71260 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 222 / Thursday, November 17, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

(B) [Reserved]. For further guidance, 

see § 301.7701–2(c)(2)(iv)(B). 

(C) Exceptions. For exceptions to the 

rule in § 301.7701–2(c)(2)(iv)(B), see 

sections 31.3121(b)(3)–1(d), 31.3127– 

1(c), and 31.3306(c)(5)–1(d). 

(D) through (e)(4) [Reserved]. For 

further guidance, see § 301.7701– 

2(c)(2)(iv)(D) through (e)(4). 

(5) Paragraphs (c)(2)(iv)(A) and 

(c)(2)(iv)(C) of this section apply to 

wages paid on or after November 17, 

2011. For rules that apply to paragraph 

(c)(2)(iv)(A) of this section before 

November 17, 2011, see 26 CFR part 301 

revised as of April 1, 2009. However, 

taxpayers may apply paragraphs 

(c)(2)(iv)(A) and (c)(2)(iv)(C) of this 

section to wages paid on or after January 

1, 2009. 

(e)(6) through (e)(7) [Reserved]. For 

further guidance, see § 301.7701–2(e)(6) 

through (e)(7). 

(8) Expiration Date. The applicability 

of paragraphs (c)(2)(iv)(A) and 

(c)(2)(iv)(C) of this section expires on or 

before November 14, 2014. 

LaNita Van Dyke, 

Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, 

Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief 

Counsel, (Procedure and Administration). 

[FR Doc. 2011–29560 Filed 11–16–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2011–1042] 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

China Basin, San Francisco, CA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation 

from regulations. 

SUMMARY: The Commander, Eleventh 

Coast Guard District, has issued a 

temporary deviation from the regulation 

governing the operation of the Third 

Street Drawbridge across China Basin, 

mile 0.0, at San Francisco, CA. The 

deviation is necessary to allow the City 

of San Francisco to inspect the bridge 

structure as required by the U.S. 

Department of Transportation. This 

deviation allows the bridge to be 

secured in the closed-to-navigation 

position during the deviation period. 

DATES: This deviation is effective from 

10 a.m. to 2 p.m. on November 16, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in 

this preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of the docket USCG– 

2011–1042 and are available online by 

going to http://www.regulations.gov, 

inserting USCG–2011–1042 in the 

‘‘Keyword’’ box and then clicking 

‘‘Search’’. They are also available for 

inspection or copying at the Docket 

Management Facility (M–30), U.S. 

Department of Transportation, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

email David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge 

Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; 

telephone (510) 437–3516, email 

David.H.Sulouff@uscg.mil If you have 

questions on viewing the docket, call 

Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone (202) 

366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The City 

of San Francisco requested a temporary 

change to the operation of the Third 

Street Drawbridge, mile 0.0, over China 

Basin, at San Francisco, CA. The 

drawbridge navigation span provides a 

vertical clearance of 3 feet above Mean 

High Water in the closed-to-navigation 

position. As required by 33 CFR 

117.149, the draw shall open on signal 

if at least one hour notice is given to the 

San Francisco Department of Public 

Works. Navigation on the waterway is 

commercial and recreational. 

The Third Street Drawbridge will be 

secured in the closed-to-navigation 

position from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. on 

November 16, 2011, to allow the City of 

San Francisco to inspect the bridge 

structure as required by the U.S. 

Department of Transportation. This 

temporary deviation has been 

coordinated with the waterway users. 

No objections to the proposed 

temporary deviation were received. 

Vessels that can transit the bridge, 

while in the closed-to-navigation 

position, may continue to do so at any 

time. In the event of an emergency, the 

drawbridge can open upon one hour 

notice. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), 

the drawbridge must return to its regular 

operating schedule immediately at the 

end of the designated time period. This 

deviation from the operating regulations 

is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. 

Dated: November 3, 2011. 

D.H. Sulouff, 

Bridge Section Chief, Eleventh Coast Guard 

District. 

[FR Doc. 2011–29652 Filed 11–16–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2005–TX–0025; 

FRL–9489–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Texas; 

Revisions to the New Source Review 

(NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP); 

General Definitions; Definition of 

Modification of Existing Facility 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving, as 

proposed July 18, 2011, several 

revisions to the State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) for the State of Texas that 

relate to severable portions of the 

definition of ‘‘modification of existing 

facility’’ in the general definitions for 

the Texas NSR Program. EPA finds that 

these changes to the Texas SIP comply 

with the Federal Clean Air Act (the Act 

or CAA) and EPA regulations, and are 

consistent with EPA policies. EPA is 

also disapproving a severable portion of 

the definition that was proposed for 

disapproval on September 23, 2009. 

EPA is taking these actions under 

section 110 of the Act. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

December 19, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R06–OAR–2005–TX–0025. 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 Permits Section (6PD–R), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. The file will be made 

available by appointment for public 

inspection in the Region 6 Freedom of 

Information Act Review Room between 

the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. 

weekdays except for legal holidays. 

Contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at 

(214) 665–7253 to make an 

appointment. If possible, please make 

the appointment at least two working 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 222 / Thursday, November 17, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 71261 

1The UT Environmental Clinic forwarded its 

comments on behalf of: Environmental Integrity 

Project: Environmental Defense Fund; GalvestonHouston Association for Smog Prevention; Public 

Citizen; Citizens for Environmental Justice; Sierra 

Club Lone Star Chapter; Community-In-Power and 

Development Association; KIDS for Clean Air; 

Clean Air Institute of Texas; Sustainable Energy and 

Economic Development Coalition; Robertson 

County: Our Land, Our Lives; Texas Protecting Our 

Land, Water, and Environment; Citizens for a Clean 

Environment; Multi-County Coalition; and Citizens 

Opposing Power Plants for Clean Air. 

