 

• Revisions to 30 TAC Section 

116.160(a) and (b) adopted on March 26, 

2014, and submitted on April 16, 2014; 

• New 30 TAC Sections 116.164(a)(3), 

(a)(4), (a)(5), and (b) adopted on March 

26, 2014, and submitted on April 16, 

2014; 

• Revisions to 30 TAC Sections 

116.610(b) adopted on March 26, 2014, 

and submitted on April 16, 2014; 

• Revisions to 30 TAC Sections 

116.611(b), 116.611(c)(3), 

116.611(c)(3)(A), and 116.611(c)(3)(B) 

adopted on March 26, 2014, and 

submitted on April 16, 2014; and 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
66630 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

6As specified in Section II.C of this final rule, the 

EPA is taking no action at this time on the 

substantive revisions to the definitions of ‘‘major 

stationary source’’ and ‘‘major modification’’ 

pertaining to non-anyway sources and modification. 

• Revisions to 30 TAC Sections 

122.122(e)(3), (e)(3)(A), and (e)(3)(B) 

adopted on March 26, 2014, and 

submitted on April 16, 2014. 

In a letter dated October 1, 2014, the 

TCEQ informed EPA of its view that the 

provisions listed above ‘‘are no longer 

appropriate or necessary for the SIP’’ 

after the Supreme Court decision in 

UARG v. EPA. EPA concurs with this 

assessment by TCEQ and is not taking 

action on the submitted revisions to 

these provisions in this rulemaking. 

D. Provisions Where the EPA Is 

Finalizing Action 

The remaining provisions in the 

Texas SIP submissions can operate 

independently and do not depend on 

the provisions listed above to provide 

authority for the TCEQ to issue PSD 

permits for ‘‘anyway sources’’ that 

contain limitations on GHGs based on 

application of BACT. The provisions we 

are approving in this action are listed 

below. These provisions are sufficient 

by themselves to ensure the TCEQ will 

have a GHG PSD program in place that 

is consistent with the Court’s ruling and 

the provisions of 40 CFR 51.166 that the 

EPA is continuing to apply and enforce 

at this time. 

• Substantive and non-substantive 

revisions to 30 TAC Section 

116.111(a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), 

(a)(2)(D), and (a)(2)(F) adopted on 

September 15, 2010, and submitted on 

October 5, 2010; 

• Revisions to 30 TAC Sections 

39.411(e)(11), (e)(15), (e)(16), (f)(4), 

(f)(8), 39.412(a)–(d), 39.419(e)(1), and 

39.420(e)(4) adopted on March 26, 2014, 

and submitted on April 16, 2014; 

• Revisions to 30 TAC Section 101.1 

adopted on March 26, 2014, and 

submitted on April 16, 2014; 

• Revisions to 30 TAC Section 101.10 

adopted on March 26, 2014, and 

submitted on April 16, 2014; 

• Revisions to 30 TAC Section 

101.201 adopted on March 26, 2014, 

and submitted on April 16, 2014; 

• Revisions to 30 TAC Section 106.2 

and 106.4(d) adopted on March 26, 

2014, submitted on April 16, 2014; 

• Revisions to 30 TAC Section 116.12 

adopted on March 26, 2014, submitted 

on April 16, 2014, including the 

renumbering of SIP-approved 

definitions for ‘‘major stationary source’’ 

and ‘‘major modification’’ at nonsubstantive revisions within those 

definitions; 6

• Revisions to 30 TAC Section 

116.111(b)(1) adopted on March 26, 

2014, submitted on April 16, 2014; 

• Revisions to 30 TAC Section 

116.160(c) adopted on March 26, 2014, 

submitted on April 16, 2014; 

• New provisions at 30 TAC Section 

116.164(a) introductory paragraph, 

(a)(1), and (a)(2) adopted on March 26, 

2014, submitted on April 16, 2014; 

• New provisions at 30 TAC Section 

116.169(a) adopted on March 26, 2014, 

submitted on April 16, 2014; 

• Revisions to 30 TAC Section 

116.610(a)(1) adopted on March 26, 

2014, submitted on April 16, 2014; 

• Revisions to 30 TAC Section 

116.611(c)(1) and (c)(2) adopted on 

March 26, 2014, submitted on April 16, 

2014; and 

• Revisions to 30 TAC Section 

122.122(a), (e)(1), and (e)(2) adopted on 

March 26, 2014, submitted on April 16, 

2014. 

The EPA anticipates that we will need 

to take additional action to revise the 

federal PSD requirements for GHG PSD 

permitting in light of the Supreme Court 

decision. The timing and content of 

such revisions are expected to be 

informed by ongoing legal proceedings 

before the D.C. Circuit. These revisions 

to federal requirements may necessitate 

future revisions to the Texas SIP. The 

EPA will work with Texas, and all other 

affected states, to address future changes 

in our federal permitting requirements 

in an expeditious manner. 

III. Response to Comments 

We received comments from Air 

Alliance Houston, the Greater Houston 

Partnership (GHP), the House Bill 788 

Working Group (HB 788 Working 

Group), Sierra Club, Texas Chemical 

Council (TCC), Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality (TCEQ), Texas 

Industry Project (TIP), the Texas Oil and 

Gas Association (TXOGA), the Texas 

Pipeline Association (TPA), and public 

citizens on our February 18, 2014, 

proposal. All comments received on the 

February 18, 2014, proposed action are 

available in the public docket to this 

rulemaking. Below is our summary of 

each comment received relating to the 

SIP action and our response. The EPA 

notes that the comments and our 

responses to comments relevant to the 

final FIP rescission action are in the 

separate but simultaneous final action. 

Comments and responses that relate to 

both final actions are found in both 

documents. 

Comment 1: The TCEQ, GHP, HB 788 

Working Group, TCC, TIP, and TPA 

submitted comments supportive of our 

proposed action and urge the EPA to 

proceed with final approval and rescind 

the associated FIP. 

Response 1: The EPA appreciates the 

support of the commenters. No changes 

have been made to the final SIP 

approval rule as a result of these 

comments. 

Comment 2: The TCC encouraged the 

EPA to make the FIP rescission effective 

immediately upon approval of the SIP. 

As support, the commenters referenced 

the EPA’s final approval action of the 

Wyoming GHG PSD Program at 78 FR 

69998, November 22, 2013. 

Response 2: The EPA interprets the 

comment as a request that the EPA make 

the final approval of the GHG PSD SIP 

and the rescission of the GHG PSD FIP 

effective immediately upon publication 

in the Federal Register pursuant to the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 

Section 553(d). As explained more fully 

in Section IV of this document and in 

Comment/Response 3, the EPA finds 

that this final SIP action and the 

separate but simultaneous final FIP 

rescission action should be made 

effective immediately upon publication 

in the Federal Register. 

The EPA also wishes to clarify that 

the Wyoming action, cited in the 

comment as precedent for an immediate 

effective action, does not utilize Section 

553(d) of the APA. The EPA’s November 

22, 2013, final approval of the Wyoming 

GHG PSD Program and FIP rescission 

were both effective 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Specifically, the Wyoming action was 

published on November 22, 2013, and 

the SIP approval and FIP rescission 

were effective on December 23, 2013. 

Comment 3: TXOGA requested that 

the final SIP approval and the FIP 

rescission be effective on the date of 

Federal Register publication rather than 

the date 30 days after publication. TIP 

commented that the EPA should invoke 

the ‘‘good cause’’ exception in the APA 

to make the final approval and FIP 

rescission immediately effective upon 

publication. TIP suggested that using 

the ‘‘good cause’’ exception would: (1) 

‘‘level the playing field’’ between Texas 

GHG permitting and GHG permitting in 

states with EPA-approved GHG 

permitting programs; (2) provide 

economic benefits by allowing 

consolidation of air permitting for Texas 

GHG sources at the TCEQ; (3) relieve a 

restriction imposed by the FIP; and (4) 

is procedural in nature and does not 

change substantive requirements for 

GHG PSD permitting. 

Response 3: The EPA agrees that this 

is an appropriate circumstance to make 

this rule effective immediately upon 

publication, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

Section 553(d) of the APA. As detailed 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 66631 

in Section III of this final SIP action and 

in Section III of the separate but 

simultaneous final FIP action, we have 

determined that both the final approval 

of the GHG PSD SIP and the separate 

but simultaneous rescission of the GHG 

PSD FIP be effective immediately upon 

publication in the Federal Register. An 

immediate effective date is authorized 

under the APA, Section 553(d)(1), 

which provides that a rulemaking action 

may become effective less than 30 days 

after publication if the rule ‘‘grants or 

recognizes an exemption or relieves a 

restriction’’; and Section 553(d)(3), 

which allows an effective date less than 

30 days after publication ‘‘as otherwise 

provided by the agency for good cause 

found and published with the rule.’’ 