2The TSD for the September 23, 2009, proposal 

is in the docket as document EPA–R06–OAR–2005– 

TX–0025–0007. You can access this TSD on line at: 

http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!documentDetail;D=EPA-R06-OAR-2005-TX-0025- 

0007. 

3The TSD for the July 18, 2011, proposal is in the 

docket as document EPA–R06–OAR–2005–TX– 

0025–0378. You can access this TSD on line at: 

http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!documentDetail;D=EPA-R06-OAR-2005-TX-0025- 

0378. 

days in advance of your visit. There will 

be a 15 cent per page fee for making 

photocopies of documents. On the day 

of the visit, please check in at the EPA 

Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. 

The State submittal is also available 

for public inspection at the State Air 

Agency listed below during official 

business hours by appointment: 

Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality (TCEQ), Office of Air Quality, 

12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 

78753. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Stanley M. Spruiell, Air Permits Section 

(6PD–R), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, 

telephone (214) 665–7212; fax number 

(214) 665–6762; email address 

spruiell.stanley@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

any reference to ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is 

used, we mean EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittals 

II. What action is EPA taking? 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Severable 

Portions of the Definition of 

‘‘Modification of Existing Facility’’ 

A. Approval of 30 TAC 116.10(11)— 

Introductory Paragraph of the Definition 

of ‘‘Modification of Existing Facility’’ 

1. What is the background of the 

introductory paragraph of 30 TAC 

116.10(11)? 

2. What is EPA’s evaluation of the 

submitted revisions to the introductory 

paragraph of 30 TAC 116.10(11)? 

B. Approval of 30 TAC 116.10(11)(C)— 

Exclusion for Maintenance and 

Replacement of Equipment 

1. What is the background of 30 TAC 

116.10(11)(C)? 

2. What is EPA’s evaluation of the 

submitted revisions to 30 TAC 

116.11(C)? 

C. Approval of 30 TAC 116.10(11)(D)— 

Exclusion for an Increase in Annual 

Hours of Operation 

1. What is the background of 30 TAC 

116.10(11)(D)? 

2. What is EPA’s evaluation of the 

submitted revisions to 30 TAC 

116.10(11)(D)? 

D. Disapproval of 30 TAC 116.10(11)(G)— 

Exclusion of Changes at Certain Natural 

Gas Processing, Treating, or Compression 

Facilities 

1. What is the background of 30 TAC 

116.10(11)(G)? 

2. What is EPA’s evaluation of the 

submitted revisions to 30 TAC 

116.10(11)(G)? 

3. What are the grounds for disapproval of 

30 TAC 116.10(11)(G)? 

E. Response to Other Comments on the July 

18, 2011, Proposal 

IV. Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittals 

On March 13, 1996; July 22, 1998; and 

September 4, 2002; the State of Texas 

submitted revisions to the Texas State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning 

the definition of ‘‘modification of 

existing facility’’ for minor source 

permitting under Title 30 of the Texas 

Administrative Code (30 TAC), Chapter 

116—Control of Air Pollution by 

Permits for New Construction or 

Modification, Subchapter A— 

Definitions. The definition of 

‘‘modification of existing facility’’ for 

minor NSR permitting is located at 30 

TAC 116.10(11) in the September 4, 

2002, submittal. The March 13, 1996, 

revisions to this definition were 

repealed and readopted, and new 

versions were submitted to EPA on July 

22, 1998. This definition was later 

recodified from 30 TAC 116.10(9) to 

116.10(11) in a SIP submittal dated 

September 4, 2002. 

Section 30 TAC 116.10—General 

Definitions—is currently approved as 

adopted by Texas on August 21, 2002, 

and as approved April 14, 2010 (75 FR 

19468). As approved, the current SIP 

does not include all the definitions 

under Section 116.10, including the 

definition of ‘‘modification of existing 

facility’’ found in Section 116.10(11). 

On July 18, 2011 (76 FR 42078), EPA 

proposed to approve severable portions 

of this definition first adopted by Texas 

on February 14, 1996 (submitted March 

13, 1996). The next submittal reflects 

the Texas repeal and readoption of this 

definition as Section 116.10(9) on June 

17, 1998 (submitted July 22, 1998). The 

regulatory history of the March 13, 1996 

submittal was used to evaluate the later 

submittals. On July 18, 2011 (76 FR 

42078), we proposed to approve 

severable portions of the definition 

‘‘modification of existing facility’’ as 

submitted on July 22, 1998, and the 

redesignation of this definition to 

Section 116.10(11) adopted August 21, 

2002 (submitted September 4, 2002). We 

also proposed to approve Subparagraphs 

(C) and (D) of this definition as 

submitted July 22, 1998, and September 

4, 2002. In response to this proposal, we 

received comments from the Texas 

Industry Project (TIP) and the BCCA 

Appeal Group (BCCAAG). 

On September 23, 2009 (74 FR 48450), 

EPA proposed to disapprove severable 

portions of the definition of 

‘‘modification of existing facility’’ under 

Subparagraph (G). In response to this 

proposal, we received comments from 

the University of Texas at Austin, 

Environmental Clinic (UT 

Environmental Clinic).1 Today, we 

finalize our disapproval of 

Subparagraph (G) as not meeting the 

requirements of the CAA. 

EPA is taking these actions under 

section 110 of the Act. 

Finally, please note that Texas 

submitted further revisions to 30 TAC 

116.10 on October 5, 2010. This 

includes the removal of two definitions, 

the renumbering of other definitions, 

and revisions to certain definitions. In 

this October 2010 submittal, TCEQ 

renumbered the definition of 

‘‘modification of existing facility’’ to 

Section 116.10(9) and relettered 

Subparagraphs (C) and (D) to 

Subparagraphs (B) and (C), respectively, 

with no other changes. We are not 

acting on the October 5, 2010, SIP 

submittal here. We will address the 

October 2010 SIP revisions in a separate 

action. 

Additional information related to 

these SIP submittals is contained in the 

Technical Support Documents (TSD) for 

the September 23, 2009,2 and July 18, 

2011,3 proposals, which are in the 

docket for this action. 

The table below summarizes the 

changes that were submitted and are 

affected by this action. A summary of 

EPA’s evaluation of each section and the 

basis for this proposal is discussed in 

section III of this preamble. The TSD 

includes a detailed evaluation of the 

referenced SIP submittals. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
71262 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 222 / Thursday, November 17, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Section Title Date 

submitted 

Date 

adopted by 

TCEQ 

Description of change Date of EPA proposed 

action 

Final EPA 

action 

30 TAC 116.10(11) ...... Definition of modification of existing facility—Introductory 

paragraph.

3/13/1996 

7/22/1998 

2/14/1996 

6/17/1998 

Initial adoption ............

Repeal and readoption 

as Section 

116.10(9).

7/18/2011—proposed 

approval.

Approval. 

9/4/2002 8/21/2002 Recodification to Section 116.10(11).

30 TAC 116.10(11)(C) Exclusion of maintenance and replacement of equipment.3/13/1996 

7/22/1998 

2/14/1996 

6/17/1998 

Initial adoption ............

Repeal and readoption 

as Section 

116.10(9)(C).

7/18/2011—proposed 

approval.

Approval. 

9/4/2002 8/21/2002 Recodification to Section 116.10(11)(C).

30 TAC 116.10(11)(D) Exclusion of increase 

in annual hours of 

operation.

3/13/1996 

7/22/1998 

2/14/1996 

6/17/1998 

Initial adoption ............

Repeal and readoption 

as Section 

116.10(9)(D).

7/18/2011—proposed 

approval.

Approval. 

9/4/2002 8/21/2002 Recodification to Section 116.10(11)(D).

30 TAC 116.10(11)(G) Exclusion of certain 

changes natural gas 

processing, treating, 

or compression facilities.

3/13/1996 

7/22/1998 

2/14/1996 

6/17/1998 

Initial adoption ............

Repeal and readoption 

as Section 

116.10(9)(G).

9/23/2009—proposed 

disapproval.

Disapproval. 

9/4/2002 8/21/2002 Recodification to Section 116.10(11)(G).

In a separate proposal published on 

September 23, 2009, 74 FR 48450, EPA 

proposed to disapprove severable 

provisions in Subparagraphs (A), (B), 

and (G) of the definition of 

‘‘modification of existing facility’’ at 30 

TAC 116.10(11). In light of revisions 

that were submitted on October 5, 2010, 

revising the language of Subparagraph 

(A) and eliminating Subparagraph (B), 

EPA will withdraw its proposed actions 

on Subparagraphs (A) and (B) in a 

separate action. Subparagraph (A) as it 

appears in the October 5, 2010, 

submittal will be evaluated and will be 

addressed in a separate future action. 

Based upon our proposed disapproval of 

30 TAC 116.10(11)(G) and our 

evaluation of the comments received on 

that proposal, EPA is taking final action 

to disapprove 30 TAC 116.10(11)(G) 

submitted March 13, 1996; July 22, 

1998; and September 4, 2002. 

II. What action is EPA taking? 

We have evaluated severable portions 

of the SIP submissions of 30 TAC 

116.10(11), which include the 

introductory paragraph of the definition 

of ‘‘modification of existing facility,’’ 

and Subparagraphs (C) and (D) of that 

definition for consistency with the CAA, 

and NSR regulations for new and 

modified sources in 40 CFR part 51. We 

have also reviewed the rules for 

enforceability and legal sufficiency. 

This action addresses severable 

portions of the definition of 

modification of existing facility under 

30 TAC 116.10(11), including the 

introductory paragraph and 

Subparagraphs (C) and (D) of the 

definition submitted March 13, 1996; 

July 22, 1998; and September 4, 2002. A 

technical analysis of the submittals for 

this definition has found that these 

changes meet the CAA and 40 CFR part 

51. EPA received two comments in 

support of this proposal and did not 

receive any adverse comments. 

Therefore, EPA approves as proposed 

the severable portions of the definition 

of ‘‘modification of existing facility’’ 

under 30 TAC 116.10(11), including the 

introductory paragraph of Section 

116.10(11) and Subparagraphs (C) and 

(D) of this definition, submitted on 

March 13, 1996; July 22, 1998; and 

September 4, 2002. As discussed earlier, 

in a separate SIP submittal dated 

October 5, 2010, 30 TAC 116.10(11) 

Subparagraphs (C) and (D) were 

renamed as 30 TAC 116.10(9) and 

Subparagraphs (B) and (C), respectively. 