First, the immediate effective date 

helps to relieve the restriction on the 

TCEQ’s ability to issue single GHG PSD 

permits and will eliminate the dual 

EPA/TCEQ PSD permit system, which 

in turn, promotes a more efficient single 

permitting authority process. Second, 

we have determined there is ‘‘good 

cause’’ to make this rule effective 

immediately because it will allow Texas 

to begin processing complete PSD GHG 

applications that meet the appropriate 

federal PSD requirements immediately 

and it will allow the regulated 

community to receive PSD permits 

containing GHG limits, issued by Texas, 

as soon as possible. An immediate 

effective date provides Texas with 

undelayed authority to regulate GHG 

emissions in PSD permits issued to 

‘‘anyway’’ sources and allows Texas to 

become the sole PSD permitting 

authority in the state, except in three 

limited circumstances. In addition, an 

expedited transition of the GHG PSD 

program from the EPA to Texas creates 

a more efficient use of EPA and State 

resources, and creates certainty for the 

regulated community and public. 

Additionally, the EPA and the TCEQ 

have worked closely to ensure Texas has 

adequate authority and resources to 

administer the GHG PSD permitting 

program without a 30-day delay, which 

is normally the time required for 

affected parties to adjust their behavior 

and prepare before the final rule takes 

effect. The EPA has determined that 

moving as expeditiously as practicable 

to consolidate GHG PSD permitting with 

the TCEQ PSD permitting program is 

supported here as the State has the 

authority and resources to administer 

the GHG PSD permitting program. The 

EPA finds that the above reasons 

support an effective date prior to thirty 

days after the date of publication under 

5 U.S.C. Section 553(d) for both this 

final SIP approval action and the 

separate but simultaneous final FIP 

action. We have revised the effective 

date of our final SIP action as a result 

of these comments. 

Comment 4: The HB 788 Working 

Group commented that the EPA should 

proceed with finalizing our proposed 

parallel processing even though the 

TCEQ Commissioners are likely to 

revise the Texas GHG PSD rule package 

in response to public comments 

received at the March 26, 2014, agenda 

meeting. The HB 788 Working Group 

summarized the proposed changes and 

characterized the changes as follows: (1) 

clarify the distinction between the GHG 

PSD program and Texas minor NSR 

requirements; (2) remove the exemption 

for CO2 from biogenic sources from the 

new definition of CO2-equivalent 

emissions (CO2e), consistent with the 

EPA’s action in the proposed GHG PSD 

SIP approval; (3) clarify GHG PSD 

applicability and ensure consistency 

with federal requirements; (4) address 

recordkeeping requirements for nonPSD changes in GHGs; and (5) establish 

a deadline for GHG-only major sources 

to certify emissions of GHGs below 

major source thresholds that is 

consistent with the federal Part 70 and 

Texas Chapter 122 deadlines. 

Response 4: The TCEQ submitted the 

final GHG PSD SIP submittal on April 

16, 2014. As discussed above in Section 

I of this rulemaking and the Addendum 

to the TSD, the TCEQ Commissioners 

did not adopt material changes as a 

result of public comment. The EPA has 

evaluated the adopted changes and 

determined that each change is not 

significant or substantive in nature. 

Because these were not material changes 

to the regulations that the EPA proposed 

to approve, the EPA’s notice of 

proposed rulemaking provided 

sufficient notice to members of the 

public of the substance of the TCEQ 

regulations that the EPA is approving 

into the Texas SIP in this final rule. 

However, as discussed above in Section 

II of this final action, some of the 

provisions that the EPA proposed to 

approve are now no longer appropriate 

for inclusion in the Texas SIP after the 

Supreme Court’s ruling. Nevertheless, 

the EPA is finalizing approval of the 

majority of the revisions to the Texas 

SIP as proposed, including those 

provisions with revisions that are not 

significant or substantive, adopted by 

the TCEQ on March 26, 2014, and 

submitted on April 16, 2014. See 

Section II.C and II.D of this final 

rulemaking for an explanation of which 

submitted provisions where we are 

taking no action and which provisions 

are being finally approved. 

Comment 5: The EPA should state for 

the record that GHG permits issued by 

the EPA may be amended by the TCEQ 

once permitting authority is delegated. 

Response 5: As stated in our proposed 

approval, the TCEQ submitted a letter 

on January 13, 2014, (available in the 

docket for this rulemaking) that 

provided clarity and assurances that the 

TCEQ has the general authority under 

the Texas Clean Air Act to administer 

the EPA-issued GHG PSD permits, 

including revising or amending those 

permits in the future. Specifically, the 

‘‘TCEQ will assume full PSD 

responsibility for the administration and 

implementation of final GHG PSD 

permits issued by the EPA upon 

notification from the EPA that all 

administrative and judicial appeal 

processes have expired or have been 

completed or concluded . . . assuming 

full PSD responsibility includes the 

authority to . . . process and issue any 

and all subsequent PSD permit actions 

relating to such permits (e.g., 

amendments).’’ See 79 FR 9123, 9132. 

February 18, 2014. 

We would also like to correct one 

statement from the commenter 

concerning the EPA’s delegation of 

permitting authority to the TCEQ. The 

EPA’s final action today approves under 

Section 110 of the CAA, the Texas GHG 

PSD permit process as part of the Texas 

SIP. The EPA wishes to clarify to the 

commenter that our final action is a SIP 

approval, not a delegation of the EPA’s 

authority. Once a SIP is approved, the 

state permitting authority issues permits 

consistent with the SIP under state law. 

CAA Section 110 does not involve a 

‘‘delegation’’ of the EPA authority under 

federal law to states. Rather, states 

exercise primary authority as 

implemented through their EPAapproved SIPs, including issuing state 

permits under state law under a PSD 

SIP. In general, when the EPA approves 

a PSD SIP, the EPA makes a 

determination that a state-issued 

preconstruction permit that complies 

with the state law in the SIP will satisfy 

the federal PSD permitting requirements 

that are applicable under the CAA and 

EPA regulations at the time of the SIP 

approval. No changes have been made 

to the final SIP approval rule as a result 

of this comment. 

Comment 6: One commenter found it 

difficult to provide specific comments 

due to the pending Supreme Court 

decision on GHG and asked that the 

EPA discuss the impact, if any, of the 

pending Supreme Court decision 

around GHG. 

Response 6: Although not specifically 

referenced in the comment, we believe 

the commenter’s reference to ‘‘pending 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
66632 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

7See the EPA’s proposed approval of the Texas 

PSD program on December 22, 1989 at 54 FR 52823, 

52825. See also the EPA’s final approval of the 

Texas PSD program on June 24, 1992 at 57 FR 

28093, 28096. 

8The revisions to 30 TAC Section 116.160(c) 

adopted on March 26, 2014, and submitted on April 

16, 2014, refer to the requirements for GHG PSD 

permitting in 30 TAC Section 116.164. As noted in 

Supreme Court decision around GHG’’ 

refers to the following case that was 

before the Supreme Court of the United 

States: Case 121146; Utility Air 

Regulatory Group v. The Environmental 

Protection Agency and consolidated 

cases. The Supreme Court decided this 

case on June 23, 2014. See Section II of 

this final action for a detailed 

discussion. In summary, the Supreme 

Court affirmed in part and reversed in 

part the lower court’s decision on the 

applicability of the PSD Program to 

GHGs, rejecting the application of the 

PSD program to additional sources 

based only on GHG emissions but 

affirming the applicability of BACT to 

GHGs emitted by sources otherwise 

required to obtain PSD permits based on 

emissions of other pollutants. 

Accordingly, the decision has 

influenced our final action on the April 

16, 2014, SIP submittal. The EPA is 

proceeding with the finalization of the 

majority of the revisions to the Texas 

SIP and the separate but simultaneous 

FIP removal that we proposed to 

approve on February 18, 2014. However, 

in order to proceed consistent with the 

Court’s decision as detailed in Section 

II and Comment/Response 4, the EPA is 

taking no action at this time on the 

portions of the April 16, 2014, submittal 

that provided for the permitting of ‘‘Step 

2,’’ ‘‘non-anyway’’ sources. 

Comment 7: The EPA should state for 

the record that the reasonable 

possibility recordkeeping requirements 

pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6) do not 

apply to GHG emissions if the emissions 

increase is less than 75,000 tpy CO2e. 