EPA is not acting on the changes 

submitted October 2010, and will 

address these revisions in a separate 

action. 

In a separate proposal published on 

September 23, 2009 (74 FR 48450), EPA 

proposed to disapprove 30 TAC 

116.10(11)(G). Based upon our proposed 

disapproval of this rule and our 

evaluation of the comments received on 

our proposed disapproval of Subsection 

(G), EPA is taking final action to 

disapprove 30 TAC 116.10(11)(G) 

submitted March 13, 1996; July 22, 

1998; and September 4, 2002. 

On September 23, 2009, 74 FR 48450, 

EPA also proposed to disapprove 

severable provisions in Subparagraphs 

(A) and (B) of the definition of 

‘‘modification of existing facility.’’ In 

light of revisions that were submitted on 

October 5, 2010, revising the language of 

Subparagraph (A) and eliminating 

Subparagraph (B), EPA will withdraw 

its proposed actions on Subparagraphs 

(A) and (B) in a separate action. 

Subparagraph (A) as it appears in the 

October 5, 2010, submittal will be 

evaluated and will be addressed in a 

separate future action. 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of Severable 

Portions of the Definition of 

‘‘Modification of Existing Facility’’ 

A. Approval of 30 TAC 116.10(11)— 

Introductory Paragraph of the Definition 

of ‘‘Modification of Existing Facility’’ 

1. What is the background of the 

introductory paragraph of 30 TAC 

116.10(11)—introductory paragraph? 

The TCEQ initially submitted the 

introductory paragraph of the general 

definition of ‘‘modification of existing 

facility’’ on March 13, 1996. On July 22, 

1998, TCEQ repealed and resubmitted 

this definition as readopted at 30 TAC 

116.10(9). On September 4, 2002, TCEQ 

submitted revisions that redesignated 

this definition to 30 TAC 116.10(11). 

The submitted regulatory definition of 

the introductory paragraph that we are 

addressing here provides that a 

modification of an existing facility is 

‘‘any physical change in, or change in 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 222 / Thursday, November 17, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 71263 

4Section 116.12 as currently approved in the 

Texas SIP applies only to the Major NSR Program 

for Nonattainment Review. SIP revisions submitted 

February 1, 2006, and March 11, 2011, revised the 

definition to apply to both Nonattainment Review 

and Prevention of Significant Deterioration. EPA is 

currently reviewing these revisions and plans to act 

upon them shortly. The definitions in Section 

116.12 are effective as State rules and the TCEQ 

implements them as part of its Major NSR Program. 

5The term ‘‘exemptions’’ is a misnomer. 

Exemptions in Texas now are called Permits by 

Rule. An ‘‘exemption’’ since 1972 in Texas and in 

the Texas SIP, is an authorization to construct and/ 

or modify if certain conditions are met. 

the method of operation of, a facility in 

a manner that increases the amount of 

air contaminants emitted by the facility 

into the atmosphere or which results in 

the emission of any air contaminant not 

previously emitted.’’ 

2. What is EPA’s evaluation of the 

submitted revisions to the introductory 

paragraph of 30 TAC 116.10(11)? 

EPA approved the definition of 

‘‘facility’’ in Subchapter A: Definitions 

on September 6, 2006 (71 FR 52698) as 

part of the Texas SIP. ‘‘Facility’’ is 

defined as ‘‘[a] discrete or identifiable 

structure, device, item, equipment, or 

enclosure that constitutes or contains a 

stationary source, including 

appurtenances other than emission 

control equipment. A mine, quarry, well 

test, or road is not a facility.’’ See 

approved SIP at 30 TAC 116.10(6). The 

submitted regulatory definition for 

‘‘modification of existing facility’’ also 

is in Subchapter A, Section 116.10. 

Therefore, ‘‘existing facility’’ is limited 

by the terms of the SIP definition of 

‘‘facility.’’ In our evaluation of this 

introductory paragraph in the submitted 

regulatory definition of modification of 

existing facility, we compared it to how 

‘‘modification’’ is defined in the CAA 

and in our regulations. 

The CAA defines modification in 

Section 111(a)(4) as ‘‘any physical 

change in, or change in the method of 

operation of, a stationary source which 

increases the amount of any air 

pollutant emitted by such source or 

which results in the emission of any 

pollutant not previously emitted.’’ In 40 

CFR 52.01(d), the phrases 

‘‘modification’’ and ‘‘modified source’’ 

are defined as any physical change in, 

or change in the method of operation of, 

a stationary source which increases the 

emission rate of any air pollutant for 

which a national standard has been 

promulgated under part 50 of this 

chapter or which results in the emission 

of any such pollutant not previously 

emitted. 

The introductory paragraph of 30 TAC 

116.10(11) is substantially the same as 

the definitions in section 111(a)(4) of 

the Act and 40 CFR 52.01(d). 

The existence of a different definition 

for ‘‘major modification,’’ in Section 

116.12—Nonattainment and Prevention 

of Significant Review Definitions—that 

is applicable for Major NSR4 serves to 

distinguish the provisions in the 

introductory paragraph of section 

116.10(11) from the Major NSR Program 

and limit its application to Minor NSR. 

In response to our proposed approval, 

we received comments from TIP and 

BCCAAG. The commenters agree that 

the regulatory language in 30 TAC 

116.10(11) is consistent with the CAA 

and EPA regulations and that SIP 

approval is warranted. 

Based upon the proposal and 

consideration of the comments we 

received, we are approving the 

introductory paragraph of 30 TAC 

116.10(11), as submitted March 13, 

1996; July 22, 1998; and September 4, 

2002. 

B. Approval of 30 TAC 116.10(11)(C)— 

Exclusion for Maintenance and 

Replacement of Equipment 

1. What is the background of 30 TAC 

116.10(11)(C)? 

On March 13, 1996, this provision 

was submitted as Subparagraph (C) 

under the definition of ‘‘modification of 

existing facility.’’ In the July 22, 1998, 

submittal, the provision was repealed 

and resubmitted as 30 TAC 116.10(9)(C). 

On September 4, 2002, TCEQ submitted 

revisions that redesignated this 

definition to 30 TAC 116.10(11)(C). As 

submitted, Subparagraph (C) provides 

that maintenance or replacement of 

equipment components that do not 

increase or tend to increase the amount 

or change the characteristics of the air 

contaminants emitted into the 

atmosphere is not a modification to an 

existing facility. 

2. What is EPA’s evaluation of the 

submitted revisions to 30 TAC 

116.10(11)(C)? 

The submitted Subparagraph (C) 

mirrors the definition in the Texas 

Clean Air Act (TCCA). Under 

Subparagraph (C), any maintenance and 

repair of equipment components that 

increases emissions, or tends to increase 

emissions, will be considered a 

modification consistent with the 

introductory paragraph of 30 TAC 

116.10(11). Accordingly, the limitation 

in Subparagraph (C) protects against 

increases in emissions and thereby does 

not interfere with attainment or 

reasonable further progress. The 

definition of ‘‘major modification’’ in 

Section 116.12 has a different exclusion 

for routine maintenance, repair, and 

replacement. The existence of a 

different exclusion in the Section 116.12 

that is applicable for Major NSR serves 

to distinguish the provisions in 

paragraph (C) from the Major NSR 

Program and limit its application to 

Minor NSR. 

In response to our proposed approval, 

we received comments from TIP and 

BCCAAG. The commenters agree that 

the regulatory language in 30 TAC 

116.10(11)(C) is consistent with the 

CAA and EPA regulations and that SIP 

approval is warranted. 

Based upon the proposal and 

consideration of the comments we 

received, we are finalizing our approval 

of 30 TAC 116.10(11)(C), as submitted 

March 13, 1996; July 22, 1998; and 

September 4, 2002. 

C. Approval of 30 TAC 116.10(11)(D)— 

Exclusion for an Increase in Annual 

Hours of Operation 

1. What is the background of 30 TAC 

116.10(11)(D)? 

On March 13, 1996, this provision 

was submitted as Subparagraph (D) 

under the definition of ‘‘modification of 

existing facility.’’ In the July 22, 1998, 

submittal, the provision was repealed 

and resubmitted as 30 TAC 

116.10(9)(D). On September 4, 2002, 

TCEQ submitted revisions that 

redesignated this definition to 30 TAC 

116.10(11)(D). As submitted, 

Subparagraph (D) provides that an 

increase in the annual hours of 

operation is not a modification to an 

existing facility, unless the existing 

facility has received a preconstruction 

permit or has been exempted, under 

TCAA, § 382.057, from preconstruction 

permit requirements. 

2. What is EPA’s evaluation of the 

submitted revisions to 30 TAC 

116.10(11)(D)? 

The submitted Subparagraph (D) 

mirrors the definition in the Texas 

Clean Air Act (TCCA). Subparagraph (D) 

is similar to 40 CFR 52.01(d)(2)(ii), 

which provides that an increase in the 

hours of operation shall not be 

considered a change in the method of 

operation. The operative language in the 

submitted Subparagraph (D) is 

substantially the same as 40 CFR 

52.01(d)(2)(ii). Furthermore, 

Subparagraph (D) includes additional 

language that clarifies that an increase 

in hours of operation may be a 

modification for existing minor facilities 

having preconstruction permits or 

exemptions, under TCAA § 382.057 5 for 

preconstruction permit requirements. 

This language limits the reach of the 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
71264 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 222 / Thursday, November 17, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

6On October 5, 2010, TCEQ submitted a revision 

that renumbered 30 TAC 116.10(11)(G) to 30 TAC 

116.10(9)(F), but made no changes to the substance 

of this provision. 

exclusion in scenarios where an existing 

facility is subject to limitations on hours 

of operation under the terms of a 

preconstruction permit or an exemption. 

This is consistent with Federal 

requirements in 40 CFR 52.01(d)(2)(ii). 

Subparagraph (D) meets the Federal 

requirements as described above. Again, 

the definition of ‘‘major modification’’ 

in Section 116.12 has a different 

exclusion for an increase in the annual 

hours of operation. The existence of a 

different exclusion in the Section 116.12 

that is applicable for Major NSR serves 

to distinguish the provisions in 

paragraph (D) from the Major NSR 

Program and limit its application to 

Minor NSR. 

In response to our proposed approval, 

we received comments from TIP and 

BCCAAG. The commenters agree that 

the regulatory language in 30 TAC 

116.10(11)(D) is consistent with the 

CAA and EPA regulations and that SIP 

approval is warranted. 

Based upon the proposal and 

consideration of the comments we 

received, we are finalizing our approval 

of 30 TAC 116.10(11)(D), as submitted 

March 13, 1996; July 22, 1998; and 

September 4, 2002. 