The reasonable possibility requirements 

under 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6) apply to a 

‘‘regulated NSR pollutant.’’ The 

definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ 

in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50) includes any 

pollutant that is ‘‘subject to regulation.’’ 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49), GHG is 

not subject to regulation and thus is not 

a regulated NSR pollutant if the 

emissions increase is less than 75,000 

tpy CO2e. 

Response 7: After the Supreme Court 

decision, the EPA considers GHG 

emissions to be subject to regulation 

only if the criteria at 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(49)(i) through (iv) are satisfied. 

As discussed above, these provisions 

remain in the Code of Federal 

Regulations at the present time. The 

EPA may need to consider 

modifications to these regulations, but 

under the existing provisions, the 

reasonable possibility requirements at 

40 CFR 52.21(r)(6) do not apply for GHG 

emissions below the subject to 

regulation thresholds. 

Comment 8: Air Alliance Houston 

commented that the EPA should not 

approve the Texas rules without first 

requiring the TCEQ to explicitly allow 

for public review and comment on all 

BACT analyses. 

Response 8: As discussed in our 

February 18, 2014, proposed approval, 

the proposed revisions to the Texas SIP 

and the existing Texas SIP already 

require public review and comment on 

all BACT analyses. Even though we are 

not finalizing approval of the submitted 

revisions to 30 TAC Section 

116.111(a)(2)(I) that were adopted on 

March 26, 2014, and submitted on April 

16, 2014, the existing Texas SIP at 30 

TAC Section 116.111(a)(2)(I) requires 

that any permit application for a 

proposed facility in an attainment area 

comply with all applicable requirements 

of PSD review. As discussed in our 

February 18, 2014, proposed approval, 

one such applicable requirement for 

PSD permitting is the SIP-approved 

requirement at 30 TAC Section 

116.111(b)(2) which requires that 

Chapter 39 public notice provisions are 

followed for PSD permits declared 

administratively complete on or after 

September 1, 1999. As also discussed in 

our February 18, 2014, proposed 

approval, the EPA, in a separate 

rulemaking action on January 6, 2014, 

previously approved the public notice 

provisions in 30 TAC Chapter 39 as 

consistent with all requirements for PSD 

public notice. See 79 FR 9123, 9129. As 

discussed more fully in Section II.B of 

this final SIP approval action, the EPA 

has concluded that the Texas PSD 

program will apply GHG BACT to all 

‘‘Step 1’’ or ‘‘anyway’’ sources. 

Therefore, any GHG PSD permit 

application will be subject to PSD 

public notice requirements under the 

SIP-approved public notice provisions 

for PSD permit applications at 30 TAC 

Chapter 39. Specifically, the SIPapproved public notice provisions at 30 

TAC Section 39.405(g) require the 

applicant to make available for public 

review the permit application, 

additional materials submitted in 

support of the application, the air 

quality analysis, the preliminary 

determination summary, and the draft 

permit. The BACT analysis for a given 

GHG PSD permit application for an 

‘‘anyway’’ source will therefore be 

included in the materials available for 

public review and comment. Please note 

that we are no longer taking action on 

provisions that deal with ‘‘non-anyway’’ 

or ‘‘Step 2’’ sources, as discussed 

elsewhere in this notice. 

Comment 9: Air Alliance Houston 

commented that the EPA should require 

the TCEQ to assess add-on GHG 

pollution control equipment consistent 

with the federal BACT program. Air 

Alliance Houston further commented 

that the three-tiered Texas BACT 

process required by the Texas Clean Air 

Act is not consistent with the top-down, 

five-step federal BACT analysis. Public 

citizens also commented to request 

clarification on how BACT is 

determined and questioned who is 

responsible for determining whether 

controls such as carbon capture would 

be feasible. 

Response 9: The EPA’s final action 

today approves revisions to 30 TAC 

Section 116.111(a)(2)(C) to clarify the 

application of BACT for all permit 

applications in Texas, including GHG 

PSD permit applications. This provision 

clarifies that the TCEQ use two types of 

BACT for permit reviews—federal 

BACT pursuant to the requirements of 

Title I Part C and Texas BACT under the 

Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA). The 

revision clarifies federal BACT must be 

applied first to any facility subject to 

PSD requirements. While this provision 

is germane to all Texas PSD permits, 

this applies to PSD permits for anyway 

sources with GHG emissions. These 

GHG PSD permits will be required to 

apply federal BACT as well as TCAA 

BACT. Federal BACT requirements will 

govern the permitting process if there is 

a difference in stringency between the 

federal BACT requirements and the 

Texas BACT requirements. See the 

discussion in our February 18, 2014, 

proposed approval at 79 FR 9123, 9128. 

Additionally, as discussed in past SIP 

approval actions on the Texas PSD 

program, the EPA has determined that 

the Texas BACT process is an 

appropriate alternative to the federal 

top-down process.7 This action on the 

Texas GHG PSD SIP revision does not 

alter our determination that the TCEQ 

will continue to implement the Texas 

PSD program consistent with federal 

requirements. This approval of 30 TAC 

Section 116.111(a)(2)(C) further 

supports our previous determinations 

that the TCEQ shall apply Texas BACT 

and federal BACT to all PSD permits, 

and if there is a conflict, the federal 

BACT requirements will apply. As to 

the specific process for applying BACT 

review in a PSD permit, under state law 

at 30 TAC Sections 116.111(a)(2)(C) and 

116.160(c)(1)(A), the applicant must 

submit an application including specific 

control technology.8 As the PSD 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 66633 

Section II.C of this final SIP approval, EPA is not 

taking action at this time on portions of 30 TAC 

Section 116.164 that add thresholds pertinent to 

whether a non-anyway source or modification 

requires a PSD permit solely for GHG emissions. 

But, EPA is acting to approve the portions of 30 

TAC Sections 116.164 that apply a ‘‘75,000 TPY 

‘‘major modification level’’ to increases in GHGs at 

anyway sources and modifications, so it remains 

appropriate for EPA to act to approve the submitted 

revisions to 30 TAC Section 116.160(c) adding the 

reference to the thresholds for GHGs in 30 TAC 

Section 116.164(a)(1) and (a)(2). 

permitting authority, the TCEQ, under 

its PSD permit rules at 30 TAC Sections 

116.160 and 116.164(a) introductory 

paragraph, (a)(1) and (2) only, shall 

review the application and specified 

control technology and determine 

whether the technology is considered 

BACT. Under the Texas SIP at 30 TAC 

Section 39.405(g)(3), the TCEQ’s 

analysis of the proposed BACT shall be 

included in the proposed state issued 

permit, which is subject to public 

review and comment. Public citizens 

have an opportunity to review the 

TCEQ’s proposed BACT determination 

and provide comments on the proposed 

permit during the specific comment 

period under 30 TAC Section 55.152. 

Pursuant to the Texas SIP at 30 TAC 

Section 55.156(b), the TCEQ must 

respond to all comments received on 

proposed PSD permits. 

Comment 10: Public citizens 

submitted several comments regarding 

the EPA’s proposed approval of the 

GHG PSD SIP, the rescission of the GHG 

PSD FIP, and the transition process to 

be used when transferring permitting 

authority to the TCEQ. Specifically, the 

commenters are concerned that the 

transition process is lacking the ‘‘voice’’ 

of the people on whether the public 

feels it is the right of the applicant/

company to be able to choose the EPA 

or the TCEQ as the permitting authority 

without the public’s input on pending 

applications. The commenters urged the 

EPA to retain the permitting authority in 

sensitive nonattainment areas such as in 

Brazoria County, Texas. Finally, the 

commenters submitted information 

regarding ozone monitor siting and air 

quality in Clute, water quality impacts 

in the Galveston Bay, and maps 

identifying locations of proposed GHG 

PSD permits. 

Response 10: While the EPA 

appreciates the commenter’s concerns 

about the public having a voice in the 

selection of a permit authority, we 

believe the appropriate regulatory and 

permit transition procedures are in 

place to ensure any GHG PSD permit, 

whether issued by the EPA or the TCEQ, 

complies with all federal PSD 

requirements. Further, the EPA offered 

an opportunity for review and comment 

on our proposed determination that the 

TCEQ has the requisite authority to 

address GHGs in the PSD program in 

Texas upon approval of the SIP and 

rescission of the FIP for GHGs. We 

received no comments on this specific 

issue. As stated in the proposal, the EPA 

finds the TCEQ has the necessary legal 

and regulatory provisions in place to 

successfully implement the federal 

requirements for GHG PSD permitting. 