D. Disapproval of 30 TAC 

116.10(11)(G)—Exclusions for Changes 

at Certain Natural Gas Processing, 

Treating, or Compression Facilities 

1. What is the background of 30 TAC 

116.10(11)(G)? 

On March 13, 1996, this provision 

was submitted as Subparagraph (G) 

under the definition of ‘‘modification of 

existing facility.’’ In the July 22, 1998, 

submittal, the provision was repealed 

and resubmitted as 30 TAC 

116.10(9)(D). On September 4, 2002, 

TCEQ submitted revisions that 

redesignated this definition to 30 TAC 

116.10(11)(D). On September 23, 2009, 

EPA proposed to disapprove the 

submitted revisions relating to 30 TAC 

116.10(11)(G). 

2. What is EPA’s evaluation of the 

submitted revisions to 30 TAC 

116.10(11)(G)? 

The submittals provide that changes 

at certain natural gas processing, 

treating, or compression facilities are 

not modifications if the change does not 

result in an annual emissions rate of any 

air contaminant in excess of the volume 

for grandfathered facilities. The ‘‘annual 

emissions rate’’ is the same as the 

‘‘volume emitted at maximum design 

capacity;’’ therefore, this would provide 

an exemption for those sources from 

permit review for any emission 

increases at these facilities. The 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.160(e) allow 

a State to identify facilities which will 

be subject to review under its minor 

NSR program and require its minor NSR 

SIP to discuss the basis for determining 

which facilities will be subject to 

review. The submittals, however, do not 

contain an applicability statement or 

regulatory provision limiting this type 

of change to minor NSR. There is no 

explanation of the reason for exempting 

this type of change from the permitting 

SIP requirements. Without the submittal 

by the State of an analysis describing 

how this exemption does not negate the 

major NSR SIP requirements and meets 

the minor NSR SIP requirements in 40 

CFR 51.160 and the Act’s 

antibacksliding requirements in section 

110(l), EPA proposed to disapprove this 

submitted definition. 

In response to our proposed 

disapproval, we received comments 

from the UT Environmental Clinic 

(Clinic) and TCEQ. The Clinic 

supported the disapproval of this 

exemption from the definition of 

modification of existing facility because 

the exemption could apply to major 

modifications and because TCEQ did 

not demonstrate that the exemption will 

not interfere with attainment or cause a 

violation of a control strategy. EPA 

acknowledges that these comments 

support its basis for proposing 

disapproval of this exemption because it 

could allow major modifications 

without undergoing review that satisfies 

the applicable permitting requirements 

for Major NSR under 40 CFR 51.165 

and/or 51.166, as applicable. The 

exemption may also allow a source to 

increase emissions without a 

demonstration that such change will not 

interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of a National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS) or cause a 

violation of a control strategy. The 

TCEQ commented that it will consider 

EPA’s comments regarding its proposed 

disapproval of 30 TAC 116.10(11)(G), 

but provided no information which 

demonstrates that this provision meets 

the requirements for SIP approval.6

3. What are the grounds for disapproval 

of 30 TAC 116.10(11)(G)? 

Based upon the September 23, 2009, 

proposal and the consideration of 

comments provided, EPA is 

disapproving the exemption in 30 TAC 

116.10(11)(G) on the following grounds: 

• This definition exempts changes at 

certain natural gas processing, treating, 

or compression facilities as nonmodifications if the change does not 

result in an annual emissions rate of any 

air contaminant in excess of the volume 

for grandfathered facilities from the 

definition of modification of existing 

facility. However, TCEQ did not provide 

any discussion of the basis for this 

exemption as required by 40 CFR 

51.160(e). 

• The submitted definition includes 

no applicability statement or regulatory 

provision limiting this type of change to 

minor NSR. 

• The submitted rule includes no 

demonstration that the exempted 

change at a natural gas processing, 

treating, or compression facility does 

not result in an annual emissions rate of 

any air contaminant in excess of the 

volume for grandfathered facilities, and 

does not interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of a NAAQS or cause a 

violation of a control strategy as 

required under 40 CFR 51.161(a). 

Based upon the September 23, 2009, 

proposal, and consideration of the 

comments received, we are finalizing 

our disapproval of 30 TAC 

116.10(11)(G) as submitted March 11, 

1996; July 22, 1998; and September 4, 

2002. 

E. Response to Other Comments on the 

July 18, 2011, Proposal 

TIP and BCCAAG commented that 

EPA should take into account the 

dramatic improvements in Texas’s air 

quality in acting on the definition of 

‘‘modification of existing facility’’ and 

other SIP revisions. The commenters 

assert that Texas’s integrated air 

permitting program, including the 

definition which EPA now proposes to 

approve, has played a key role in 

Texas’s air quality success. TIP and 

BCCAAG urge EPA to approve the entire 

‘‘modification of existing facility’’ as 

part of this integrated program. The 

commenters cite to substantial 

reductions in several air pollutants and 

reductions in ambient concentrations in 

monitored levels of ozone, nitrogen 

dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and carbon 

monoxide from 1990 to 2009. 

Our actions on the severable parts of 

the definition of ‘‘modification of 

existing facility’’ are based upon 

whether the definition meets the 

applicable requirements of the CAA, as 

discussed herein. EPA is required to 

review a SIP revision submission for 

compliance with the CAA and EPA 

regulations. CAA 110(k)(3). See also 

BCCA Appeal Group v. EPA, 355 F 3d. 

817, 822 (5th Cir. 2003), Natural 

Resource Defense Council v. Browner, 

57 F.3d 1122, 1123 (DC Cir. 1995). 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 222 / Thursday, November 17, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 71265 

The submitted data, even if accepted, 

does not show that gains are attributable 

to the definition of ‘‘modification of 

existing facility,’’ and the commenter’s 

claim regarding the data does not take 

account of SIP-approved control 

strategies (both State and Federal 

programs) and other Federal and State 

programs. The approvals of revisions 

which we finalize today are based on 

our review of the Texas submittals 

following the analysis furnished in the 

proposal in accordance with the CAA. 

IV. Final Action 

Today, EPA is approving the 

following revisions to the Texas SIP to 

include severable provisions of the 

definition of ‘‘modification of existing 

facility’’ under 30 TAC 116.10(11), 

submitted March 13, 1996; July 22, 

1998; and September 4, 2002. This 

includes the following: 

• 30 TAC 116.10(11)—the 

introductory paragraph of the definition 

of ‘‘modification of existing facility;’’ 

• 30 TAC 116.10(11)(C)—Exclusion 

for maintenance and replacement of 

equipment; and 

• 30 TAC 116.10(11)(D)—Exclusion 

for an increase in annual hours of 

operation. 

Today, EPA is also disapproving the 

severable portion of definition of 

‘‘modification of existing facility’’ under 

30 TAC 116.10(11)(G), submitted March 

13, 1996; July 22, 1998; and September 

4, 2002. 

Final action on these revisions on or 

before October 31, 2011, will meet 

EPA’s obligation on the NSR Rules 

Revisions; 112(g) Revisions component 

of the May 21, 2009, Settlement 

Agreement between EPA and the 

Business Coalition for Clean Air Appeal 

Group, Texas Association of Business, 

and Texas Oil and Gas Association. 

EPA is not taking further action on the 

following severable provisions of 30 

TAC 116.10(11): 

• 30 TAC 116.10(11)(E). EPA 

disapproved Subparagraph (E) in a 

separate action on April 14, 2010, 75 FR 

19468. EPA will address any subsequent 

submittals containing Subparagraph (E) 

as newly revised in a separate action. 

• 30 TAC 116.10(11)(F). EPA 

disapproved Subparagraph (F) in a 

separate action on July 15, 2010, 75 FR 

41312. EPA will address any subsequent 

submittals containing Subparagraph (F) 

as newly revised in a separate action. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and is therefore not 

subject to review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., because this 

SIP approval and disapproval under 

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of 

the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of 

itself create any new information 

collection burdens but simply approves 

and disapproves certain State severable 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP. 

Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

Because this final action does not 

impose an information collection 

burden, the Paperwork Reduction Act 

does not apply. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. For 

purposes of assessing the impacts of 

today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. This rule will not 

have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

because SIP approvals and disapprovals 

under section 110 of the Clean Air Act 

do not create any new requirements but 

simply approve or disapprove 

requirements that the States are already 

imposing. 

Furthermore, as explained in this 

action, a severable portion of the 

submissions does not meet the 

requirements of the Act and EPA cannot 

approve the severable portion of the 

submissions. The final disapproval will 

not affect any existing State 

requirements applicable to small 

entities in the State of Texas. Federal 

disapproval of a severable portion of a 

State submittal does not affect its State 

enforceability. After considering the 

economic impacts of today’s rulemaking 

on small entities, and because the 

Federal SIP disapproval does not create 

any new requirements or impact a 

substantial number of small entities, I 

certify that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Moreover, due to the nature of the 

Federal-State relationship under the 

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility 

analysis would constitute Federal 

inquiry into the economic 

reasonableness of state action. The 

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its 

actions concerning SIPs on such 

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. 

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 ‘‘for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector.’’ EPA 

has determined that the approval and 

disapproval action does not include a 

Federal mandate that may result in 

estimated costs of $100 million or more 

to either State, local, or tribal 

governments in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector. This Federal action 

determines that pre-existing 

requirements under State or local law 

should not be approved as part of the 

Federally-approved SIP. It imposes no 

new requirements. Accordingly, no 

additional costs to State, local, or tribal 

governments, or to the private sector, 

result from this action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have Federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

Federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
71266 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 222 / Thursday, November 17, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ 

This action does not have Federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely approves and disapproves 

severable portions of certain State 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP 

and does not alter the relationship or 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this action. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000) because the rule neither imposes 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

tribal governments, nor preempts tribal 

law. Therefore, the requirements of 

sections 5(b) and 5(c) of the Executive 

Order do not apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because it is not 

an economically significant regulatory 

action based on health or safety risks 

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997). This SIP 

approval and disapproval under section 

110 and subchapter I, part D of the 

Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself 

create any new regulations but simply 

disapproves certain State requirements 

for inclusion into the SIP. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 

2001) because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 

note) directs EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA 

to provide Congress, through the Office 

of Management and Budget, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

The EPA believes that this action is 

not subject to requirements of Section 

12(d) of NTTAA because application of 

those requirements would be 

inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. 

Today’s action does not require the 

public to perform activities conducive 

to the use of VCS. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

(February 16, 1994)) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority 

to address environmental justice in this 

action. In reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve or disapprove 

state choices, based on the criteria of the 

Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action 

merely disapproves certain State 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP 

under section 110 and subchapter I of 

the Clean Air Act and will not in-andof itself create any new requirements. 