As such, we are finalizing the approval 

of the Texas SIP provisions for GHG 

PSD permitting, with the above noted 

exceptions where we are taking no 

action at this time on certain revisions 

that appear to no longer be needed after 

the Supreme Court’s UARG v. EPA 

decision. In a separate but simultaneous 

action published elsewhere in this issue 

of the Federal Register, we are 

rescinding the majority of the Texas 

GHG PSD FIP. Upon the effective date 

of both of these actions, the TCEQ will 

have the authority to process 

applications and issue GHG PSD 

permits, except where the EPA retained 

authority in three limited 

circumstances. As stated in the EPA’s 

February 18, 2014, proposal and 

transition document referenced in that 

action, the EPA contacted each GHG 

PSD permit applicant who had 

submitted an application to the EPA at 

the time of our proposed approval. We 

provided these permit applicants the 

opportunity to elect either the EPA or 

the TCEQ as the issuer of its GHG 

permit by May 15, 2014. All permit 

applicants submitted a request for 

permitting authority by the deadline of 

May 15, 2014. For the permit 

applications that have been submitted 

since the EPA’s proposed approval, the 

EPA is retaining permitting authority 

and will continue evaluating and 

processing these permit applications 

unless and until the applicant submits 

a written request to transfer to the 

TCEQ, the EPA issues a final permit, or 

a permit application is withdrawn from 

the EPA. The EPA Region 6 GHG Web 

site has been updated to identify which 

permit applications have been retained 

by the EPA for processing and those 

which have been transferred to the 

TCEQ. We will continue to update this 

Web site as applicants make their 

decisions regarding permitting 

authority. Upon the effective date of our 

final SIP approval and simultaneous FIP 

rescission, the EPA will no longer 

accept applications for GHG PSD 

permits in Texas. From that point 

forward, the TCEQ will be the only 

permitting authority for GHG PSD 

permits in Texas, with the exception of 

the three limited circumstances where 

the EPA retains authority over a permit 

application or an issued permit has not 

gone through exhaustion of all 

administrative and judicial appeals, as 

discussed in our final FIP rescission 

action. Both the EPA and the TCEQ are 

required to issue GHG PSD permits that 

satisfy federal requirements for PSD 

permitting. In the instances where a 

permit applicant elected to transfer the 

permitting authority to the TCEQ and 

the EPA has already public noticed a 

draft permit and received comments, the 

EPA intends to contact each commenter 

to advise them to resubmit comments to 

the TCEQ pursuant to 30 TAC Sections 

39.412 and 55.152. 

Second, as we are finalizing this SIP 

approval rulemaking today, we find the 

TCEQ has adopted regulations sufficient 

to regulate emissions of GHGs from 

‘‘anyway’’ major emitting sources under 

the Texas PSD program. As part of the 

Texas PSD program, a GHG PSD permit 

application will be subject to the Texas 

SIP-approved public notice and 

comment procedures that are consistent 

with the EPA’s federal PSD public 

notice requirements at 40 CFR 

51.166(q). For new GHG PSD permit 

applications processed by the TCEQ and 

those ‘‘anyway’’ applications transferred 

from the EPA to the TCEQ for which the 

EPA has not proposed a draft permit, 

the Texas SIP-approved public notice 

process will involve two opportunities 

for public comment under 30 TAC 

Sections 39.418 and 39.419 for the 

Notice of Receipt of Application and 

Intent to Obtain Permit (NORI) and the 

Notice of Application and Preliminary 

Decision (NAPD). For the subset of 

permit applications that are transferred 

to the TCEQ after the EPA has already 

proposed a draft permit, these 

applications will either use the NORI 

and NAPD or will go through a 

Combined Public Notice under 30 TAC 

Section 39.412. Opportunity for public 

review and comment will be provided 

in all instances where the TCEQ is the 

permitting authority for a GHG PSD 

permit application. 

We would like to correct one 

statement from the commenter 

concerning nonattainment permitting, 

which is that the EPA should retain the 

GHG PSD FIP permitting authority in 

sensitive nonattainment areas. There are 

no GHG nonattainment areas; the EPA 

was the permitting authority only for 

GHG PSD permits. The TCEQ has been, 

and continues to be, the permitting 

authority for Nonattainment New 

Source Review (NNSR) permits in 

Texas. In Brazoria County, the EPA was 

the permitting authority for the GHG 

PSD permits but the TCEQ was the 

permitting authority for the NNSR 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
66634 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

permitting program and all other nonGHG PSD pollutants. 

After review and consideration of the 

additional materials submitted by the 

citizens, the EPA has determined that 

the data submitted regarding ozone 

monitors and air quality in Clute, water 

quality in Galveston Bay, and maps 

identifying locations of the proposed 

GHG PSD permit applications, are 

beyond the scope of our review and are 

not relevant to our proposed approval of 

the Texas GHG PSD SIP. No changes 

were made to the final SIP approval rule 

as a result of these comments. 

Comment 11: Air Alliance Houston 

commented that the EPA should 

encourage the TCEQ to compile an 

annual GHG emissions inventory of 

those sources required to submit 

emissions information under the EPA’s 

GHG Reporting Program. 

Response 11: While we appreciate the 

commenter’s suggestion, this 

requirement is beyond the scope of this 

action. Our final action today approves 

revisions to the Texas PSD SIP to 

provide the TCEQ the authority to 

regulate GHG emissions from ‘‘anyway’’ 

sources under the Texas PSD program 

consistent with the PSD requirements 

after the Supreme Court’s UARG v. EPA 

decision. The EPA’s PSD program 

regulation applicable to approval of a 

state program (40 CFR 51.166) does not 

require a GHG emissions inventory. 

However, as the commenter noted, the 

EPA has a separate requirement under 

the federal GHG Reporting Program that 

requires certain sources to report annual 

GHG emissions to the EPA for tracking 

in a national database. See the EPA 

regulations at 40 CFR Part 98. We note 

that the data submitted to the GHG 

Reporting Program is made available to 

the public at http://www.epa.gov/

climatechange/ghgemissions and can be 

readily sorted by state. The 

implementation of the GHG Reporting 

Program is outside the scope of the 

Texas SIP revision that the EPA is 

approving in this action. No changes 

were made to the final SIP approval rule 

as a result of these comments. 

Comment 12: Several commenters 

submitted comments regarding the 

EPA’s document titled ‘‘Transition 

Process for Transferring GHG PSD 

Permitting Authority to TCEQ.’’ These 

comments are summarized below: 

A. Comments about notification to 

companies regarding the Transition 

Process: 

Æ TCC suggests that the EPA clarify 

that letters sent to applicants will not be 

mailed until the final rule has been 

published in the Texas Register, on or 

about April 17, 2014. 

Æ TCC requests that the EPA post a 

message or announcement on its Web 

site indicating that letters concerning 

the transition process have been 

submitted to any of the GHG applicants. 

B. Comments about the deadline for 

selecting a permitting authority under 

the Transition Process: 

Æ TCC suggests the EPA not impose a 

firm 30-day decision deadline because 

of concerns that permit applicants 

selecting the TCEQ as the permitting 

authority may experience delay in 

processing of applications if the FIP 

rescission is delayed. 

Æ TCC requests that the EPA clarify 

whether a permit applicant will have 

the opportunity to request additional 

time beyond 30 days to submit a 

response regarding permitting authority. 

C. Comments about the Transition 

Process for Issued Permits: TCC, TIP, 

and TXOGA requested that the EPA 

reconsider the transition process, such 

that permit applications currently being 

reviewed in the Environmental Appeals 

Board (EAB) could be transferred to the 

TCEQ. 

Response 12: The EPA appreciates the 

comments on the Transition Process we 

will be using to transfer GHG PSD 

permitting authority to the TCEQ. After 

consideration of the comments and in 

light of the recent UARG v. EPA 

decision, we have decided that it is 

necessary to revise, in part, our 

Transition Process as well as revise, in 

part, the EPA’s proposed retained 

authority under the FIP. Below are our 

specific responses to the comments 

raised regarding the Transition Process 

and a discussion of how the EPA is 

revising our retained authority under 

the separate but simultaneous FIP 

rescission. 

Response 12A: For permit applicants 

with applications submitted at the time 

of our February 18, 2014, proposal, we 

are making no changes to the Transition 

Process. The EPA has provided 

adequate notice to those initial permit 

applicants regarding the Transition 

Process. The EPA mailed letters to each 

GHG permit applicant on file with the 

EPA on March 27, 2014, requesting a 

response no later than May 15, 2014. 

Those letters are available for public 

access in the docket for the SIP and FIP 

rulemaking actions. By communicating 

with our initial permit applicants 

immediately following the TCEQ 

Commissioners vote on March 26, 2014, 

to adopt the GHG PSD revisions, we 

provided our initial permit applicants 

with a reasonable amount of time to 

weigh individual business 

considerations and respond with a 

permitting authority request. The letters 

were delivered to the applicants via U.S. 

Postal delivery and email, ensuring 

multiple means of communication with 

each applicant. Additionally, our 

Region 6 GHG Web site was updated to 

indicate the availability for review and 

comment on the EPA’s proposed 

approval of the Texas GHG PSD SIP, 

rescission of the Texas GHG PSD FIP, 

and Transition Process. No changes 

were made to the final SIP approval rule 

as a result of these comments. 

The EPA recognizes that since the 

time of our proposed rulemaking, we 

have received additional permit 

applications and those permit 

applicants were not afforded a similar 

opportunity to select a permitting 

authority by the May 15, 2014, deadline 

specified in the Transition Process. For 

these permit applications submitted 

after the February 18, 2014, proposal, 

the EPA is retaining the permitting 

authority until the EPA either issues a 

final permit and all subsequent 

administrative and judicial appeals are 

exhausted, the applicant submits a 

written request to be transferred to the 

TCEQ, or the applicant withdraws the 

permit from the EPA. 

Response 12B: The EPA does not 

believe it is necessary to extend the 

deadline for requesting a transfer of 

permitting authority beyond the May 15, 

2014, deadline, as specified in our 

Transition Process for the initial permit 

applications that were submitted at the 

time of our February 18, 2014, proposed 

action. We received written permit 

authority requests from all permit 

applicants in house at the time of the 

proposed notice by the specified May 

15, 2014, deadline. 

However, in consideration of these 

comments and in light of the UARG v. 

EPA decision, we have decided that for 

any permit applications that were 

submitted after our proposed 

rulemaking, the EPA will retain 

permitting authority and continue to 

process and evaluate any pending 

permit application for an anyway source 

or modification unless or until the 

applicant submits a written request to 

transfer the authority to the TCEQ or 

withdraws the permit application from 

the EPA. The EPA will continue to 

process and evaluate any pending 

permit application for an anyway source 

or modification. There is no 30-day time 

period for a decision imposed on the 

permit applicants. Rather, the applicant 

can make an informed business decision 

through consultation with the EPA and 

the TCEQ, up until the EPA has issued 

a final permit. The EPA’s retained 

authority under the FIP was revised as 

a result of these comments. 

Response 12C: At this time, we intend 

to transfer all initial permit applications 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 66635 

9 ‘‘[W]e interpret the CAA to require an 

opportunity for judicial review of a decision to 

grant or deny a PSD permit, whether issued by EPA 

or by a State under a SIP-approved or delegated 

PSD program. See 61 FR 1880, 1882 (Jan. 24, 1996) 

(The EPA’s proposed disapproval of Virginia’s PSD 

program SIP revision due to State law standing 

requirements that limited judicial review); 72 FR 

72617, 72619 (December 21, 2007) (in approving 

South Dakota’s PSD program, the EPA stated: ‘We 

interpret the statute and regulations to require at 

minimum an opportunity for state judicial review 

of PSD permits’).’’ 77 FR 65307. 

10Clarification Letter from Mr. Richard A. Hyde, 

P.E., Executive Director, TCEQ to Mr. Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6 (May 30, 

2014) [hereinafter ‘‘Judicial Review Clarification 

Letter’’]. This letter is available in the docket for 

this rulemaking. 

11Tex. Air Control Bd. v. Travis Cnty, 502 SW.2d 

213, 215 (Tex. Civ. App.—Austin 1973, no writ); see 

also, Sproles Motor Freight Line, Inc. v. Smith, 130 

SW.2d 1087, 1088 (Tex. Civ. App.—Austin 1939, 

writ ref d). 

12Sierra Club states that the requirement to 

demonstrate that a member of the public is an 

‘‘affected person’’ has been prohibitively onerous in 

past the TCEQ proceedings under the contested 

case hearing process. See e.g., Rawls v. Texas 

Comm’n on Envtl. Quality, 11–05–00368CV, 2007 

WL 1849096 (Tex. App. June 28, 2007); Friends of 

Canyon Lake, Inc. v. Guadalupe-Blanco River 

Auth., 96 SW.3d 519, 527 (Tex. App. 2002); and 

Sierra Club and Public Citizen v. TCEQ, District 

Court of Travis County, Texas, Case No. D–1–GN– 

13–000678. 

and related materials to the TCEQ where 

a permit applicant requested the transfer 

in writing by May 15, 2014, as specified 

in the Transition Process. Additionally, 

as discussed above in Responses 12A 

and 12B, for any permit application 

submitted after our February 18, 2014, 

proposed rulemaking, the EPA will 

transfer the permit application and 

related materials to the TCEQ where the 

permit applicant submits a written 

request to transfer to the TCEQ. The 

EPA will confirm the transfer of the 

permit application by providing a letter 

to the TCEQ and the permit applicant 

wherein we transfer the permit 

application, related materials, and state 

that we consider the request for transfer 

a withdrawal of the application that 

removes the application from review 

and further action by the EPA. As 

discussed in our February 18, 2014, 

proposed rulemaking, the EPA’s 

permitting authority ‘‘will cease upon 

an applicant’s written request to the 

EPA withdrawing the pending permit 

application before a final determination 

is made.’’ See 79 FR 9123, 9133. A final 

determination on the permit is made 

when all administrative and judicial 

appeals processes have been exhausted. 

The EPA will retain permitting 

authority for ‘‘anyway’’ GHG PSD 

permits that are issued or ‘‘anyway’’ 

permit applications denied by the EPA 

for which either the time for filing an 

administrative appeal has not expired or 

all administrative and judicial appeals 

processes have not been completed. As 

stated in our Transition Process, a GHG 

PSD permit applicant has the ability to 

withdraw the permit application before 

the EPA and submit a new application 

to the TCEQ at any time until the permit 

becomes final. Because a permit does 

not become final until agency review 

procedures are exhausted, an applicant 

can withdraw an application while a 

permit is under EAB review. No changes 

were made to the final SIP approval rule 

as a result of these comments, but we 

have modified the authority retained by 

EPA in the FIP for certain permit 

applications for other reasons. 

Comment 13: Sierra Club submitted 

several comments and supporting 

exhibits requesting that the EPA not 

approve the GHG PSD SIP and rescind 

the FIP until the TCEQ submits 

clarifications regarding access to 

judicial review for GHG PSD permits. 

First, Sierra Club commented that if the 

commission acts on a GHG permit, then 

the Texas regulations appear to require 

a party to go through the contested case 

hearing process in order to exhaust 

administrative remedies, which is 

necessary to later seek judicial review. 

However, HB 788 removes the 

opportunity for a contested case hearing 

for GHG permits. As a result, the TCEQ 

has not adequately clarified the process 

to exhaust all administrative remedies 

before seeking judicial review when the 

commission acts on a GHG permit. 

Response 13: Because judicial review 

of PSD permits is important and 

necessary under the Act, we have 

reevaluated the Texas judicial review 

process as it applies to GHG PSD 

permits issued by the TCEQ. 77 FR 

65305, at 65307 (Oct. 26, 2012).9 The 

TCEQ provided a letter to the EPA dated 

May 30, 2014,10 to clarify the judicial 

review process and the associated 

administrative remedies with respect to 

the GHG PSD permits issued by Texas. 

This letter explains the processes to 

exhaust administrative remedies and 

confirms that Texas law provides an 

opportunity for judicial review of all 

GHG PSD permits issued by the TCEQ. 

Texas regulations do not require a party 

to go through the contested case hearing 

process in order to exhaust 

administrative remedies when the 

commission acts on a GHG permit. 

Section 50.119(b) provides that ‘‘[i]f the 

commission acts on an application, 

§ 80.272 [Motion for Rehearing] of this 

title applies.’’ Further, Section 

50.119(c)(3) provides that motions for 

rehearing may be filed on ‘‘the 

commission’s decision on an 

application.’’ Section 80.272 is a 

procedural provision that sets out the 

process for filing a motion for rehearing 

after the commission makes a decision 

on a permit. State law allows the TCEQ 

to establish a motion for rehearing via 

regulation, even when there is no 

statutory right to a contested case 

hearing.11 Section 50.119(c) does not 

require a contested case hearing for a 

motion for rehearing to be available. We 

recognize that the judicial review 

process under Texas law differs from 

the administrative and judicial review 

processes available for PSD permit 

decisions under 40 CFR part 124 

(opportunity to petition for 

administrative review by the EPA’s 

Environmental Appeals Board (EAB)) 

and Section 307(b) of the CAA 

(opportunity to seek review before a 

federal Circuit Court of Appeals) when 

the EPA or a delegated agency under 40 

CFR 52.21 is the PSD permit issuer. 

However, the CAA does not require that 

the process for judicial review of the 

grant or denial of a PSD permit issued 

under a SIP approved PSD program be 

identical to that provided when the EPA 

or a delegated agency is the PSD permit 

issuer under 40 CFR 52.21. 77 FR 65305 

at 65307 (Oct. 26, 2012). No revisions 

were made to the final SIP approval rule 

as a result of this comment. 

Comment 14: Sierra Club also 

commented that the availability of 

judicial review for PSD permits is too 

limited because the TCEQ restricts 

standing requirements to ‘‘affected 

persons’’, which the commenter alleges 

is more restrictive than Article III 

standing under the U.S. Constitution.12

Sierra Club is also concerned that Texas 

will assert that no person has standing 

to challenge a GHG PSD permit because 

the TCEQ does not believe that anyone 

is affected by GHG emissions. Sierra 

Club asks the EPA to require the TCEQ 

to amend its regulations to clarify that 

persons who participate in or comment 

on the permitting process will have 

standing to seek review of a final permit 

decision in court. 

Response 14: The Texas permitting 

program adequately provides access to 

judicial review as required under Title 

I of the CAA for PSD. The EPA believes 

that Congress intended such 

opportunity for state judicial review of 

PSD permit actions to be available to 

permit applicants and at least those 

members of the public who participated 

in the public comment process and can 

satisfy threshold standing requirements 

under Article III of the Constitution. 61 

FR at 1882. The Texas permitting 

program enables any member of the 

public who participated in the public 

comment process on a GHG PSD permit 

and who meets the threshold standing 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
66636 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

13THSC section 382.032(a) states that, ‘‘[a] person 

affected by a ruling, order, decision, or other act of 

the commission or of the executive director, if an 

appeal to the commission is not provided, may 

appeal the action by filing a petition in a district 

court of Travis County.’’ 

requirements of Article III of the 

Constitution to obtain judicial review of 

the permit in the State’s court system 

after exhausting the administrative 

remedies, either through a Motion to 

Overturn or Motion for Rehearing. 38 

Tex. Reg. 7845, at 7854 (Nov. 8, 2013). 

The definition of ‘‘affected person’’ that 

commenter refers to applies to the 

contested case hearing process. See 30 

TAC 53.3, Judicial Review Clarification 

Letter, pages 1–2. As discussed above, 

the contested case hearing process does 

not apply to Texas’ GHG PSD permitting 

program. Access to judicial review for 

GHG PSD permits issued by the TCEQ 

is governed by THSC § 382.032, and 

standing for judicial review of such 

permits is commensurate with Article III 

of the Constitution. 38 Tex. Reg. at 

7849.13 Therefore, Texas’ program meets 

the minimum requirements for judicial 

review required for PSD SIP programs. 

If the EPA discovers evidence to support 

the assertion that the TCEQ’s GHG 

permitting program failed to provide 

adequate access to judicial review as 

federally required under Title I of the 

CAA for PSD, then the EPA could 

address this implementation failure on 

a permit specific basis or by using 

another CAA remedy mechanism. No 

revisions were made to the final SIP 

approval rule as a result of this 

comment. 

Comment 15: Finally, Sierra Club 

states that the TCEQ’s SIP submittal 

should clarify the path to seek judicial 

review to raise GHG PSD claims for 

permits that address both GHG and nonGHG emissions. 

Response 15: The TCEQ’s Judicial 

Review Clarification Letter explains the 

administrative and judicial review 

processes for consolidated permit 

applications for GHG and non-GHG 

emissions. If the TCEQ receives a 

request for a contested case hearing on 

a consolidated application, the entire 

application will be forwarded to the 

commissioners for consideration. If the 

commissioners grant a hearing request, 

the application and draft permit will be 

referred to the State Office of 

Administrative Hearings (SOAH) for a 

contested case hearing on issues related 

to the non-GHG portion of the 

application and draft permit. If SOAH 

holds an evidentiary hearing, SOAH 

will then send a Proposal for Decision 

to the commission on the contested 

portion of the application. At that point, 

the commissioners will consider and 

take action on the entire consolidated 

application and draft permit, including 

the GHG PSD portion and the non-GHG 

portion. All final actions by the 

commissioners on a consolidated 

application are subject to the motion for 

rehearing requirement. If a motion for 

rehearing is filed and the commissioners 

deny the motion or if it is overruled by 

operation of law, the final order may be 

appealed to a Travis County District 

Court. Judicial Review Clarification 

Letter, pages 2–3. No revisions were 

made to the final SIP approval rule as 

a result of this comment. 

IV. Effective Date of Final Action 

The EPA has determined that this 

final SIP approval action and the 

separate but simultaneous final FIP 

action are effective immediately upon 

publication under the authority of 5 

U.S.C. Section 553(d) of the APA. The 

expedited effective date for this final 

SIP approval action and the separate but 

simultaneous FIP action is authorized 

under both 5 U.S.C. Section 553(d)(1) 

and 553(d)(3) of the APA. Section 

553(d)(1) allows an effective date less 

than 30 days after publication if a 

substantive rule relieves a ‘‘restriction.’’ 

Section 553(d)(3) allows an effective 

date less than 30 days after publication 

‘‘as otherwise provided by the agency 

for good cause found and published 

with the rule.’’ The EPA has determined 

that it is appropriate to make both final 

actions effective upon publication 

because the final approval of the 

majority of the Texas GHG PSD SIP and 

the separate but simultaneous removal 

of the majority of the Texas GHG PSD 

FIP will both relieve a permitting 

restriction and there is ‘‘good cause’’ to 

allow Texas to begin processing PSD 

GHG permit applications that meet the 

appropriate federal PSD requirements 

immediately. Final immediate action 

relieves a restriction by promoting an 

efficient single permitting authority 

process, supports an efficient use of 

EPA and State resources, and creates 

certainty for the regulated community 

and public. It provides Texas with 

undelayed authority to regulate major 

GHG emitting sources, and the EPA and 

the TCEQ have worked closely to ensure 

the State has adequate authority and 

resources to administer the GHG 

permitting program without a 30-day 

delay, which is normally the time 

required for affected parties to adjust 

their behavior and prepare before a final 

rule takes effect. The EPA has 

determined that moving as 

expeditiously as practicable to 

consolidate GHG PSD permitting with 

the TCEQ is consistent with the State’s 

authority and resources to administer 

the GHG PSD permitting program. The 

EPA finds that the above reasons 

support an effective date prior to thirty 

days after the date of publication under 

5 U.S.C. Section 553(d) for both this 

final SIP approval action and the 

separate but simultaneous FIP action by 

establishing good cause for making the 

rule immediately effective and 

demonstrating that the rule relieves a 

restriction. 

V. Final Action 

The EPA finds that the October 5, 

2010, revisions to the Texas SIP that are 

part of this rulemaking are approvable 

because they are in accordance with the 

CAA and the EPA regulations regarding 

SIP development and NSR permitting. 

The EPA finds that the majority of the 

April 16, 2014, revisions to the Texas 

SIP that are part of this rulemaking are 

approvable because they are in 

accordance with the CAA and the EPA 

regulations regarding SIP development 

and GHG regulations, and consistent 

with the Supreme Court’s UARG v. EPA 

ruling. The EPA approves the following 

revisions to the Texas SIP under Section 

110 and Part C of the Act and will revise 

the table at 40 CFR 52.2270(c) 

accordingly: 

• Revisions to 30 TAC Section 

116.111 adopted on September 15, 2010, 

and submitted on October 5, 2010, to 

clarify the application of BACT to all 

PSD permit applications in the Texas 

NSR program; 

• Revisions adopted on March 26, 

2014, and submitted on April 16, 2014, 

necessary to provide the TCEQ the 

authority to regulate GHG emissions 

under the Texas PSD Program: 

Æ Revisions to Public Notice 

requirements at 30 TAC Sections 

39.411(e)(11), (e)(15), (e)(16), (f)(4), 

(f)(8), 39.412(a)–(d), 39.419(e)(1), and 

39.420(e)(4). 

Æ Revisions to the General Air 

Quality Definitions at 30 TAC Sections 

101.1. 

Æ Revisions to the Emission Inventory 

Requirements at 30 TAC Section 101.10. 

Æ Revisions to Emissions Event 

Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Requirements at 30 TAC Section 

101.201. 

Æ Revisions to the Permits by Rule 

Minor NSR program at 30 TAC Sections 

106.2 and 106.4(d). 

Æ Revisions to the Definitions for 

Texas NSR Permitting at 30 TAC 

Section 116.12, including substantive 

revisions to the definition of ‘‘federally 

regulated new source review pollutant’’, 

new definitions of ‘‘Carbon dioxide 

equivalent’’ and ‘‘Greenhouse gases’’, 

and non-substantive renumbering and 

updates to correct grammar and 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 66637 

formatting of existing SIP-approved 

definitions. 

Æ Revisions to Permit Application 

provisions for Texas NSR Permitting at 

30 TAC Section 116.111(b)(1). 

Æ Revisions to the Texas PSD 

Program at 30 TAC Section 116.160(c) 

that address permitting requirements for 

‘‘anyway’’ sources. 

Æ New 30 TAC Section 116.164(a) 

introductory paragraph, (a)(1) and (a)(2) 

for anyway GHG PSD requirements. 

Æ New 30 TAC Section 116.169(a) to 

establish the transition process for GHG 

permitting. 

Æ Revisions to the Standard Permit 

Minor NSR program at 30 TAC Sections 

116.610(a)(1) and 116.611(c)(1) and 

(c)(2). 

Æ Revisions to the definition of 

Potential to Emit at 30 TAC Section 

122.122(a), (e)(1), and (e)(2). 

The EPA is severing and taking no 

action at this time on the remainder of 

the October 5, 2010, SIP submittal for 

the adoption and implementation of the 

Texas Minor NSR Qualified Facilities 

Program. The EPA is also taking no 

action at this time on the following 

portions of the April 16, 2014, SIP 

submittal that address ‘‘Step 2’’ 

permitting and were impacted by the 

Supreme Court’s UARG v. EPA decision: 

• Revisions to 30 TAC Section 

106.4(a)(1), (a)(3) and (a)(4) adopted on 

March 26, 2014, and submitted on April 

16, 2014; 

• Substantive revisions to the 

definition of ‘‘major stationary source’’ 

pertaining to ‘‘non-anyway’’ sources and 

modifications at 30 TAC Section 

116.12(19) adopted on March 26, 2014, 

and submitted on April 16, 2014; 

• Substantive revisions to the 

definition of ‘‘major modification’’ 

pertaining to ‘‘non-anyway’’ sources and 

modifications at 30 TAC Section 

116.12(20) adopted on March 26, 2014, 

and submitted on April 16, 2014; 

• Revisions to 30 TAC Section 

116.111(a)(2)(I) adopted on March 26, 

2014, and submitted on April 16, 2014; 

• Revisions to 30 TAC Section 

116.160(a) and (b) adopted on March 26, 

2014, and submitted on April 16, 2014; 

• New 30 TAC Sections 116.164(a)(3), 

(a)(4), (a)(5), and (b) adopted on March 

26, 2014, and submitted on April 16, 

2014; 

• Revisions to 30 TAC Sections 

116.610(b) adopted on March 26, 2014, 

and submitted on April 16, 2014; 

• Revisions to 30 TAC Sections 

116.611(b), 116.611(c)(3), 

116.611(c)(3)(A), and 116.611(c)(3)(B) 

adopted on March 26, 2014, and 

submitted on April 16, 2014; and 

• Revisions to 30 TAC Sections 

122.122(e)(3), (e)(3)(A), and (e)(3)(B) 

adopted on March 26, 2014, and 

submitted on April 16, 2014. 

The EPA is also approving the 

following three letters from the TCEQ 

into the Texas SIP at 40 CFR 52.2270(e): 

• December 2, 2013, Letter from the 

TCEQ that clarifies the TCEQ has the 

authority under the Texas Clean Air Act 

to apply the Texas PSD program to all 

pollutants newly subject to regulation, 

including non-NAAQS pollutants into 

the future; 

• January 13, 2014, Letter from the 

TCEQ that clarifies the TCEQ has the 

general authority to administer EPA 

issued GHG PSD permits and to process 

and issue any and all subsequent PSD 

actions relating to EPA issued GHG PSD 

permits; and 

• May 30, 2014, Letter from the TCEQ 

that clarifies the judicial review process 

for Texas PSD permits. 

As a result of our final approval of the 

April 16, 2014, revisions to the Texas 

SIP for GHG PSD permitting, the EPA is 

simultaneously rescinding the majority 

of the GHG PSD FIP for Texas at 40 CFR 

52.2305(a), (b), (c), and (d) as discussed 

in the separate but simultaneous final 

action published elsewhere in this issue 

of the Federal Register. 

The EPA also finds under the 

authority of 5 U.S.C. Section 553(d) of 

the APA, to make this final SIP approval 

action and the separate but 

simultaneous final FIP action effective 

upon November 10, 2014. Upon the 

effective date of this final SIP approval 

and the separate but simultaneous FIP 

rescission, the TCEQ will immediately 

resume responsibility for GHG PSD 

permitting, with the exception of the 

three limited circumstances where the 

EPA is retaining GHG PSD permitting 

authority under the FIP, as described in 

the separate but simultaneous FIP 

action. As such, all new GHG PSD 

permit applications will be submitted to 

and processed by the TCEQ. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, 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 Clean Air 

Act. Accordingly, this action merely 

approves 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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• 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 Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide the 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 rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), nor will it impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. Section 808 allows 

the issuing agency to make any rule 

effective ‘‘at such time as the Federal 

agency promulgating the rule 

determines’’ if the agency makes a 

‘‘good cause’’ finding that notice and 

public procedure is impracticable, 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
66638 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

unnecessary or contrary to the public 

interest. This determination must be 

supported by a brief statement. 5. U.S.C. 

808(2). As stated previously, the EPA 

has made such a ‘‘good cause’’ finding, 

including the reasons therefore, and 

established an effective date of 

November 10, 2014. The EPA submitted 

a report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. This action is not 

a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). This rule will be effective 

November 10, 2014. 

Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by January 9, 2015. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposed judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See Section 

307(b)(2) of the CAA.) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: October 22, 2014. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Environmental Protection 

Agency amends 40 CFR Part 52 as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart SS—Texas 

■ 2. In § 52.2270: 

■ a. The table in paragraph (c) entitled 

‘‘EPA Approved Regulations in the 

Texas SIP’’ is amended by revising the 

entries for Sections 39.411, 39.419, 

39.420, 101.1, 101.10, 101.201, 106.2, 

106.4, 116.12, 116.111, 116.160, 

116.610, 116.611, 122.122 and adding 

new entries in sequential order for 

Sections 39.412, 116.164, and 116.169; 

and 

■ b. The table in paragraph (e) entitled 

‘‘EPA Approved Nonregulatory 

Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory 

Measures in the Texas SIP’’ is amended 

by adding entries at the end of the table 

for clarification letters dated December 

2, 2013, January 13, 2014, and May 30, 

2014. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2270 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE TEXAS SIP 

State citation Title/Subject 

State approval/submittal date 

EPA Approval date Explanation 

*******

Chapter 39—Public Notice 

Subchapter H—Applicability and General Provisions 

*******

Section 39.411 ...... Text of Public Notice ............... 3/26/2014 11/10/2014 [Insert FR page 

number where document begins].

SIP includes 39.411(a), 39.411(e)(1)– 

(4)(A)(i) and (iii), (4)(B), (e)(5)(A), 

(e)(5)(B), (e)(6)–(10), (e)(11)(A)(i), 

(e)(11)(A)(iii), (e)(11)(A)(iv), 

(e)(11)(B)–(F), (e)(13), (e)(15), 

(e)(16), (f)(1)–(8), (g), and (h). 

Section 39.412 ...... Combined Notice for Certain 

Greenhouse Gases Permit 

Applications.

3/26/2014 11/10/2014 [Insert FR page 

number where document begins].

* * * * * * * 

Section 39.419 ...... Notice of Application and Preliminary Determination.3/26/2014 11/10/2014 [Insert FR page 

number where document begins].

SIP includes 39.419(e) (e)(1) and 

(e)(2). 

Section 39.420 ...... Transmittal of the Executive 

Director’s Response to Comments and Decisions.

3/26/2014 11/10/2014 [Insert FR page 

number where document begins].

SIP includes 39.420(c)(1)(A)–(D)(i)(I) 

and (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (c)(2), and (d)– 

(e). 

* * * * * * * 

Chapter 101—General Air Quality Rules 

Subchapter A—General Rules 

Section 101.1 ........ Definitions ................................ 3/26/2014 11/10/2014 [Insert FR page 

number where document begins].


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 66639 

EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE TEXAS SIP—Continued 

State citation Title/Subject 

State approval/submittal date 

EPA Approval date Explanation 

*******

Section 101.10 ...... Emissions Inventory Requirements.3/26/2014 11/10/2014 [Insert FR page 

number where document begins].

* * * * * * * 

Subchapter F—Emissions Events and Scheduled Maintenance, Startup, and Shutdown Activities 

Division 1—Emissions Events 

Section 101.201 .... Emissions Event Reporting 

and Recordkeeping Requirements.

3/26/2014 11/10/2014 [Insert FR page 

number where document begins].

101.201(h) is not in the SIP. 

* * * * * * * 

Chapter 106—Permits by Rule 

Subchapter A—General Requirements 

*******

Section 106.2 ........ Applicability .............................. 3/26/2014 11/10/2014 [Insert FR page 

number where document begins].

Section 106.4 ........ Requirements for Permitting by 

Rule.

3/26/2014 11/10/2014 [Insert FR page 

number where document begins].

The SIP approved provisions at 30 

TAC Section 106.4(a)(1), (a)(3), and 

(a)(4) are those adopted by the 

State as of 4/20/2011. 

* * * * * * * 

Chapter 116 (Reg 6)—Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification 

Subchapter A—Definitions 

*******

Section 116.12 ...... Nonattainment and Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration 

Review Definitions.

3/26/2014 11/10/2014 [Insert FR page 

number where document begins].

The SIP does NOT include the substantive revisions to the definitions 

of ‘‘major stationary source’’ at 30 

TAC Section 116.12(19) or ‘‘major 

modification’’ at 30 TAC Section 

116.12(20) pertaining to ‘‘Step 2’’ or 

‘‘non-anyway’’ GHG sources. 

The SIP includes the TCEQ’s letter 

dated 5/3/2012, which explains and 

clarifies the TCEQ’s interpretation of 

the definition of ‘‘plant-wide applicability limit’’ in 30 TAC Section 

116.12(24). 

* * * * * * * 

Subchapter B—New Source Review Permits 

Division 1—Permit Application 

*******

Section 116.111 .... General Application ................. 3/26/2014 11/10/2014 [Insert FR page 

number where document begins].

30 TAC Section 116.111(a)(2)(I) is 

SIP-approved as adopted by the 

State as of 8/21/2002. 

The SIP does NOT include 30 TAC 

Section 116.111(a)(2)(K). 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
66640 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE TEXAS SIP—Continued 

State citation Title/Subject 

State approval/submittal date 

EPA Approval date Explanation 

*******

Division 6—Prevention of Significant Deterioration Review 

Section 116.160 .... Prevention of Significant Deterioration Requirements.3/26/2014 11/10/2014 [Insert FR page 

number where document begins].

The PSD SIP includes 30 TAC Section 

116.160(a) and (b) as adopted by 

the State as of 6/2/2010. 

The PSD SIP includes a letter from 

the TCEQ dated December 2, 2013, 

committing that Texas will follow a 

SIP amendment process to apply its 

PSD SIP to additional pollutants that 

are regulated in the future, including 

non-NAAQS pollutants. 

The PSD SIP includes a letter from 

the TCEQ dated May 30, 2014, 

clarifying the judicial review process 

for the Texas PSD permit program. 

* * * * * * * 

Section 116.164 .... Prevention of Significant Deterioration Applicability for 

Greenhouse Gases Sources.

3/26/2014 11/10/2014 [Insert FR page 

number where document begins].

The PSD SIP does NOT include 30 

TAC Sections 116.164(a)(3), (a)(4), 

(a)(5), and (b). 

Section 116.169 .... Greenhouse Gases Program 

Transitions.

3/26/2014 11/10/2014 [Insert FR page 

number where document begins].

The PSD SIP does NOT include 30 

TAC Section 116.169(b). 

The PSD SIP includes a letter from 

the TCEQ dated January 13, 2014, 

regarding the TCEQ’s authority to 

administer EPA-issued GHG PSD 

permits. 

* * * * * * * 

Subchapter F—Standard Permits 

*******

Section 116.610 .... Applicability .............................. 3/26/2014 11/10/2014 [Insert FR page 

number where document begins].

30 TAC Section 116.610(b) is SIP-approved as adopted by the State as 

of 11/20/2002. 

The SIP does NOT include 30 TAC 

Section 116.610(d). 

Section 116.611 .... Registration to Use a Standard 

Permit.

3/26/2014 11/10/2014 [Insert FR page 

number where document begins].

30 TAC Section 116.611(b) is SIP-approved as adopted by the State as 

of 11/20/2002. 

The SIP does NOT include 30 TAC 

Section 116.611(c)(3), (c)(3)(A), and 

(c)(3)(B). 

* * * * * * * 

Chapter 122—Federal Operating Permits 

Subchapter B—Permit Requirements 

Division 2—Applicability 

Section 122.122 .... Potential to Emit ...................... 3/26/2014 11/10/2014 ...............................

[Insert FR page number where 

document begins].

The SIP does NOT include 30 TAC 

Section 122.122(e)(3), (e)(3)(A), or 

(e)(3)(B). 

* * * * * (e) * * * 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 66641 

EPA-APPROVED NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES IN THE TEXAS SIP 

Name of SIP provisions 

Applicable 

geographic or 

nonattainment 

area 

State submittal/ 

effective date EPA approval date Comments 

*******

Commitment Letter from the 

TCEQ regarding regulation of 

PSD pollutants into the future.

Statewide .......... December 2, 2013 ... 11/10/2014 [Insert 

FR page number 

where document 

begins].

Clarifies that the TCEQ has the authority 

under the Texas Clean Air Act to apply 

the Texas PSD program to all pollutants 

newly subject to regulation, including 

non-NAAQS pollutants into the future. 

Clarification Letter from the TCEQ 

regarding authority to administer EPA issued GHG PSD 

permits.

Statewide .......... January 13, 2014 .... 11/10/2014 [Insert 

FR page number 

where document 

begins].

Clarifies that the TCEQ has the general 

authority to administer EPA issued 

GHG PSD permits. Also clarifies that 

the TCEQ has authority to process and 

issue any and all subsequent PSD actions relating to EPA issued GHG PSD 

permits. 

Clarification Letter from the TCEQ 

regarding Judicial Review for 

PSD Permits.

Statewide .......... May 30, 2014 .......... 11/10/2014 [Insert 

FR page number 

where document 

begins].

Clarifies the judicial review process for 

Texas PSD permits. 

■ 3. Section 52.2303 is amended by 

adding paragraph (a)(1)(xi) to read as 

follows. 

§ 52.2303 Significant deterioration of air 

quality. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(xi) November 10, 2014 (as revised by 

the Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality on March 24, 

2014, and submitted on April 16, 2014, 

and further clarified in letters dated 

December 2, 2013, January 13, 2014, and 

May 30, 2014) to address PSD 

permitting requirements of GHG 

emissions for major sources and 

modifications required to obtain PSD 

permits because of emissions of 

pollutants other than GHGs 

promulgated by EPA on June 3, 2010. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–26314 Filed 11–7–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2013–0808; FRL–9912–50– 

OAR] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Withdrawal of Federal Implementation 

Plan; Texas; Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration; Greenhouse Gas 

Tailoring Rule Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

rescind a Federal Implementation Plan 

(FIP) for Texas for greenhouse gas (GHG) 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) permitting, with three limited 

circumstances for retained federal 

permitting authority. We are removing 

the majority of the GHG PSD FIP 

because in a separate but simultaneous 

action being published elsewhere in this 

issue of the Federal Register, we are 

finalizing approval of the majority of 

revisions to the Texas State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to the 

EPA on October 5, 2010, and April 16, 

2014, that address the state’s authority 

to regulate GHGs and establish an 

approvable GHG PSD permitting 

program. The EPA is finalizing this 

action under Section 110 and Part C of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

November 10, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R06–OAR–2013–0808. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. 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 http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. Contact the person listed 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT paragraph below to make an 

appointment. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Adina Wiley, Air Permits Section (6PD– 

R), telephone (214) 665–2115, email 

wiley.adina@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Recent UARG v. EPA U.S. Supreme Court 

Decision 

A. Overview of the Decision and 

Implications for this Action 

B. Changes to the Transition Process as a 

Result of the UARG v. EPA Decision 

III. Response to Comments 

IV. Effective Date of Final Action 

V. Final Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with RULES