Accordingly, it does not provide EPA 

with the discretionary authority to 

address, as appropriate, 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects, using practicable 

and legally permissible methods, under 

Executive Order 12898. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 

5 U.S.C. section 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. EPA will submit a report 

containing this rule 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. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

L. Petitions for Judicial Review 

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 17, 2012. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of 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). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations. 

Dated: October 31, 2011. 

Al Armendariz, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7402 et seq. 

Subpart SS—Texas 

■ 2. The table in § 52.2270(c) entitled 

‘‘EPA Approved Regulations in the 

Texas SIP’’ is amended under Chapter 

116, Subchapter A, by revising the entry 

for Section 116.10 to read as follows: 

§ 52.2270 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 222 / Thursday, November 17, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 71267 

1 In the Matter of Standardized and Enhanced 

Disclosure Requirements for Television Broadcast 

Licensee Public Interest Obligations, Report and 

Order, 73 FR 13452 (2007) (‘‘Report and Order’’); 

In the Matter of Standardized and Enhanced 

Disclosure Requirements for Television Broadcast 

Licensee Public Interest Obligations, Erratum, 73 FR 

30316 (2007). 

2Standardized and Enhanced Disclosure 

Requirements for Television Broadcast Licensee 

Public Interest Obligations, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, 65 FR 62683 (2000) (‘‘NPRM’’); In the 

Matter of Public Interest Obligations of TV 

Continued 

EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE TEXAS SIP 

State citation Title/subject 

Stateapproval/ 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Chapter 116—Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification 

Subchapter A—Definitions 

Section 116.10 ............. General Definitions ...... 8/21/2002 November 17, 2011, [Insert FR 

page number where document 

begins].

The SIP does not include paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (7)(F), 

(11)(A), (11)(B), (11)(E), (11)(F), 

(11)(G), and (16). 

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. Section 52.2273 is revised by 

adding a new paragraph (g) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2273 Approval status. 

* * * * * 

(g) EPA has disapproved the Texas 

SIP revision submittals under 30 TAC 

Chapter 116—Control of Air Pollution 

by Permits for New Construction or 

Modification—Subchapter A— 

Definitions—Section 116.10(11)(G), 

adopted February 14, 1996, and 

submitted March 13, 1996; repealed and 

re-adopted June 17, 1998, and submitted 

July 22, 1998; and adopted August 21, 

2002, and submitted September 4, 2002. 

[FR Doc. 2011–29641 Filed 11–16–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[MB Docket Nos. 00–168, 00–44; FCC 11– 

162] 

Standardized and Enhanced 

Disclosure Requirements for 

Television Broadcast Licensee Public 

Interest Obligations; Extension of the 

Filing Requirement for Children’s 

Television Programming Report (FCC 

Form 398) 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission adopts an Order on 

Reconsideration that vacates 

Standardized and Enhanced Disclosure 

Requirements for Television Broadcast 

Licensee Public Interest Obligations; 

Extension of the Filing Requirement For 

Children’s Television Programming 

Report (FCC Form 398), MB Docket No. 

00–168, 00–44, FCC 07–205, Report & 

Order, (‘‘Order’’). The Order created a 

standardized form for the quarterly 

reporting of programming aired in 

response to issues facing a television 

station’s community and a requirement 

that portions of each television station’s 

public inspection file be placed on the 

Internet. The Order was never 

implemented. 

DATES: Effective November 17, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Holly Saurer, Holly.Saurer@fcc.gov of 

the Policy Division, Media Bureau, (202) 

418–2120. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Federal 

Communications Commission’s Order 

on Reconsideration in MB Docket No. 

00–168, 00–44, FCC 11–162, adopted 

October 27, 2011, and released October 

27, 2011. The full text of this document 

is available for public inspection and 

copying during regular business hours 

in the FCC Reference Center, Federal 

Communications Commission, 445 12th 

Street SW., CY–A257, Washington, DC 

20554. These documents will also be 

available via ECFS (http://www.fcc.gov/ 

cgb/ecfs/). (Documents will be available 

electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/ 

or Adobe Acrobat.) The complete text 

may be purchased from the 

Commission’s copy contractor, 445 12th 

Street SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554. To request this 

document in accessible formats 

(computer diskettes, large print, audio 

recording, and Braille), send an email to 

fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Commission’s 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202) 

418–0432 (TTY). 

Summary of the Final Rule 

I. Introduction 

1. In this Order on Reconsideration 

we take steps to modernize the way 

television broadcasters inform the 

public about how they are serving their 

communities. We vacate the prior 

Report and Order,1 thereby resolving 

pending petitions for reconsideration of 

that order, re-codify the public file rules 

in existence prior to adoption of the 

Report and Order, and seek comment on 

the proposals set forth in a Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

II. Background 

2. One of a television broadcaster’s 

fundamental public interest obligations 

is to air programming responsive to the 

needs and interests of its community of 

license. Broadcasters are afforded 

considerable flexibility in how they 

meet that obligation, but they must 

maintain a public inspection file, which 

gives the public access to information 

about the station’s operations and 

enables members of the public to engage 

in an active dialogue with broadcast 

licensees regarding broadcast service. 

Among other things, the public 

inspection file must contain an issues/ 

programs list, which describes the 

‘‘programs that have provided the 

station’s most significant treatment of 

community issues during the preceding 

three month period.’’ The original 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this 

proceeding grew out of a prior Notice of 

Inquiry, which explored the public 

interest obligations of broadcast 

television stations as they transitioned 

to digital.2 In the 2000 NPRM, the 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES