Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP); Modification of Existing Qualified Facilities Program and General Definitions, 19468-19493 [2010-8019]
Download as PDF
19468
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R06–OAR–2005–TX–0025; FRL–9135–
7]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Texas;
Revisions to the New Source Review
(NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP);
Modification of Existing Qualified
Facilities Program and General
Definitions
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final Rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to
disapprove revisions to the SIP
submitted by the State of Texas that
relate to the Modification of Existing
Qualified Facilities (the Qualified
Facilities Program or the Program). EPA
is disapproving the Texas Qualified
Facilities Program because it does not
meet the Minor NSR SIP requirements
nor does it meet the NSR SIP
requirements for a substitute Major NSR
SIP revision.
EPA is also approving three
definitions that are severable from the
Qualified Facilities submittals. These
three definitions we are approving are,
‘‘grandfathered facility,’’ ‘‘maximum
allowable emission rate table (MAERT),’’
and ‘‘new facility.’’ Moreover, we are
making an administrative correction to
the SIP-approved definition of ‘‘facility.’’
We are taking this action under
section 110, part C, and part D of the
Federal Clean Air Act (the Act or CAA).
DATES: This rule is effective on May 14,
2010.
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 https://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 https://
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 FOIA Review
Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:40 Apr 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal
holidays. Contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
paragraph below to make an
appointment. If possible, please make
the appointment at least two working
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, which is part of
the EPA record, is also available for
public inspection at the State Air
Agency listed below during official
business hours by appointment: Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality,
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
214–665–7263; e-mail address
spruiell.stanley@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, the
following terms have the meanings
described below:
• ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
• ‘‘Act’’ or ‘‘CAA’’ means Federal
Clean Air Act.
• ‘‘40 CFR’’ means Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations—Protection
of Environment.
• ‘‘SIP’’ means State Implementation
Plan as established under section 110 of
the Act.
• ‘‘NSR’’ means new source review, a
phrase intended to encompass the
statutory and regulatory programs that
regulate the construction and
modification of stationary sources as
provided under CAA section
110(a)(2)(C), CAA Title I, parts C and D,
and 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.166.
• ‘‘Minor NSR’’ means NSR
established under section 110 of the Act
and 40 CFR 51.160.
• ‘‘Major NSR’’ means any new or
modified source that is subject to NNSR
and/or PSD.
• ‘‘NNSR’’ means nonattainment NSR
established under Title I, section 110
and part D of the Act and 40 CFR
51.165.
• ‘‘PSD’’ means prevention of
significant deterioration of air quality
established under Title I, section 110
and part C of the Act and 40 CFR
51.166.
• ‘‘Program’’ means the SIP revision
submittals from the TCEQ concerning
the Texas Qualified Facilities Program.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
• ‘‘NAAQS’’ means any national
ambient air quality standard established
under 40 CFR part 50.
Table of Contents
I. What Action Is EPA Taking?
II. What Submittals Is EPA Taking No Action
On?
A. Subparagraph (F) under the definition of
‘‘federally enforceable’’
B. Definition of ‘‘best available control
technology (BACT)’’
C. Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of the
submitted definition of ‘‘modification of
existing facility’’
D. Subparagraph (G) of the submitted
definition of ‘‘modification of existing
facility’’
E. Trading Provision in 30 TAC 116.116(f)
III. What Is the Background for This Action?
A. Summary of Our Proposed Action
B. Summary of the Submittals Addressed
in this Final Action
C. Other Relevant Actions on the Texas
Permitting SIP Revision Submittals
IV. What Are the Grounds for This
Disapproval Action of the Texas
Qualified Facilities Program?
A. Why the Qualified Facilities Program
Submittal Is Unclear Whether It Is for a
Major or Minor NSR SIP Revision
B. Why the Submitted Texas Qualified
Facilities Program Is Not Approvable as
a Substitute Major NSR SIP Revision
C. Why the Submitted Texas Qualified
Facilities Program Is Not Approvable as
a Minor NSR SIP Revision
D. Definition of ‘‘facility’’
V. Response to Comments
A. General Comments
B. Comment That This Action Is
Inconsistent With the CAA
C. Comments Addressing Whether the
Qualified Facilities Rules Allow Sources
to ‘‘Net Out’’ of Major and Minor NSR
Through Rules that Are Not Adequate To
Protect the NAAQS and State Control
Strategies
D. Comments Addressing Whether the
Qualified Facilities Rules Are Practically
Enforceable
E. Comments Addressing Whether the
Qualified Facilities Rules Meet Federal
Requirements for Major NSR
F. Comments Addressing Whether the
Qualified Facilities Rules Meet Federal
Requirements for Minor NSR
G. Comments Addressing Whether Existing
Qualified Facilities Have Undergone an
Air Quality Analysis
H. Comments on the Definitions of
‘‘Grandfathered Facility,’’ ‘‘Maximum
Allowable Emission Rate Table,’’ and
‘‘New Facility’’
I. Comments on the Definitions of ‘‘Actual
Emissions,’’ ‘‘Allowable Emissions,’’
‘‘Modification of Existing Facility’’ at (E),
and ‘‘Qualified Facility’’
J. Comments on the Definition of ‘‘Best
Available Control Technology’’ (‘‘BACT’’)
K. Comments on Severable Portions of the
Definition of ‘‘Modification of Existing
Facility’’ at 30 TAC 116.10(11)(A) and (B)
L. Comments on the Definition of
Severable Subsection of ‘‘Modification of
E:\FR\FM\14APR2.SGM
14APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Existing Facility’’ at 30 TAC
116.10(11)(G)
M. Comments on the Reinstatement of the
Previously Approved Definition of
‘‘Facility’’
N. Comments on the Definition of the Term
‘‘Air Quality Account Number’’
O. Comments on Whether the Qualified
Facilities Rules Meet NSR Public
Participation Requirements
VI. Final Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
preamble for additional information
relating to our final action.
We are disapproving the submitted
Texas Qualified Facilities Program as
not meeting the requirements for a
substitute Major NSR SIP revision. Our
grounds for disapproval as a substitute
Major NSR SIP revision include the
following:
• It is not clearly limited to Minor
NSR thereby allowing major
modifications to occur without a Major
I. What Action Is EPA Taking?
NSR permit;
• It has no regulatory provisions
EPA is taking final action to
clearly prohibiting the use of this
disapprove the Texas Qualified
Program from circumventing the Major
Facilities Program, as submitted by
Texas on March 13, 1996, and July 22,
NSR SIP requirements thereby allowing
1998, in Title 30 of the Texas
changes at existing facilities to avoid the
Administrative Code (30 TAC) at 30
requirement to obtain preconstruction
TAC Chapter 116—Control of Air
permit authorizations for projects that
Pollution by Permits for New
would otherwise require a Major NSR
Construction or Modification. This
preconstruction permit;
• It does not require that first an
includes the following regulations
applicability determination be made
under Chapter 116: 30 TAC 116.116(e),
30 TAC 116.117, 30 TAC 116.118, and
whether the modification is subject to
the following definitions under 30 TAC
Major NSR thereby exempting new
116.10—General Definitions: 30 TAC
major stationary sources and major
116.10(1)—definition of ‘‘actual
modifications from the EPA Major NSR
emissions,’’ 30 TAC 116.10(2)—
SIP requirements;
• It does not include a demonstration
definition of ‘‘allowable emissions,’’ 30
from the TCEQ, as required by 40 CFR
TAC 116.10(11)(E) under the definition
51.166(a)(7)(iv), showing how the use of
of ‘‘modification of existing facility,’’
and 30 TAC 116.10(16)—definition of
‘‘modification’’ is at least as stringent as
‘‘qualified facility.’’ These regulations
the definition of ‘‘modification’’ in the
and definitions do not meet the
EPA Major NSR SIP program
• It does not include the requirement
requirements of the Act and EPA’s NSR
to make Major NSR applicability
regulations. It is EPA’s position that
none of these identified elements for the determinations based on actual
emissions and on emissions increases
submitted Qualified Facilities Program
and decreases (netting) that occur
is severable from each other.
Secondly, in an action separate from
within a major stationary source;
the above action on the submitted Texas
• It fails to meet the statutory and
Qualified Facilities Program, we are
regulatory requirements for a SIP
approving the following severable
revision;
• It is not consistent with applicable
definitions: 30 TAC 116.10(8)—
definition of ‘‘grandfathered facility,’’ 30 statutory and regulatory requirements as
interpreted in EPA policy and guidance
TAC 116.10(10)—definition of
‘‘maximum allowable emission rate table on SIP revisions; and
• EPA lacks sufficient available
(MAERT),’’ and 30 TAC 116.10(12)—
information to determine that the
definition of ‘‘new facility.’’ It is EPA’s
requested relaxation to the Texas Major
position that these definitions are
NSR SIP will not interfere with any
severable from those in the submitted
applicable requirement concerning
Texas Qualified Facilities Program;
attainment and reasonable further
moreover, each is severable from each
progress (RFP), or any other applicable
other.
EPA proposed the above actions on
requirement of the Act.
In addition to the failures to protect
September 23, 2009 (74 FR 48450). We
Major NSR SIP requirements, EPA
accepted comments from the public on
cannot find that the submitted Program,
this proposal from September 23, 2009,
until November 23, 2009. A summary of as an exemption to the State’s Minor
NSR SIP program, will ensure
the comments received and our
noninterference with NAAQS
evaluation thereof is discussed in
attainment, and there will not be a
section V below. In the proposal and in
the Technical Support Document (TSD), violation of applicable portions of a
Texas SIP control strategy, as required
we described our basis for the actions
by section 110(a)(2)(D) and 40 CFR
identified above. The reader should
51.160(a)–(b). EPA cannot approve the
refer to the proposal, the TSD, section
exempting of certain modifications from
IV of this preamble, and the Response
obtaining a Minor NSR SIP permit as
to Comments in section V of this
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:40 Apr 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19469
part of the Texas Minor NSR SIP
because the Act and EPA regulations are
not met and the State has not shown
that the sources will have only a de
minimis effect. The Program fails to
include legally enforceable procedures
to ensure that the State will not permit
a modification that will violate the
control strategies or interfere with
NAAQS attainment. Our grounds for
disapproval as a Minor NSR SIP
revision include the following:
• It is not clearly limited to Minor
NSR thereby allowing major
modifications to occur without a Major
NSR permit;
• It has no regulatory provisions
clearly prohibiting the use of this
Program from circumventing the Major
NSR SIP requirements thereby allowing
sources to avoid the requirement to
obtain preconstruction permit
authorizations for projects that would
otherwise require a Major NSR
preconstruction permit;
• It does not require that first an
applicability determination be made
whether the modification is subject to
Major NSR thereby exempting new
major stationary sources and major
modifications from the EPA Major NSR
SIP requirements;
• It fails to meet the statutory and
regulatory requirements for a SIP
revision;
• It is not consistent with applicable
statutory and regulatory requirements as
interpreted in EPA policy and guidance
on SIP revisions;
• It is not an enforceable Minor NSR
permitting program;
• It lacks legally enforceable
safeguards to ensure that the exempted
changes will not violate a Texas control
strategy and will not interfere with
NAAQS attainment;
• EPA lacks sufficient available
information to determine that the
requested relaxation to the Texas Minor
NSR SIP will not interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning
attainment and RFP, or any other
applicable requirement of the Act.
The provisions in these submittals
relating to the Texas Qualified Facilities
State Program that include the Chapter
116 regulatory provisions and the
nonseverable definitions in the General
Definitions were not submitted to meet
a mandatory requirement of the Act.
Therefore, this final action to
disapprove the submitted Texas
Qualified Facilities State Program does
not trigger a sanctions or Federal
Implementation Plan clock. See CAA
section 179(a).
E:\FR\FM\14APR2.SGM
14APR2
19470
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
II. What Submittals Is EPA Taking No
Action On?
A. Subparagraph (F) Under the
Definition of ‘‘Federally Enforceable’’
On September 18, 2002 (67 FR 58697),
EPA approved the definition of
‘‘federally enforceable’’ in 30 TAC
116.10(7), introductory paragraph and
subparagraphs (A) through (E), as
submitted July 22, 1998. We proposed to
take no action on the submitted
severable new subparagraph (F) under
the SIP-approved definition of ‘‘federally
enforceable,’’ submitted September 11,
2000, because it is outside the scope of
the SIP. See 74 FR 48450, at 48466. EPA
is not finalizing action today on the
proposal concerning the submitted 30
TAC 116.10(7)(F). This subparagraph (F)
is severable from the final rulemaking
on the Qualified Facilities Program
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
B. Definition of ‘‘Best Available Control
Technology (BACT)’’
On September 23, 2009, EPA
proposed to disapprove the definition
‘‘best available control technology
(BACT)’’ under 30 TAC 1161.10(3). 74
FR 48450, at 48463–48464. EPA is still
reviewing approvability of this
definition; therefore, we are not taking
final action on the proposal today. This
definition is severable from the final
rulemaking on the Qualified Facilities
Program. We will take final action on
the definition of BACT when we take
action on Texas’s submission
concerning NSR Reform (Rule Project
Number 2005–010–116–PR), which also
addresses BACT. See 74 FR 48450, at
48472.1 Under the Consent Decree
entered on January 21, 2010 in BCCA
Appeal Group v. EPA, Case No. 3:08–
cv–01491–N (N.D. Tex), EPA’s final
action concerning NSR Reform will be
finalized by August 31, 2010.
C. Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of the
Submitted Definition of ‘‘Modification of
Existing Facility’’
Also, on September 23, 2009, EPA
proposed to disapprove 30 TAC
116.10(11) subparagraphs (A) and (B) of
the submitted definition of
‘‘modification of existing facility,’’
which are severable from the other
submissions addressed in this notice but
not severable from each other. 74 FR
48450, at 48464–48465. EPA is not
taking final action today on the
proposed disapproval of these
1 EPA made this determination in a separate
proposed action published at 74 FR 48467,
September 23, 2009. This proposal relates to
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD),
Nonattainment NSR (NNSR) for the 1997 8-Hour
Ozone Standard, NSR Reform, and a Standard
Permit.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:40 Apr 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
submitted subparagraphs under the
submitted definition of ‘‘modification of
existing facility’’ at 30 TAC 116.0(11)(A)
and (B). We are still reviewing the
proposed disapproval of these
subparagraphs 30 TAC 116.10(11)(A)
and (B) which relate to ‘‘insignificant
increases.’’ These subparagraphs are
severable from this final rulemaking on
the Qualified Facilities Program. We
will take final action on 30 TAC
116.10(11)(A) and (B) when we act on
Texas’s submission concerning Air
Permits (SB 766) Phase II (Rule Project
Number 99029B–116–A1). Under the
Settlement Agreement in BCCA Appeal
Group v. EPA, Case No. 3:08–cv–01491–
N (N.D. Tex), that action will be
finalized by December 31, 2012.
Additionally, we have received
petitions requesting EPA review of the
State’s implementation of Texas
Commission on Environmental
Quality’s (TCEQ) permit by rule (PBR)
program under Subchapter K (30 TAC
Chapter 106).2 EPA intends to review
TCEQ’s PBR program and its
implementation in response to those
petitions.
99029B–116–A1). Under the Settlement
Agreement in BCCA Appeal Group v.
EPA, Case No. 3:08–cv–01491–N (N.D.
Tex), that action will be finalized by
December 31, 2012.
D. Subparagraph (G) of the Submitted
Definition of ‘‘Modification of Existing
Facility’’
III. What Is the Background?
On September 23, 2009, EPA
proposed to disapprove the
subparagraph (G) at 30 TAC 116.10(11)
of the submitted definition of
‘‘modification of existing facility.’’ See
74 FR 48450, at 48465. EPA is not taking
final action today on the proposed
disapproval of the submitted
subparagraph (G) of the definition of
‘‘modification of existing facility.’’ We
are still reviewing the proposed
disapproval of this definition. This
subparagraph states that changes to
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
emitted at the maximum design capacity
for grandfathered facilities. This
definition is severable from this
rulemaking on the Qualified Facilities
Program. See 74 FR 48450, at 48452. We
will take final action on 30 TAC
116.10(11)(G) when we act on Texas’s
submission concerning Air Permits (SB
766) Phase II (Rule Project Number
2 Petitions, August 28, 2008, from the
Environmental Integrity Project on behalf of the
Galveston-Houston Association for Smog
Prevention, Environmental Integrity Project, Texas
Campaign for the Environment, Sierra Club, and
Public Citizen; and January 5, 2009, supplementing
the August 28, 2008, petition (the supplemental
petition added the Environmental Defense Fund as
an additional petitioner).
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E. Trading Provision in 30 TAC
116.116(f)
EPA proposed to take no action on the
submitted portion of 30 TAC 116.116(f)
that includes, among other things, a
trading provision containing a crossreference that is no longer in Texas’s
rules. See 74 FR 48450, at 48465–48466.
EPA is not taking final action today on
this submitted portion because we are
still reviewing approvability of the
provision. This portion of the provision
is severable from this rulemaking on the
Qualified Facilities Program. We will
take final action on 30 TAC 116.116(f)
when we take action on Texas’s
submission concerning NSR Rules
Revisions; 112(g) Revisions (Rule
Project No. 98001–116–AI). Under the
Settlement Agreement in BCCA Appeal
Group v. EPA, Case No. 3:08–cv–01491–
N (N.D. Tex), that action will be
finalized by October 31, 2011.
A. Summary of Our Proposed Action
Also on September 23, 2009 (74 FR
48450), EPA proposed to disapprove
revisions to the SIP submitted by the
State of Texas that relate to the
Modification of Qualified Facilities.
These affected provisions include
regulatory provisions at 30 TAC
116.116(e) and definitions of ‘‘actual
emissions,’’ ‘‘allowable emissions,’’ a
nonseverable portion of the definition at
subparagraph (E) of ‘‘modification of
existing facility,’’ and ‘‘qualified facility’’
under Texas’s General Definitions in
Chapter 116, Control of Air Pollution by
Permits for New Construction or
Modification. See 30 TAC 116.10(1), (2),
(11)(E), and (16), respectively. EPA finds
that these submitted provisions and
definitions in the submittals affecting
the Texas Qualified Facilities Program
are not severable from each other.
In the September 23, 2009, EPA also
proposed to take action on revisions to
the SIP submitted by Texas that relate
to the General Definitions in Chapter
116. EPA proposed to approve three of
these submitted definitions,
‘‘grandfathered facility,’’ ‘‘maximum
allowable emissions rate table
(MAERT),’’ and ‘‘new facility’’ at 30 TAC
116.10(8), (10), and (12), respectively.
These definitions are severable from the
Qualified Facilities Program.
EPA proposed to make an
administrative correction to the
severable submittal for the SIP-approved
E:\FR\FM\14APR2.SGM
14APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
definition of ‘‘facility’’ under 30 TAC
116.10(6). Consistent with our proposal,
EPA is finalizing this administrative
correction in today’s action.
Specifically, EPA corrects a
typographical error at 72 FR 49198
(August 28, 2007), to clarify that the
definition of ‘‘facility,’’ as codified at 30
TAC 116.10(6), was approved as part of
the Texas SIP in 2006 and remains part
of the Texas SIP. 74 FR 48450, at 48465.
See Sections I and IV for further
information on EPA’s final action on the
above submittals.
Further, EPA proposed to disapprove
the following severable definitions: (1)
the submitted definition of ‘‘best
available control technology (BACT)’’
and (2) subparagraphs (A) and (B) of the
submitted definition of ‘‘modification of
existing facility,’’ which are severable
from the other submissions but not
severable from each other, and (3)
subparagraph (G) of the submitted
definition of ‘‘modification of existing
facility.’’ EPA proposed to take no action
on the severable submitted
subparagraph (F) for the SIP-approved
severable definition of ‘‘federally
enforceable’’ under 30 TAC 116.10(7)
because the submitted paragraph relates
to a federal program that is
implemented separately from the SIP. In
addition, EPA proposed to take no
action on the severable submitted
portion of a provision at 30 TAC
19471
116.116(f) that includes, among other
things, a trading provision containing a
cross-reference that no longer is in
Texas’s rules. See Section II for further
information on why EPA is not taking
final action today on these submittals.
B. Summary of the Submittals
Addressed in this Final Action
Table 1 below summarizes the
changes that are in the SIP revision
submittals. A summary of EPA’s
evaluation of each section and the basis
for this action is discussed in Sections
IV through VI of this preamble. The
Technical Support Document includes a
detailed evaluation of the submittals.
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF EACH SIP SUBMITTAL THAT IS AFFECTED BY THIS ACTION.
Section
30 TAC 116.10 .......................
30 TAC 116.10(1) ..................
Submittal
dates
Title
General Definitions
Definition of ‘‘actual emissions’’.
Description of change
Proposed action
Definition of ‘‘allowable
emissions’’.
Added new definition ......................
Disapproval.
7/22/1998
30 TAC 116.10(2) ..................
3/13/1996
Repealed and a new definition submitted as paragraph (1).
Added new definition ......................
Disapproval.
3/13/1996
7/22/1998
9/11/2000
30 TAC 116.10(6) ..................
Definition of ‘‘facility’’ ...........
3/13/1996
7/22/1998
9/4/2002
30 TAC 116.10(8) ..................
Definition of ‘‘grandfathered
facility’’.
3/13/1996
7/22/1998
30 TAC 116.10(10) ................
Definition of ‘‘maximum allowable emission rate
table’’.
7/31/2002
9/4/2002
3/13/1996
7/22/1998
30 TAC 116.10(11) ................
Definition of ‘‘modification of
existing facility’’.
9/4/2002
3/13/1996
7/22/1998
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
30 TAC 116.10(12) ................
Definition of ‘‘new facility’’ ...
30 TAC 116.10(16) ................
Definition of ‘‘qualified facility’’.
9/4/2002
3/13/1996
7/22/1998
9/04/2002
3/13/1996
7/22/1998
30 TAC 116.116 .....................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:42 Apr 13, 2010
Changes to Facilities ...........
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00005
9/4/2002
3/13/1996
7/22/1998
Fmt 4701
Repealed and a new definition submitted as paragraph (2).
Revised paragraphs (2)(A) through
(D).
Added new definition ......................
Administrative correction to
clarify the definition of
‘‘facility’’ is in the SIP.
Repealed and a new definition submitted as paragraph (4). Approved 9/6/2006 (71 FR 52698).
Redesignated to paragraph (6). Inadvertently identified as non-SIP
provision in 8/28/2007 SIP revision.
Added new definition ......................
Approval.
Repealed and a new definition submitted as paragraph (6).
Revised definition.
Redesignated to paragraph (8).
Added new definition ......................
Approval.
Repealed and a new definition submitted as paragraph (8).
Redesignated to paragraph (10).
Added new definition ......................
Repealed and a new definition submitted as paragraph (9).
Redesignated to paragraph (11).
Added new definition ......................
Repealed and a new definition submitted as paragraph (10).
Redesignated to paragraph (12).
Added new definition ......................
Repealed and a new definition submitted as paragraph (14).
Redesignated to paragraph (16).
Added subsection (e) ......................
Repealed and a new 116.116(e)
submitted.
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\14APR2.SGM
14APR2
Disapproval of subparagraph (E).
Approval.
Disapproval.
Disapproval.
Disapproval.
19472
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF EACH SIP SUBMITTAL THAT IS AFFECTED BY THIS ACTION.—Continued
Submittal
dates
Section
Title
30 TAC 116.117 .....................
Documentation and Notification of Changes to Qualified Facilities.
Description of change
Proposed action
Pre-Change Qualification ....
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
C. Other Proposed Relevant Actions on
the Texas Permitting SIP Revision
Submittals
The Settlement Agreement in BCCA
Appeal Group v. EPA, Case No. 3:08–
cv–01491–N (N.D. Tex), as amended,
currently provides that EPA will take
final action on the State’s Public
Participation SIP revision submittal on
October 29, 2010. EPA intends to take
final action on the submitted Texas
Flexible Permits State Program by June
30, 2010, and the NSR SIP by August 31,
2010, as provided in the Consent Decree
entered on January 21, 2010 in BCCA
Appeal Group v. EPA, Case No. 3:08–
cv–01491–N (N.D. Tex).
Additionally, EPA acknowledges and
appreciates that TCEQ is developing a
proposed rulemaking package to address
EPA’s concerns with the current
Qualified Facilities rules. We will, of
course, consider any rule changes if and
when they are submitted to EPA for
review. However, the rules before us
today are those of the current Qualified
Facilities program, and we have
concluded that the current program is
not approvable for the reasons set out in
this notice.
IV. What Are the Grounds for This
Disapproval Action of the Texas
Qualified Facilities Program?
EPA is disapproving revisions to the
SIP submitted by the State of Texas that
relate to the Modification of Qualified
Facilities, identified in the above Table
1. Sources are reminded that they
remain subject to the requirements of
the Federally- approved Texas SIP and
may be subject to enforcement actions
for violations of the SIP. See EPA’s
Revised Guidance on Enforcement
During Pending SIP Revisions, (March
1, 1991). However, because the
Qualified Facilities Program is a
permitting exemption, not a permit
amendment, this final disapproval
action does not affect Federal
enforceability of Major and Minor NSR
SIP permits.
The provisions affected by this
disapproval action include regulatory
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:42 Apr 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
Added new section .........................
Disapproval.
7/22/1998
30 TAC 116.118 .....................
3/13/1996
Repealed and a new 116.117 resubmitted.
Added new section .........................
Repealed and a new 116.118 submitted.
Disapproval.
3/13/1996
7/22/1998
provisions at 30 TAC 116.116(e),
116.117, and 116.118; and definitions at
30 TAC 116.10(1), (2), (11)(E), and (16)
under 30 TAC Chapter 116, Control of
Air Pollution by Permits for New
Construction or Modification. EPA finds
that these submitted provisions and
definitions in the submittals affecting
the Texas Qualified Facilities Program
are not severable from each other.
Specifically, EPA is making the
following findings and taking the
following actions as described below:
A. Why the Qualified Facilities Program
Submittal Is Unclear Whether it Is for a
Major or Minor NSR SIP Revision
While the TCEQ and other
commenters asserted that the program
was intended to be limited to Minor
NSR, we continue to be concerned that
the program is not explicitly limited to
Minor NSR. Specifically, EPA finds that
the submittals contain no applicability
statement or regulatory provision that
limits applicability to minor
modifications. The Program is
analogous to two other Minor NSR
programs in Texas’s SIP because
although they do not exempt facilities
from NSR, as does the Qualified
Facilities Program, they do exempt
facilities from obtaining source-specific
(i.e., case-by-case) permits. However,
both of the State’s other Minor NSR
programs include an applicability
statement and a regulatory provision
that expressly limits applicability to
minor modifications.3 Moreover, the
Texas Clean Air Act clearly prohibits
the use of these two other Minor NSR
programs for Major NSR. See Texas
Health and Safety Code 382.05196 and
.057. Therefore, the absence of these
provisions in the Qualified Facilities
rules creates an unacceptable ambiguity
in the SIP. Without a clear statement of
applicability of the Program, the
3 The Standard Permits rules require a Major NSR
applicability determination at 30 TAC 116.610(b),
and prohibit circumvention of Major NSR at 30
TAC 116.610(c). Likewise, the Permits by Rule
provisions require a Major NSR applicability
determination at 30 TAC 106.4(a)(3), and prohibit
circumvention of Major NSR at 30 TAC 106.4(b).
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Program as submitted is confusing to the
public, regulated sources, government
agencies, or a court, because it can be
interpreted as an alternative to
evaluating the new modification as a
major modification under Major NSR
requirements. Because of the overbroad
nature of the regulatory language in the
State’s SIP revision submittal, we find
that the State has failed to limit its
submitted Program only to Minor NSR.
See 74 FR 48450, at 48456–48457 and
Section V.E.1 below for further
information.
Consequently, we evaluated this
submitted Program as being a substitute
for the Texas Major NSR SIP. We also
evaluated it for approvability as a Minor
NSR SIP. Accordingly, we evaluated
whether the submitted Program meets
the requirements for a Major NSR SIP
revision, the general requirements for
regulating construction of any stationary
sources contained in Section
110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA, and the
applicable statutory and regulatory
requirements for an approvable SIP
revision. See 74 FR 48450, at 48457.
B. Why the Submitted Texas Qualified
Facilities Program Is Not Approvable as
a Substitute Major NSR SIP Revision
EPA finds that the State failed to
submit information sufficient to
demonstrate that the submitted
Program’s regulatory text explicitly
prevents the circumvention of Major
NSR. Therefore, EPA is disapproving
the Program as not meeting the Major
NSR SIP requirements to prevent
circumvention of Major NSR. See 74 FR
48450, at 48458; Sections V.C.2. and E.
below for further information.
EPA finds that that the State failed to
submit information sufficient to
demonstrate that the submitted
Program’s regulatory text requires an
evaluation of Major Source NSR
applicability before a change is
exempted from permitting. Therefore,
EPA is disapproving the Program as not
meeting the Major NSR SIP
requirements that require the Major NSR
applicability requirements be met. See
E:\FR\FM\14APR2.SGM
14APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
74 FR 48450, at 48458; Section V.C.2
below for further information.
We find that the Program is deficient
for Major NSR netting for two main
reasons. First, the Program may allow an
emission increase to net out by taking
into account emission decreases outside
of the major stationary source and, in
other circumstances, allow an
evaluation of emissions of a subset of
units at a major stationary source.
Therefore, the Program does not meet
the CAA’s definition of ‘‘modification’’
and the Major NSR SIP requirements
and is inconsistent with Alabama Power
v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323, 401–403 (DC
Cir. 1980) and Asarco v. EPA, 578 F.2d
320 (DC Cir. 1978). 74 FR 48450, at
48458–48459; Section V.C.1 below.
Second, the Program authorizes existing
allowable emissions, rather than actual
emissions, to be used as a baseline to
determine applicability. This use of
allowables is inconsistent with the
requirements of the Act for Major NSR
and is contrary to New York v. EPA, 413
F.3d 3, 38–40 (DC Cir. 2005) (‘‘New York
I’’). 74 FR 48450, at 48459; Section V.C.1
below.
EPA finds that it lacks sufficient
available information to determine,
pursuant to section 110(l) that the
requested relaxation to the Texas NSR
SIP would not interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning
attainment and RFP, or any other
applicable CAA requirement. See 74 FR
48450, at 48459 for further information.
C. Why the Submitted Texas Qualified
Facilities Program Is Not Approvable as
a Minor NSR SIP Revision
EPA finds that the Program is not
clearly limited to Minor NSR. The
submitted Program also does not
prevent circumvention of the Major NSR
SIP requirements. The Program lacks
requirements necessary for enforcement
of the applicable emissions limitations,
including a permit application and
issuance process. Overall, the Program
fails to include sufficient legally
enforceable safeguards to ensure that the
NAAQS and control strategies are
protected. Furthermore, the Program
provides a de minimis exemption from
the Texas Minor NSR SIP, and therefore,
it is a SIP relaxation, which creates a
risk of interference with NAAQS
attainment, RFP, or any other
requirement of the Act. EPA lacks
sufficient information to determine that
this SIP relaxation would not interfere
with these requirements. 74 FR 48450,
at 48463. Additionally, the legal test for
whether a de minimis threshold can be
approved is whether it is consistent
with the need for a plan to include
legally enforceable procedures to ensure
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:40 Apr 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
that the State will not permit a source
that will violate the control strategy or
interfere with NAAQS attainment, as
required by 40 CFR 51.160(a)–(b). 74 FR
48450, at 48460. The State failed to
demonstrate that this exemption will
not permit changes that will violate the
Texas control strategies or interfere with
NAAQS attainment. Therefore, we are
disapproving the submitted Qualified
Facilities Program as a Minor NSR SIP
revision because it does not meet
sections 110(a)(2)(C) and 110(l) of the
Act and 40 CFR 51.160.
The Qualified Facilities Program does
not ensure protection of the NAAQS
and prevent violations of any State
control strategy. First, the Program fails
to ensure that all participating Qualified
Facilities must have obtained a Texas
NSR SIP permit. Without the assurance
that all Qualified Facilities have
obtained a Texas NSR SIP permit, EPA
cannot determine that all Qualified
Facilities must have Federally
enforceable emission limitations based
on the chosen control technology, and
that the Qualified Facility will not
interfere with attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS or violate
any control strategy. Therefore, EPA
finds that the Qualified Facilities
Program is inadequate to ensure that all
Qualified Facilities have an appropriate
allowable limit to prevent interference
with attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS or violations of any State
control strategy that is required by the
Texas NSR SIP. See Section V.G.1 for
further information. In addition, the
Program does not require the owner or
operator to maintain the information
and analysis showing how it concluded
that there will be no adverse impact on
ambient air quality before undertaking
the change. Therefore, EPA finds that
the Qualified Facilities Program is
inadequate to ensure that all changes
under the Program that are exempted
from permitting will not prevent
interference with attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS or
violations of any State control strategy
that is required by the Texas NSR SIP.
74 FR 48450, at 48462; Section V.F.1.
Regarding the State’s use of minor
source netting in the Qualified Facilities
Program, EPA makes the following
findings:
The Qualified Facilities Program is
inadequate because it fails to provide
clear and enforceable requirements for a
basic netting program. Therefore, this
Program, as submitted, does not meet
the fundamental requirements for an
approvable Minor NSR netting program.
To analyze the Program’s Minor NSR
netting for approvability, we used the
fundamental principles of Major NSR
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19473
and NSR netting because these
principles are designed to ensure that
there is no interference with the
NAAQS and control strategies.4 The
Major NSR netting program requires the
following: (1) An identified
contemporaneous period, (2) the
reductions must be contemporaneous
and creditable, (3) the reductions must
be of the same pollutant as the change,
(4) the reductions must be real, (5) the
reductions must be permanent, and (6)
the reductions must be quantifiable. See
40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(vi) (the definition of
‘‘net emissions increase’’); 40 CFR
51.166(b)(3). To be considered
creditable, the reduction’s old level of
emissions must exceed the new level of
emissions, the reduction must be
enforceable as a practical matter at and
after the time the actual change begins,
and the reduction must have
approximately the same qualitative
significance for public health and
welfare as that attributed to the increase
from the particular change. See 74 FR
48450, at 48461.
As discussed below, the Program’s
netting provisions do not meet all of the
requirements; therefore, the Qualified
Facilities netting is disapproved as a
Minor NSR netting program.
• The Program fails to define a
contemporaneous or other period for the
netting and that the emission reductions
must occur within that specified period.
74 FR 48450, at 48461; Section V.C.1
below.
• Emissions reductions under the
Qualified Facilities program are not
enforceable as a practical matter at and
after the time of the actual change
begins; and therefore, not sufficiently
creditable. First, the Program fails to
ensure a separate netting analysis is
performed for each proposed change
because the rules are not clear that
reductions can only be relied upon
once. Therefore, we find that the
Program fails to prevent double
counting; and consequently these types
of reductions are not creditable. Second,
the Program does not require that each
Qualified Facility involved in the
netting transaction must submit a
permit application and obtain a permit
revision reflecting all of the changes
made to reduce emissions (relied upon
in the netting analysis) as well as
reflecting the change itself that
increased emissions. As a result,
emissions reductions are not
enforceable; and therefore, not
4 However, our analysis of the netting provisions
in the Qualified Facilities Program under Minor
NSR is not intended to create a binding Agency
position on evaluating the approvability of Minor
NSR netting.
E:\FR\FM\14APR2.SGM
14APR2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
19474
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
sufficiently creditable. 74 FR 48450, at
48462; Section V.C.1.
• EPA proposed to find that the
State’s ‘‘interchange’’ methodology,
submitted 30 TAC 116.116(e)(3), is
consistent with the Federal requirement
that reductions must be of the same
pollutant as the change.5 74 FR 48450,
at 48461. However, after evaluation of
received comments, EPA finds that the
term ‘‘sulfur compounds’’ in 30 TAC
116.116(e)(3)(F), is broad enough to
include hydrogen sulfide. Hydrogen
sulfide is a regulated NSR pollutant (see
40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i) and 52.21(i)(5)(i))
and, in certain instances, may require
separate analysis from sulfur oxides in
a netting analysis. Therefore, the
interchange methodology may not
ensure the health impacts of all sulfur
compounds will be equal. The State
failed to demonstrate that such use of
hydrogen sulfide would protect the
sulfur dioxides NAAQS. Additionally,
this provision allows PM–2.5 to be
interchanged with PM–10. However,
because PM–10 and PM–2.5 are two
separate pollutants and the State failed
to demonstrate that such use of PM–10
would protect the PM–2.5 NAAQS, this
interchange is inappropriate. Therefore,
this provision is unapprovable for the
sulfur dioxides and PM NAAQS.
Section V.C.1 below.
• The Program also lacks any
provisions that require the reductions to
be permanent. Specifically, the
submitted Program does not include
provisions that either prohibit future
increases at the Qualified Facility, or
ensure that any future increase at a
Qualified Facility at which a previous
netting reduction occurred is analyzed
in totality to assure that the NAAQS
remains protected from the original
increase. 74 FR 48450, at 48461; Section
V.C.1 below.
Section 30 TAC 116.117(b) lacks any
provisions that require a permit
application to be submitted to TCEQ for
a change under the Program. There are
no provisions in 30 TAC 116.117(b) that
clearly indicate that TCEQ must issue a
revised permit for the changes made by
all of the participating Qualified
Facilities. Thus, EPA finds that the
Program is not approvable because it
lacks this requirement and therefore is
not enforceable. See 74 FR 48450, at
48462, Section V.D.1 below.
The Qualified Facilities SIP submittal
is a relaxation under CAA section 110(l)
because it provides an exemption from
NSR permitting not previously available
5 See 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(vi)(A) and
51.166(b)(3)(i), which define net emissions increase
‘‘with respect to any regulated NSR pollutant.’’
Emphasis added.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:40 Apr 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
to facilities. As such, this revision
creates a risk of interference with
NAAQS attainment, RFP, or any other
requirement of the Act. EPA lacks
information sufficient to make a
determination that the requested SIP
revision relaxation does not interfere
with any applicable requirements
concerning attainment and RFP, or any
other applicable requirement of the Act,
as required by section 110(l). See 74 FR
48450, at 48463.
For the reasons discussed above in
this section and as further discussed
below in Section V (Response to
Comments), EPA is disapproving the
submitted Qualified Facilities Program
as not meeting section 110(a)(2)(C) and
110(l) of that Act and 40 CFR 51.160.
See 74 FR 48450, at 48462.
D. Definition of ‘‘Facility’’
EPA proposed to make an
administrative correction to the
severable submittal for the SIP-approved
definition of ‘‘facility’’ under 30 TAC
116.10(6). Consistent with our proposal,
EPA is finalizing this administrative
correction in today’s action.
Specifically, EPA corrects a
typographical error at 72 FR 49198 to
clarify that the definition of ‘‘facility,’’ as
codified at 30 TAC 116.10(6), was
approved as part of the Texas SIP in
2006 and remains part of the Texas SIP.
74 FR 48450, at 48465.
However, EPA wishes to note that
each part of the Texas NSR program
depends greatly upon the definition of
‘‘facility’’ that is applicable to it and
upon how that definition is used in
context within each part of the program.
There are instances where a specific
part of the Texas NSR program does not
meet the Act and EPA regulations due
to the definition of ‘‘facility’’ that applies
to that part of the program. For example
Texas’s PSD non-PAL rules explicitly
limit the definition of ‘‘facility’’ to
‘‘emissions unit,’’ but the NNSR nonPAL rules fail to include such a
limitation. 74 FR 48450, at 48475;
compare 30 TAC 116.10(6) to 30 TAC
116.160(c)(3). TCEQ did not provide
information to demonstrate that the lack
of this explicit limitation in the NNSR
SIP non-PALs revision is at least as
stringent as the revised Major NSR SIP
requirements. 74 FR 48450, at 48455;
Section V.M. below.
V. Response to Comments
In response to our September 23,
2009, proposal, we received comments
from the following: Sierra Club—
Houston Regional Group; Sierra Club
Membership Services (including 2,062
individual comment letters); Harris
County Public Health and
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Environmental Services; Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality;
Members of the Texas House of
Representatives; Office of the Mayor—
City of Houston, Texas; University of
Texas at Austin School of Law—
Environmental Clinic; Baker Botts,
L.L.P., on behalf of BCCA Appeal
Group; Baker Botts, L.L.P., on behalf of
Texas Industrial Project; Bracewell &
Guiliani, L.L.P., on behalf of the Electric
Reliability Coordinating Council; Gulf
Coast Lignite Coalition; Texas Chemical
Council.
A. General Comments
1. Comments Generally Supporting
Proposal
Comment: Harris County Public
Health & Environmental Services
(HCPHES) acknowledges that EPA takes
issue with the TCEQ regulations
because of the lack of specificity
regarding definitions and general lack of
checks and balances to ensure that
Federal requirements are met during the
State’s permitting processes, and
because they do not meet the Minor
NSR SIP and Major NSR SIP, including
the Major NSR Nonattainment SIP
requirements. Those concerns, currently
unaddressed by the TCEQ, have
ultimately resulted in EPA’s proposed
disapproval of portions of the TCEQ’s
most recent SIP submittal. HCPHES
views a TCEQ program that meets the
Federal requirements as being critical to
ensuring that air quality in the Houston
Galveston Brazoria (HGB) area returns to
levels compliant with the NAAQS.
HCPHES is very concerned that the
TCEQ programs fall short of Federal
requirements and encourages EPA to
aggressively pursue the timely
correction of these deficiencies to
ensure the health, safety, and well being
of the citizens of Harris County.
HCPHES supports EPA’s conclusion to
disapprove portions of the SIP as
proposed until such time as TCEQ
addresses all of the specifics noted in
the Federal Register.
Comment: Several members of the
Texas House of Representatives support
EPA’s proposed disapproval of the
Qualified Facilities Program. While the
Qualified Facilities Program was a
legislative creation, these members of
the Texas House recognize that the
statutory language and associated
regulations are inconsistent with current
CAA requirements regarding
modifications and public participation.
Particular concerns are:
• Inadequate TCEQ oversight. The
rules authorize many changes at
facilities without any pre-approval by
TCEQ or procedures for denial for
E:\FR\FM\14APR2.SGM
14APR2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
cause. These off-permit changes are
difficult to track and enforce and may
threaten ambient air quality.
• The lack of understandable and
traceable permits. Texas industry,
regulators, and the public should be
able to obtain a permit, read it, and
know what quantity of what pollutants
the facility is authorized to emit. The
off-permit changes authorized through
the Qualified Facilities rules prevent
such transparency.
Comment: Houston Regional Group of
the Sierra Club (Sierra Club) supports
EPA’s analysis and agrees that all of the
September 23, 2009, proposals
(including the Qualified Facilities
Program) should be disapproved. The
commenter generally supported EPA’s
proposed disapproval of the Qualified
Facilities Program; Flexible Permits
Program; and Texas Major and Minor
NSR SIP for 1997 8-hour and 1-hour
ozone NAAQS, Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) SIP, and
Standard Permit for Pollution Control
Projects. The commenter provided
additional comments on our proposed
disapproval of the Flexible Permits
Program, which EPA will address in its
separate action on the Flexible Permits
Program.
Response: Generally, these comments
support EPA’s analysis of Texas’s
Qualified Facilities Program as
discussed in detail at 74 FR 48450, at
48455–48463, and further support EPA’s
action to disapprove the Qualified
Facilities submission.
Comment: The Sierra Club
Membership Services (SCMS) sent
numerous similar letters via e-mail that
relate to this action. These comments
include 1,789 identical letters (sent via
e-mail), which included the following
comments:
• The TCEQ is broken and the
commenters applaud EPA’s proposed
ruling that major portions of the TCEQ
air permitting program does not adhere
to the CAA and should be thrown out;
• While agreeing that the proposed
disapprovals are a good first step, the
commenters state that EPA should take
bold actions as follows:
—Halting any new air pollution permits
being issued by TCEQ utilizing
TCEQ’s current illegal policy;
—Creating a moratorium on the
operations of any new coal fired
power plants in Texas until TCEQ
cleans up its act by operating under
the Federal CAA;
—Requiring coal companies clean up
their old, dirty plants—no exceptions,
no bailouts, and no special
treatment—by reviewing all permits
issued since TCEQ adopted its illegal
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:40 Apr 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
policies and requiring that these
entities resubmit their applications in
accordance with the Federal CAA;
and
—Put stronger rules in place in order to
reduce global-warming emissions and
to make sure new laws and rules do
not allow existing coal plants to
continue polluting with global
warming emissions.
• The commenters further state that
Texas: (1) Has more proposed coal and
pet coke fired power plants than any
other state in the nation; (2) Is number
1 in carbon emissions; and (3) Is on the
list for the largest increase in emissions
over the past five years.
• The commenters do not want coal
to stand in the way of a clean energy
future in Texas. Strong rules are needed
to make sure the coal industry is held
responsible for their mess and that no
permits are issued under TCEQ’s illegal
permitting process. Strong regulations
are vital to cleaning up the energy
industry and putting Texas on a path to
clean energy technology that boosts
economic growth, creates jobs in Texas,
and protects the air quality, health, and
communities.
In addition, SCMS sent 273 similar
letters (sent via e-mail) that contained
additional comments. These additional
comments include the following:
• Commenters suggest that Texas rely
on wind power, solar energy, and
natural gas as clean alternatives to coal.
• Other comments expressed general
concerns related to: Impacts on global
warming, lack of commitment by TCEQ
to protect air quality, the need for clean
energy efficient growth, impacts of upon
human health, endangerment of
wildlife, impacts on creation of future
jobs in Texas, plus numerous other
similar concerns.
Response: To the extent the SCMS
letters comment on the proposed
disapproval of the Qualified Facility
program, they support EPA’s action to
disapprove the Qualified Facilities
submission. The remaining comments
are outside the scope of our proposed
action relating to the Qualified Facilities
Program.
Comment: The Environmental Clinic,
the University of Texas at Austin School
of Law (UT Environmental Clinic)
commented that EPA should disapprove
several other sections of 30 TAC
Chapter 116.
Response: This final rulemaking only
addresses the Qualified Facilities
Program. Therefore, issues related to
other portions of Texas’s regulations are
outside the scope of this rulemaking.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19475
2. Comments Generally Opposing
Proposal
Comment: TCEQ provided several
general comments on the proposal. The
TCEQ commented that the Qualified
Facilities Program was developed by the
74th Texas Legislature through Senate
Bill (SB) 1126, which became effective
May 19, 1995. SB 1126 amended the
Texas Clean Air Act by revising the
definition of ‘‘modification of existing
facility,’’ which changed the factors used
to determine whether a modification for
State permitting (i.e. Minor NSR) has
occurred. In 1996, 30 TAC Chapter 116
was revised to incorporate this
legislative directive. These changes
provide that modifications may be made
to existing facilities without triggering
the State’s Minor NSR requirements
whenever: (1) The facility to be
modified has received a permit, permit
amendment, or has been exempted from
permitting requirements no earlier than
120 months from when the change will
occur; or (2) uses air pollution control
methods that are at least as effective as
the Minor NSR SIP best available
control technology (BACT) that the
Commission required 120 months before
the change will occur. Such facilities are
designated as ‘‘qualified facilities.’’
TCEQ has always considered the
Qualified Facilities Program to be
applicable only to Minor NSR and not
applicable to Major NSR, although this
is not specifically stated in the rule. In
summary, under the Qualified Facilities
Program, TCEQ: (1) Determines Federal
applicability as a first step in processing
a Qualified Facilities request; and uses
actual emissions, not allowable
emission rates; (2) applies Federal NSR
requirements when triggered; (3) does
not circumvent Federal requirements
applicable to major stationary sources or
major modifications; (4) considers the
use of ‘‘modification’’ to be separate and
severable from the Federal definition of
‘‘modification’’ as reflected in the SIPapproved Major NSR Program; and (5)
does not violate the approved SIP with
regard to Major NSR or Minor NSR
Program requirements.
Comment: The Texas Chemical
Council (TCC) comments that it would
be short-cited to analyze the three
programs (Qualified Facilities, Flexible
Permits, and NSR Reform) apart from
the dramatic improvements in the air
quality in Texas in the past 15 years.
TCC goes on to describe these
improvements. TCC supports full
approval of Qualified Facilities. The
Qualified Facilities Program is not
intended to shield a source from major
NSR. The Program is a robust, Federally
enforceable program. The Qualified
E:\FR\FM\14APR2.SGM
14APR2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
19476
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Facilities Program is authorized by the
TCAA, promotes flexibility, and allows
sources to make certain changes without
triggering NSR. If Major NSR is
triggered, a facility cannot be a
Qualified Facility. The definition of a
Qualified Facility makes it clear that a
Qualified Facility is an existing facility.
A Qualified Facility may make a
physical change in or change the
operation of that facility as long as the
change does not result in a net increase
in allowable emissions of any air
contaminant and does not result in the
emission of any air contaminant not
previously emitted. Additionally, the
facility must be using equipment at least
as effective as the BACT required by
TCEQ. TCC supports full approval of the
three Texas air permitting program
submittals. The SIP revisions submitted
to EPA by TCEQ over the last 15 years
are critical components to Texas air
permitting program. Texas should not
be punished for EPA’s failure to act
within the statutory timeframe in the
CAA. EPA offers little or no legal
justification for proposing disapproval
of these programs. EPA’s proposed
action will have an enormous impact on
the country’s largest industrial state.
The SIP revision submittals for these
programs are at least as stringent as the
applicable Federal requirements and
should be fully approved.
Comment: Bracewell & Giuliani LLP,
counsel to the Electric Reliability
Coordinating Council (ERCC),
commented that Qualified Facilities
provides incentives to implement
pollution reduction measures at existing
facilities. EPA’s proposed disapproval
does not provide any evidence that this
authorization is actually used for major
modifications or in fact interferes with
air quality improvements.
Discontinuance of this program could
deter or delay many pollution reduction
measures because the cost and resources
associated with a full notice and
comment case-by-case permit would
outweigh the economic benefits of the
additional controls. EPA should
determine that the Qualified Facilities
Program satisfies the CAA requirements
for a state minor source program and
retract the SIP disapproval and approve
this SIP revision. EPA should recognize
the validity of permits issued under the
Texas permitting program and refrain
from taking enforcement actions to
address EPA concerns.
Comment: Jackson Walker, LLP,
counsel to Gulf Coast Lignite Coalition
GCLC, provided the following general
comments on all three proposed
disapprovals (Qualified Facilities,
Flexible Permits, and NSR Reform): (1)
Commenters disagree with all the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:40 Apr 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
proposed disapprovals because the SIP
as implemented by TCEQ meets or
exceeds CAA requirements and has met
the goals of the CAA; (2) EPA has a
history of focusing on results; so, EPA
should look beyond immaterial
differences in the rule provisions and
focus on the positive results that Texas
has achieved under the TCAA and the
State’s submittals; (3) Texas sources
have relied on the submitted rules for as
long as 15 years in some cases. To
disapprove the submittals after so long
puts too much burden on the regulated
community, creates regulatory
uncertainty, hurts the vulnerable
economy by potentially increasing
compliance costs, and may discourage
future business expansion; and (4)
GCLC requests that EPA work
collaboratively, not combatively, with
TCEQ to resolve any issues under the
CAA.
Comment: Baker Botts, LLP, counsel
for Texas Industry Project (TIP) and
Business Coalition for Clean Air (BCCA)
provided the following comments. TIP
and BCCA support full approval of
Qualified Facilities because the
submittal will strengthen Texas’s
permitting program. EPA should work
expeditiously with TCEQ to approve the
Qualified Facilities Program. Further,
under Texas’s integrated air permitting
regime, air quality in the state is
demonstrating strong, sustained
improvement. Commenters describe the
air quality improvements in Texas in
the recent past. Finally, commenters
describe their understanding of how the
Qualified Facilities Program operates.
Qualified Facilities is a Minor NSR
applicability trigger that allows existing
emissions facilities that employ BACT
to make changes without Minor NSR
review as long as the changes do not
result in net emissions increases. The
Qualified Facilities Program is
authorized by the TCAA and applies
only to existing facilities. The term
‘‘facility’’ is analogous to the Federal
definition of ‘‘emissions unit,’’ under
Texas’s Title V program. See 30 TAC
122.10(8). The Texas Legislature created
the Qualified Facilities Program as an
incentive for sites to implement BACT.
To be ‘‘qualified,’’ the source must (1)
have a permit or permit amendment or
exempt from pre-construction permit
requirements no earlier than 120
months before the change will occur, or
(2) use air pollution control methods
that are at least as effective as the BACT
that was required or would have been
required for the same class or type of
facility by a permit issued 120 months
before the change will occur. See 30
TAC 116.116(e). A qualified facility may
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
lose its status as ‘‘qualified’’ if its permit,
exemption, or control method falls
outside the 10-year window. See Texas
Nat’l Res. Conservation Comm’n,
Modification of Existing Facilities under
Senate Bill 1126: Guidance for Air
Quality, (April 1996), 5 [hereinafter
Modification of Existing Facilities
Guidance].
Comment: Texas Oil & Gas
Association (TxOGA) is encouraged that
EPA is taking action to provide certainty
in the regulatory process for businesses.
TxOGA supports the ongoing goal of
improved air quality; however,
commenters do not believe that the
proposed disapproval does anything to
improve air quality in Texas. Further,
the proposal may discourage future
business expansion in Texas.
Response: EPA understands TCEQ’s
explanation of the origination of the
Program in SB 1126. Nonetheless, the
Qualified Facilities Program must meet
all Federal requirements under the CAA
in order to be approvable. The fact that
EPA failed to act on the Qualified
Facilities Program SIP revision within
the statutory timeframe does not dictate
the action EPA must take on the
Program at this time. We cannot
approve a program that fails to meet the
requirements of the CAA. As discussed
throughout our proposal and this final
notice, the current Qualified Facilities
Program fails to meet all requirements.
We disagree with commenters that the
Qualified Facilities Program is
exclusively a Minor NSR program,
based upon the ambiguities in the
Program’s rules. Furthermore, EPA need
not prove that the Program is actually
used for major modifications. EPA is
required to review a SIP revision
submission for its compliance with the
Act and EPA regulations. CAA
110(k)(3); Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc. v. Browner, 57 F.3d 1122,
1123 (DC Cir. 1995); American
Cyanamid v. EPA, 810 F.2d 493, 495
(5th Cir. 1987). This includes an
analysis of the submitted regulations for
their legal interpretation. The Program’s
rules are ambiguous and therefore do
not adequately prohibit use under Major
NSR. We recognize that TCEQ considers
the Program to be a Minor NSR Program;
however, the State admits that its rules
are insufficient to limit the Program to
Minor NSR. See 74 FR 48450, at 48456–
48457; Section V.F. below for further
information.
EPA enforcement of Federal
requirements in Texas is outside the
scope of this rulemaking. Additionally,
comments on the Flexible Permits
Program and the NSR Reform submittal
are outside the scope of this notice. EPA
will address the comments on its
E:\FR\FM\14APR2.SGM
14APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
proposed disapprovals of Flexible
Permits and NSR Reform in separate
actions on these programs.
B. Comments That This Action Is
Inconsistent With the CAA
Comment: ERCC commented that
EPA’s proposed disapprovals are not
rationally supported by case law and are
inconsistent with the CAA. Congress
placed primary responsibility for
developing SIPs on the states, so
permitting programs among states can
vary greatly. EPA determines whether
the state SIP satisfies the minimum
requirements of the CAA. Union Electric
Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246 (1976),
rehearing denied 429 U.S. 873 (1976);
Train v. NRDC, 421 U.S. 60 (1975);
Florida Power and Light Co. v. Costle,
650 F.2d 586 (5th Cir. 1979); 71 FR
48696, 486700 (August 21, 2006)
(Proposed rule to promulgate a FIP
under the CAA for tribes in Indian
country). The Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals recently stated that ‘‘EPA has
no authority to question the wisdom of
a State’s choice of emission limitations
if they are part of a SIP that otherwise
satisfies the standards set for in 42
U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).’’ Clean Coalition v.
TXU Power, 536 F.3d 469 Fn.3 (5th Cir.
Tex. 2008). Texas’s permitting programs
are based on the recognized Minor NSR
flexibility and consistent with prior EPA
approvals of other state SIPs. EPA must
review other approved state programs to
ensure that Texas’s sources are not put
at a competitive disadvantage. See
Memorandum from John Seitz, Director,
OAQPS, SIP Consistency Process (April
4, 10, 1996). EPA’s proposed
disapprovals could have dramatic
impact on industries in Texas. EPA
should solicit comments from all EPA
regions on whether the proposed actions
are inconsistent with other state SIPs
and compare the stringency of the Texas
programs to those of other states. ERCC
is confident that EPA will realize that
the Texas programs are consistent and
possibly more stringent than other
permitting programs throughout the
country.
Response: EPA continues to recognize
that permitting programs among states
can vary greatly and provide some
flexibility for Minor NSR SIP programs.
However, in order to be approved as
part of the SIP, the Qualified Facilities
Program must meet all applicable
Federal requirements. Here, the
commenter’s reliance on the Fifth
Circuit’s dicta in Clean Coalition is
misplaced because the Qualified
Facilities Program does not meet the
standard set in 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(C).
Section 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(C) requires
the State to have a permitting program
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:40 Apr 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
that complies with PSD and
Nonattainment New Source Review
(NNSR) permit requirements (at 42
U.S.C. 7475 and 7503, respectively), as
well as Minor NSR permit requirements.
As part of the State’s permitting
program, the Qualified Facilities
Program fails to meet these
requirements of the Act. As discussed
throughout our proposal and this final
action, the submitted Program fails to
meet all requirements for an approvable
permitting program, including
submitting information sufficient to
demonstrate that the Program is
restricted only to Minor NSR.
Commenters argue that the Qualified
Facilities Program is consistent with
other SIP approved programs; however,
they fail to cite any specific examples.
C. Comments Addressing Whether the
Qualified Facilities Rules Allow Sources
to ‘‘Net Out’’ of Major and Minor NSR
Through Rules That Are Not Adequate
To Protect the NAAQS and State
Control Strategies
1. Comments Generally Supporting
Proposal
Comment: UT Environmental Clinic
commented that the Qualified Facilities
Program fails to meet the netting
requirements for several reasons. The
commenter notes that the Qualified
Facilities Program netting calculations
can be based on allowable emissions.
Allowables netting violates Major NSR
because it is inconsistent with State of
New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3, 40 (DC
Cir. 2005) and violates the CAA; it
violates Minor NSR because it fails to
require an evaluation of the actual
emissions impacts on maintenance of
the NAAQS.
Response: Generally, these comments
support EPA’s analysis of Texas’s
Qualified Facilities Program as a
substitute for a Major NSR SIP program
as discussed in detail at 74 FR 48450,
at 48459, and further support EPA’s
action to disapprove the Qualified
Facilities submission.
We find that the Program authorizes
existing allowable, rather than actual
emissions, to be used as a baseline to
determine applicability. This use of
allowables violates the Act for Major
NSR SIP requirements and is contrary to
New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3, 38–40 (DC
Cir. 2005) (‘‘New York I’’). 74 FR 48450,
at 48459. Under the submitted Program,
the project’s increases in emissions are
calculated based upon its projected
allowable emissions. The baseline uses
the permitted allowable emission rate
(lowered by any applicable state or
Federal requirement) if the facility
‘‘qualified’’ under 30 TAC
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19477
116.10(11)(E)(i). If the facility
‘‘qualified’’ under 30 TAC
116.10(11)(E)(ii), the baseline uses the
actual emission rate (minus any
applicable state or Federal requirement).
In the applicability netting analysis, the
baseline for all the other participating
minor and major existing Qualified
Facilities is calculated in the same way.
The emission reductions are calculated
similarly, i.e., reductions beyond the
permitted allowable or actual emission
rates (minus the applicable state and
Federal requirements). Thus, this
submitted Program allows an evaluation
using allowable, not actual emissions, as
the baseline to calculate the project’s
proposed emission increase and for
many of the netting emission
reductions, thereby in many cases
possibly circumventing the major
modification applicability requirements
under the Major NSR rules. Therefore,
the Program fails to meet the CAA and
Major NSR requirements to use baseline
actual emissions for major source
netting as the starting point from which
the amount of creditable emission
increases or decreases is determined. 74
FR 48450, at 48459.
EPA agrees that the reductions in the
Program’s netting are not based on
actual emissions. Such netting may be
permissible for a Minor NSR Program;
provided that the netting provisions
assure protection of the NAAQS and the
SIP control strategies as required by
section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA.
Allowables netting is acceptable
because CAA section 110(a)(2)(c) does
not explicitly prohibit the use of
allowables netting for Minor NSR
programs. However, Texas failed to
submit sufficient information to
demonstrate that the use of allowable
emissions in a Minor NSR netting
program continues to protect the
NAAQS and control strategies;
therefore, EPA cannot determine if this
requirement is met. Today’s rulemaking
disapproves netting under the Qualified
Facilities Program as a Minor NSR
program, in part because the Program
fails to ensure that ambient air is
protected in consideration of all changes
in the netting.
Comment: UT Environmental Clinic
commented that the definitions in
section 116.10 do not adequately specify
how to calculate emissions reductions
for purposes of the netting analysis. For
example, the Texas definition of actual
emissions is the ‘‘highest rate’’ actually
achieved within the past 10 years. It is
unclear whether this is the highest
emission rate achieved at a single point
in time or averaged over some period.
Response: We disagree that the
reductions are not quantifiable. The
E:\FR\FM\14APR2.SGM
14APR2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
19478
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
netting is based on the most stringent of
the permitted emissions rate (which
includes the highest achievable actual
emission rate) or any applicable state or
Federal rule. Nothing in the State’s
definition of ‘‘actual emissions’’ implies
at all that there is any averaging
involved in the calculations. The
reduction is based upon the highest rate
the facility achieved at a single point in
time, looking back the past 10 years.
While we proposed to find that the
reductions were quantifiable, we
requested comments on two aspects of
the Program as it relates to this
principle. 74 FR 48450, at 48461–48462.
First, we requested comment on
whether the regulatory provisions at 30
TAC 116.10(1) and (2) provide clear
direction on the appropriate calculation
procedures sufficient to ensure the
reductions are quantifiable. As stated
above, we disagree with the
commenter’s argument that the
definitions in section 116.10 do not
adequately specify how to calculate
emissions reductions for purposes of the
netting analysis.
Second, the submitted rules provide
that a Qualified Facility nets its
emissions increase on the same basis as
its allowable emissions limitation. 30
TAC 116.116(e)(3)(A). We requested
comment on whether netting on such a
basis is sufficiently quantifiable, and
whether any additional provisions are
necessary to ensure that the entire
emissions increase is properly netted
against reductions from the other
Qualified Facility. We did not receive
any comments on this second aspect of
quantifiability under the Program.
Because no comments were submitted
showing the basis was not sufficiently
quantifiable, we continue to believe that
netting for a Minor NSR SIP program on
the adequacy of the Program’s netting of
emissions increases on the same basis as
its allowable emissions limitation, is
sufficiently quantifiable.
Comment: UT Environmental Clinic
commented that the Qualified Facilities
rules allow all emission reductions at
the same account number to be
considered in the net emission
calculation. In fact, the rules could be
read to allow the ‘‘offsetting’’ of
emissions above allowables by
decreases in emissions at any ‘‘different
facility.’’ 30 TAC 116.110(3). Because an
account number can include multiple
sources, the Texas rules allow
consideration of emission decreases
from outside the major stationary source
in violation of 42 U.S.C. 7411(a).
Response: Generally, these comments
support EPA’s analysis of Texas’s
Qualified Facilities Program as a
substitute for a Major NSR SIP program
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:40 Apr 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
as discussed in detail at 74 FR 48450,
at 48458–48459, and further support
EPA’s action to disapprove the
Qualified Facilities submission.
We find the Program is deficient for
Major NSR netting because it may allow
an emission increase to net out by
taking into account emission decreases
outside of the major stationary source 6
and, in other circumstances, allow an
evaluation of emissions of a subset of
units at a major stationary source.7 The
State failed to submit information
sufficient to demonstrate that the
Program includes the necessary
replicability and accountability to
prevent such circumvention. Therefore,
the Program does not meet the CAA’s
definition of ‘‘modification’’ and the
Major NSR SIP requirements and is
inconsistent with Alabama Power v.
Costle, 636 F.2d 323, 401–403 (DC Cir.
1980) and Asarco v. EPA, 578 F.2d 320
(DC Cir. 1978). 74 FR 48450, at 48458–
48459.
Comment: UT Environmental Clinic
commented that the Qualified Facilities
netting rules only allow consideration of
the increase in allowable emissions
from the Qualified Facility undergoing a
change, but consider the decreases from
any other Qualified Facilities at the
same account number. There is no
consideration of all the emission
increases so there is no adequate
impacts analysis from the source.
Response: Generally, these comments
support EPA’s analysis of Texas’s
Qualified Facilities Program as a
substitute for a Major NSR SIP program
as discussed in detail at 74 FR 48450,
at 48458–48459, and further support
EPA’s action to disapprove the
Qualified Facilities submission.
Major NSR netting is based upon all
contemporaneous increases and
decreases at the same major stationary
source that occur within a reasonable
period that the states must define in
their approved SIPs. The submitted
Program’s netting is not based upon all
contemporaneous increases at the same
major stationary source and not all
decreases at the same major stationary
source. However, the State contends
that the Program is not intended to
6 The Texas SIP defines an ‘‘account’’ to include
an entire company site, which could include more
than one plant and certainly more than one major
stationary source. SIP rule 30 TAC 101.1(1), second
sentence.
7 Under the submitted Program, not all emission
points, units, facilities, major stationary sources, or
minor modifications at the site or their increases in
emissions are required to be evaluated in the
applicability netting analysis. So the Program fails
to require the evaluation of emissions changes at
the entire major stationary source correctly as
required by the Major NSR SIP regulations. 74 FR
48459.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
apply for Major NSR netting but only for
Minor NSR netting. Moreover, the
Program is not intended to allow
contemporaneous netting. Instead, one
looks to the increases from the proposed
change and to decreases made at the
same time as the proposed change. Such
an approach, if fully delineated in the
State’s Program rules, would satisfy the
minimum requirements for an
approvable Minor NSR netting program
provided that the ambient air is
protected in consideration of all changes
in the netting. Today’s rulemaking
disapproves netting under the Qualified
Facilities Program as a Minor NSR
program, in part because the Program
fails to ensure that ambient air is
protected.
Comment: UT Environmental Clinic
commented that the Qualified Facilities
rules do not define a contemporaneous
period nor require that emission
reductions occur within a specified
period. EPA notes in the Federal
Register that Texas intended that any
relied-upon reductions occur
simultaneously with the increase.
However, the commenter argues that
nothing in the rule requires this.
Response: We agree with the
comment insofar as it asserts that the
Program fails to define a
contemporaneous period or require that
emission reductions occur within a
specified period. EPA finds that, while
Texas intended that any relied-upon
reductions occur simultaneously at the
time of the increase,8 the Program is
deficient because it does not expressly
define the applicable period in which
the reductions must occur. See our
response to the previous comment. 74
FR 48450, at 48461.
Comment: UT Environmental Clinic
commented that because the Qualified
Facilities rules allow reductions to be
based upon allowable emissions, they
do not ensure that reductions are real.
Response: We disagree that just
because the reductions are based upon
allowable emissions, these reductions
are not real. For example, reviewing
authority may presume that sourcespecific allowable emissions may be
equivalent to the actual emissions. See
40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xii)(C) and
51.166(b)(21)(iii). The commenter fails
to discuss why the use of allowable
emissions makes the reductions not real.
Comment: The UT Environmental
Clinic commented that the rules fail to
ensure that netted reductions are
permanent.
Response: We agree with the
commenter that the Program lacks any
provisions that require that the
8 See
E:\FR\FM\14APR2.SGM
21 Tex. Reg. 1573 (February 27, 1996).
14APR2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
reductions are permanent. For
reductions to meet the netting
requirement to be permanent, the rules
must include a prohibition against
future increases at the Qualified
Facility, or include regulatory language
that assures that any future increase at
a Qualified Facility at which a previous
netting reduction occurred is analyzed
in totality to assure that the NAAQS
remains protected from the original
increase. However, the submitted
Program does not include such
provisions. Consequently, the Qualified
Facilities rules are inadequate because
they fail to ensure that the reductions
are permanent.
Comment: UT Environmental Clinic
commented that the rules do not
prevent double counting of emission
reductions.
Response: For an additional separate
project, it appears that the state
intended that the reductions must occur
at the time of that additional project that
will need to obtain additional
reductions to net out. If the regulatory
text was consistent with this approach,
this limitation would prevent double
counting of the netting reductions. The
State’s intent is that the holder of the
permit is required to perform a new,
separate netting analysis and rely upon
reductions not relied upon in the first
netting analysis. See 74 FR 48450, at
48461 (citing 21 Tex. Reg. 1573
(February 27, 1996); page 154 of the
1996 SIP revision submittal). We agree
that the rules are not clear that a
subsequent change at a Qualified
Facility that previously relied upon
netting must conduct a separate netting
analysis that relies upon reductions that
were not relied upon in the first netting
analysis. EPA cannot find any
provisions in the Program to ensure a
separate netting analysis performed for
each proposed change. Therefore, the
Program fails to prevent double
counting; and consequently these types
of netting reductions are not enforceable
as a practical matter at and after the
time of the actual change begins; and
therefore, not sufficiently creditable. 74
FR 48450, at 48461.
Comment: UT Environmental Clinic
commented that the Qualified Facilities
rules fail to ensure that the emission
reductions are enforceable. Facilities
provide notice of changes to Qualified
Facilities on Form PI–E, which is not
enforceable, and Qualified Facility
changes that affect permitted facilities
are not required to be incorporated into
a permit until renewal or amendment.
TCEQ noted in its Qualified Facility
guidance that the form is not Federally
enforceable ‘‘but is simply a form to
provide information to demonstrate that
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:40 Apr 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
the change meets qualified facility
flexibility.’’ Consequently, Qualified
Facility reductions are allowed to
remain unenforceable for years. Further,
Texas rules make it unclear whether
emission reductions are ever made
enforceable because a portion of the
definition of ‘‘allowable emissions’’
states that ‘‘[t]he allowable emissions for
a qualified facility shall not be adjusted
by the voluntary installation of
controls.’’ 30 TAC 116.10(2)(F). This
portion of the definition of ‘‘allowable
emissions’’ states that ‘‘[t]he allowable
emissions for a qualified facility shall
not be adjusted by the voluntary
installation of controls.’’ Additionally,
there are no monitoring requirements in
the Qualified Facilities rules to track
compliance with commitments to
reduce emissions of limitations on
emissions increases.
Response: We agree that the Qualified
Facilities rules fail to ensure that the
emission reductions relied upon in a
netting analysis are enforceable. We
noted at 74 FR 48450, at 48462 that the
rules do not require permits for these
relied-upon reductions. We also agree
that the Program does not require
monitoring because no permit is
required for each change. See Section
V.D.1 below.
We disagree that 30 TAC 116.10(2)(F)
makes the rules vague as to
enforceability. This provision of the rule
is defining how to calculate the baseline
from which reductions occur. When
calculating the allowable emissions for
a Qualified Facility participating in the
Program, one cannot count any
reductions occurring as a result of the
voluntary installation of controls.
However, a facility can become
‘‘qualified’’ to use the Program by
voluntarily installing controls. The
reductions achieved by this voluntary
installation of controls are not counted
in the Qualified Facility’s allowable
emissions.
Comment: UT Environmental Clinic
states that the Qualified Facilities rules
do not ensure that emission reductions
have the same health and welfare effects
as the emission increase. Because the
program allows the emission increase to
be offset inside and outside the facility,
it allows for emission increases close to
the fence line, potentially affecting
health and welfare of the surrounding
community.
Moreover, the Qualified Facilities
Program allows Qualified Facilities to
offset emissions increases of one
pollutant with emission decreases of
another pollutant, as long as the
pollutants are in the same ‘‘air
contaminant category.’’ The interchange
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19479
methodology established by TCEQ 9 to
ensure that compounds within the
VOCs air contaminant category, as
interchanged, will have an equivalent
impact on air quality, is not included in
the Texas rules or statute. The rule
merely defines an ‘‘air contaminant
category’’ as a group of related
compounds, such as volatile organic
compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen
oxides, and sulfur compounds. 30 TAC
116.116(e)(3)(F). Clearly emissions of all
sulfur compounds, say sulfur dioxide
and hydrogen sulfide, are not equal in
terms of health impacts. Likewise, the
health impacts of fine PM emissions are
of significantly greater concern than the
impacts of larger particles.
Response: With regard to VOCs and
nitrogen oxides, EPA disagrees with the
comment above that the Program is
deficient because the State’s rules allow
an offset of an emission increase
pollutant with emission decrease of
another pollutant, as long as the
pollutants are in the same ‘‘air
contaminant category.’’ The State’s
interchange methodology goes beyond
the fundamental principle to determine
whether the interchange of different
compounds within the same air
contaminant category will result in an
equivalent decrease in emissions; e.g.,
one VOC for another VOC; for VOCs and
nitrogen oxides. See 74 FR 48450, at
48461.
On the other hand, the term ‘‘sulfur
compounds’’ in 30 TAC 116.116(e)(3)(F),
is broad enough to include hydrogen
sulfide. The State failed to demonstrate
that use of hydrogen sulfide would
protect the sulfur dioxides NAAQS.
Therefore, we agree with the commenter
that the interchange methodology does
not ensure the health impacts of all
sulfur compounds will be equal. With
regard to the comment concerning
particulate matter, the definition of ‘‘air
contaminant category’’ allows PM–2.5 to
be interchanged with PM–10. However,
because PM–10 and PM–2.5 are two
separate pollutants and the State failed
to demonstrate that such use of PM–10
would protect the PM–2.5 NAAQS, this
interchange is inappropriate. Therefore,
we agree that the interchange
methodology does not ensure the health
impacts of all particulate matter will be
equal.
We, however, disagree with the
comment above that the Program fails to
ensure that emission reductions have
the same health and welfare effects as
the emission increases. The State has
established a methodology to use
whenever there is a different location of
emissions because of the intraplant
9 See
E:\FR\FM\14APR2.SGM
74 FR 48455, n.3.
14APR2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
19480
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
trading. For example, where the netting
has the effect of moving emissions
closer to the plant property line than the
Qualified Facility to be changed, the
State uses this methodology to analyze
whether there could be an increase in
off-site impacts. See 30 TAC
116.117(b)(5). We continue to believe
that this will ensure the reductions have
approximately the same qualitative
significance for public health and
welfare, which is required to ensure the
reductions are creditable. Nevertheless,
as stated above, we are disapproving the
Qualified Facilities netting program as a
substitute for a Major NSR SIP program
and as a Minor NSR SIP program
because the Program is inadequate to
protect ambient air quality.
Comment: The UT Environmental
Clinic commented that the Qualified
Facilities netting Program does not
adequately protect air quality under
Minor NSR. Specifically, the Qualified
Facilities netting provisions do not meet
Federal netting standards, which are in
place precisely to ensure that air quality
is protected. The Program’s failure to
meet almost all of those basic netting
requirements renders the rules
inadequate.
Response: Generally, these comments
support EPA’s analysis of Texas’s
Qualified Facilities Program as a Minor
NSR SIP program as discussed in detail
at 74 FR 48450, at 48460–48462, and
further support EPA’s action to
disapprove the Qualified Facilities
submission.
Comment: The UT Environmental
Clinic commented that the Program is
clearly inadequate to ensure protection
of the NAAQS and to prevent violations
of control strategies. The rules cannot be
approved as an exemption from Minor
NSR permitting because they in no way
ensure that the emission increases
authorized pursuant to the rules will
have a de minimis impact on air quality.
Response: We agree with the
commenter that the Program is
inadequate to ensure protection of the
NAAQS for several reasons. As
discussed below in Section V.G.1, we
find that the Qualified Facilities rules
are not clear that all Qualified Facilities
must have obtained a Texas NSR SIP
permit. Without the assurance that all
Qualified Facilities have obtained a
Texas NSR SIP permit, EPA cannot
make the finding that each permit for a
Qualified Facility includes an emission
limitation based on the chosen control
technology, with a determination that
the Qualified Facility will not interfere
with attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS or violate any control strategy.
Therefore, the Program fails to ensure
that all Qualified Facilities can operate
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:40 Apr 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
up to a permitted allowable limit such
that they do not interfere with
attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS and do not violate any State
control strategy, as required by the
Texas NSR SIP.
Additionally, the Program fails to
ensure that the NAAQS are protected
because 30 TAC 116.117 lacks language
requiring the owner or operator to
maintain the information and analysis
showing how it concluded that there
will be no adverse impact on ambient
air quality before undertaking the
change.
We agree with the commenter that the
Program does not qualify as a de
minimis exemption from Minor NSR.
The State has not provided sufficient
information to demonstrate that the
exempted changes from the Minor NSR
requirements will have only a de
minimis effect. See Section V.D.1 below
for more information.
2. Comments Generally Opposing
Proposal
Comment: TCEQ commented that the
Qualified Facilities Program can only be
used if a physical or operational change
complies with Federal NSR
requirements. In order to make a
physical or operational change to a
Qualified Facility, an owner or operator
must demonstrate that the change does
not result in a net increase in allowable
emissions of any air contaminant
previously authorized under state minor
source review. 30 TAC 116.116(e)(1).
Keeping in mind the State definition of
‘‘facility,’’ 30 TAC 116.116(e)(2) and (3)
allow a Qualified Facility to
demonstrate that a state modification
has not occurred by comparing
allowable emissions to allowable
emissions before and after a proposed
change. Allowable emissions (both
hourly and annual rates) are one of the
criteria to provide ‘‘state qualified’’
flexibility because the facilities must
exist and be authorized, and thereby
have undergone appropriate permit
review. In addition, no existing level of
control can be reduced. 30 TAC
116.116(e)(8). The commenter states that
for major sources, in addition to State
requirements, the evaluation of
emissions related to physical and/or
operational changes is conducted on a
baseline actual to either a projected
actual or potential to emit base if
applicable. 30 TAC 116.116(e)(4). This
comparison is used to determine if an
emission increase above the appropriate
significance threshold for a particular
Federal permitting program has
occurred. From the Federal NSR
standpoint, if a proposed physical or
operational change would result in an
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
emissions increase that exceeds a
significance threshold, the appropriate
analysis (netting) is triggered. If the
results of the netting analysis indicate
that a major modification has occurred,
the appropriate Federal program(s) is
triggered and Federal authorization
must be obtained. In such a case, the
Qualified Facilities Program would not
be an applicable authorization pathway,
and a State Minor NSR amendment
must be obtained, along with the
appropriate Federal NSR authorization.
The exemption from the definition of
‘‘modification of an existing facility’’
under the Qualified Facilities Program
does not relieve an owner or operator
from conducting an evaluation to
determine if a Federal major
modification has occurred. TCEQ states
that from the Federal standpoint, only
the project’s emission increases are
evaluated (without consideration of
emission decreases) to determine if a
Federal applicability analysis (netting)
has been triggered. If the project
increases equal or exceed the netting
threshold for the pollutant and this
program, then a full contemporaneous
netting exercise is conducted in an
effort to determine if the modification is
a major modification. If the project is a
major modification, then the
appropriate Federal NSR program,
either PSD or nonattainment review, is
triggered. A permit holder cannot use
the ‘‘no net emissions increase’’ concept
that is described in the Qualified
Facilities Program rules as a mechanism
to avoid a Federal NSR applicability
analysis (netting).
Comment: TxOGA commented that
the Qualified Facilities Program
establishes an allowables-based trigger
and has no effect on a permit holder’s
compliance obligations under Federal
requirements. Texas rules clearly
require compliance with Federal
requirements. 30 TAC 116.117(a)(4) and
(d). This interpretation is also supported
by TCEQ guidance.
Comment: The TCC commented in
response to EPA’s assertion that a Major
NSR applicability determination must
be based on actual emissions, not
allowables. TCC argues that the
Qualified Facilities rules do not
circumvent any Federal requirements
for major stationary sources. TCC
reiterates that a qualified facility must
demonstrate that the change does not
result in a net increase in allowables,
the source must follow notification
requirements, and the source cannot
relax controls at the qualified facility.
Response: We acknowledge TCEQ’s
description of how the State intends to
implement the Qualified Facilities
Program; however, we have determined
E:\FR\FM\14APR2.SGM
14APR2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
that TCEQ’s current rules are
insufficient to prevent circumvention of
Major NSR. EPA disagrees with the
comments from TxOGA and TCC. The
submitted Program lacks specific
requirements that would require an
owner or operator who proposes a
change under the Qualified Facilities
program to first conduct a Major NSR
applicability analysis (netting) prior to
receiving (or asserting) authorization
under the Qualified Facilities Program.
Comment: TCEQ commented that for
facilities undergoing an intraplant trade,
where the allowable emissions at one
facility are increased while allowable
emissions at another facility are reduced
an allowable-to-allowable comparison is
used only to determine if a new
emissions increase has occurred for
State purposes. The emissions are
reviewed simultaneously, which is more
stringent than the Federal requirement
that only requires contemporaneous
emissions. If a net emissions increase
has occurred, an owner or operator
cannot use the Qualified Facilities
Program to authorize the proposed
project, and must find another State
mechanism to obtain proper
authorization. In addition, the
commenter states that the owner or
operator must submit pre-change
notification if the intraplant trade moves
emissions from the interior of a plant
site closer to a property line. This gives
TCEQ staff the ability to evaluate public
protectiveness and evaluate any
potential changes in off property
impacts as they relate to all
contaminants and pollutants with
national standards, i.e. the NAAQS.
This intraplant trade capability only
exists to the extent that the project is a
Minor NSR action, and does not apply
if a major modification has been
triggered under Federal NSR
requirements.
Response: EPA disagrees with the
commenter that under the Texas rules
the Program’s intraplant trading does
not apply if a major modification has
been triggered. As stated above, the
program fails to require a Major NSR
applicability analysis and is insufficient
to prevent circumvention of Major NSR.
Intraplant trading based on allowables
to allowables netting is prohibited
under Major NSR. See State of New
York et al., v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3, 40 (DC
Cir. 2005). However, such netting may
be permissible for a Minor NSR
program, provided that the netting
provisions assure protection of the
NAAQS. See 74 FR 48450, at 48462. As
discussed above, Texas’s Qualified
Facilities Program does not meet this
requirement. EPA also finds that the
Program does not adequately define a
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:40 Apr 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
contemporaneous (or simultaneous)
period or require that emission
reductions occur within a specified
period. As discussed above, we find that
the Program fails to meet the Minor NSR
netting requirement for a defined period
in which the reductions must occur.
Comment: TIP and BCCA commented
that the Qualified Facilities program
exceeds Federal benchmarks for
allowable-based Minor NSR triggers.
This program is one of the mechanisms
that EPA encouraged in its Flexible Air
Permitting Rule (FAP) (74 FR 51418,
15423). Further, the program is more
stringent than the Federal FAP Program
because it requires up-to-date BACT.
The Qualified Facilities Program is also
comparable to the proposed allowablesbased minor NSR trigger in EPA’s
proposed Indian Country rule, in which
EPA allows the use of allowables to
allowables netting. To justify the use of
an allowables test, EPA distinguished
the definition of ‘‘modification’’ under
Minor NSR from that used for Major
NSR. 71 FR 48696, 48701 (citing State
of New York, et al., v. EPA (DC Cir. Jun.
24, 2005)). The Qualified Facilities rules
meet these criteria and are more
stringent than the Federal model
because it only extends this flexibility to
well-controlled facilities.
The commenter reiterates that the
Qualified Facilities Program does not
effect a permit holder’s obligation to
comply with Federal requirements. An
allowables-based trigger is permissible
because the CAA and Federal
regulations do not mandate a method for
determining minor NSR. The
Environmental Appeals Board
confirmed that there is no mandated
methodology for the emissions test used
for minor NSR. In re Tennessee Valley
Authority, 9 EAD 357, 461 (EAB
September 15, 2000). Again, EPA
employed an allowables-to-allowables
test in its proposed Indian Country rule.
States have great flexibility to determine
applicability for Minor NSR and that
includes the authority to use an
allowables-based trigger. TCEQ rules
articulate an overriding obligation to
comply with Federal requirements. 30
TAC 116.117(a)(4) and (d). Therefore,
the current Qualified Facilities rules
prevent circumvention of Major NSR.
Response: EPA disagrees with the
commenter. This rulemaking
disapproves netting under the Qualified
Facilities Program for Major NSR, in
part because the Program fails to first
require a Major NSR applicability
demonstration to show that a proposed
change does not trigger Major NSR
before the source can take advantage of
the Program. In contrast to the Qualified
Facilities Program, under the proposed
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19481
Indian Country rule, 40 CFR 49.153
would explicitly require the proposed
new source or modification to
determine applicability to Major NSR
before taking advantage of the program.
The source could only use allowables
netting under the proposed Indian
County rule after a Major NSR
applicability determination. See 71 FR
48696, at 48705, 48728–48729. The
Qualified Facilities rules are deficient
because they lack such a requirement.
Further, as described above, the
Program fails to meet several other
netting requirements for an approvable
Minor NSR netting program.
EPA’s FAP rule is an Operating
permit under Title V, not Title I. 74 FR
51418, 51419. While the FAP rule
recognizes the use of advance approval
programs under Minor NSR, the use of
such programs must ensure
environmental protection and
compliance with applicable laws.
‘‘[FAPs] cannot circumvent, modify, or
contravene any applicable requirement
and, instead, by their design must
assure compliance with each one as it
would become applicable to any
authorized changes.’’ See 74 FR 51418,
51422. Further, advance approval under
the FAP must be made at the time of
permit issuance, and consider the
alternate operating scenarios for air
quality impacts, control technology,
compliances with applicable
requirements, etc. Under Major and
Minor NSR, advance approval must
ensure compliance with control strategy
and non-interference with attainment
and maintenance of NAAQS for each
operating scenario as required by 40
CFR 51.160. We do not see how the
Texas Qualified Facility Rule meets
these requirements.
D. Comments Addressing Whether the
Qualified Facilities Rules Are
Practically Enforceable
1. Comments Generally Supporting
Proposal
Comment: The UT Environmental
Clinic commented that the rules fail to
ensure that netted reductions are
enforceable.
Response: We agree with the
commenter that the Program is
unenforceable because it fails to
explicitly require that a permit
application must be submitted for the
change and for any relied-upon
emissions reductions in the netting
analysis. Because the Program is an
exemption from a preconstruction
permit, and does not require a permit,
the Program must qualify as a de
minimis exemption to be approvable.
We find that the Program does not
E:\FR\FM\14APR2.SGM
14APR2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
19482
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
qualify as a de minimis exemption from
Minor NSR. The legal test for whether
a de minimis threshold can be approved
is whether it is consistent with the need
for a plan to include legally enforceable
procedures to ensure that the State will
not permit a source that will violate the
control strategy or interfere with
NAAQS attainment, as required by 40
CFR 51.160(a)–b). 74 FR 48450, at
48460. The State failed to demonstrate
that this exemption will not permit
changes that will violate the Texas
control strategies or interfere with
NAAQS attainment. Therefore all of the
requirements under 40 CFR 51.160(a)–
(b) apply to the Program.
Additionally, the Program allows too
long of a lag time before a revised
permit is issued in certain
circumstances that can lead to a
violation of a NAAQS, RFP, or control
strategy without the TCEQ becoming
aware of it in a timely manner. We
proposed that the lag time for reporting
a change under the Program should be
no longer than six months, rather than
a year, but we requested comment on
whether six months is an acceptable
lapse of time to ensure noninterference
with the NAAQS and control strategies.
74 FR 48450, at 48462. We received no
comments on this issue except that
TCEQ stated they will consider this
change during rulemaking. Therefore,
we find that the Program allows too long
of a lag time before reporting ‘‘qualified’’
changes.
Comment: The UT Environmental
Clinic commented that the Program is
clearly inadequate to ensure protection
of the NAAQS and PSD increments and
to prevent violations of control
strategies.
Response: EPA agrees a Minor NSR
SIP must include legally enforceable
procedures enabling the State to
determine whether construction or
modification would violate a control
strategy or interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS. 40 CFR
51.160(a)–(b). Furthermore, any Minor
NSR SIP revision submittal that is a SIP
relaxation, such as this Qualified
Facilities Program, must meet section
110(l). The Qualified Facilities SIP
submittal is a relaxation under CAA
section 110(l) because it provides an
exemption from NSR permitting not
previously available to sources. This SIP
relaxation creates a risk of interference
with NAAQS attainment, RFP, or any
other requirement of the Act. EPA lacks
sufficient available information to
determine that this SIP relaxation would
not interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and
RFP, or any other requirement of the
Act. See 74 FR 48450, at 48463.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:40 Apr 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
2. Comments Generally Opposing
Proposal
Comment: ERCC commented that the
Qualified Facilities Program is
enforceable for several reasons. The
program’s regulations include
enforceable registration and
recordkeeping requirements.
Documentation must be maintained for
all Qualified Facility changes that
describes the change and demonstrates
compliance with the Qualified Facility
Program as well as state and Federal
law. See 30 TAC 116.117(a). TCEQ
regulations also require that, at a
minimum, an annual submission is
made to the agency documenting any
qualified facility changes not
incorporated into a facility permit. See
30 TAC 116.117(b). Pre-change
qualification and approval are required
for certain changes including: changes
that affect BACT or where MAERT is
not available (30 TAC 116.118); certain
intraplant trading (30 TAC 116.117(4));
or if the change will affect compliance
with a permit condition (30 TAC
116.117(3)). EPA’s general comments
questioning the proper permit
application or registration for qualified
facility authorization are unclear given
the minor source nature of the program
and its function as an exemption from
a preconstruction permit. See 74 FR
48450, at 48462. The Program
adequately imposes recordkeeping,
reporting, notification and approval
regulations to satisfy the minor NSR
enforceability requirements.
Comment: TIP and BCCA also
commented in response to EPA’s
argument that the Qualified Facilities
Program is not enforceable because
changes are not reflected in a permit.
The program is a minor NSR triggering
program. Instead of permit revision, a
facility qualified to invoke the program
must notify TCEQ of changes under the
Qualified Facilities rules. 30 TAC
116.118. The commenters explain the
scenarios when notification is required
and the requirements for effective
notification under the rules.
Commenters also state that if a change
implicates a permit special condition,
the permit holder must revise its permit
special condition using the procedures
specified in Chapter 116, New Source
Review. 30 TAC 116.116(b)(3).
Comment: The TxOGA commented
that the Qualified Facilities Program is
a minor NSR triggering provision that
requires facilities to retain
documentation and notify TCEQ of
changes under the program. A facility
must be qualified at the time the change
is to occur. The program is enforceable
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
because the rules contain notification
and recordkeeping requirements.
Response: EPA disagrees with the
commenters. The Program does not
meet the Federal requirements for
practical enforceability. To be
approvable, a Minor NSR program must
include enforceable emissions limits.
See 74 FR 48450, at 48462. The Program
is not clear that each Qualified Facility
involved in the netting transaction must
submit a permit application and obtain
a permit revision reflecting all of the
changes made to reduce emissions
(relied upon in the netting analysis) as
well as reflecting the change itself that
increased emissions. See 74 FR 48450,
at 48462. Therefore, the Program is
unenforceable. Additionally, the
Program allows too long of a lag time
before a revised permit is issued in
certain circumstances that can lead to a
violation of a NAAQS, RFP, or control
strategy without the TCEQ becoming
aware of it in a timely manner. Because
the Program is an exemption from a
preconstruction permit, and does not
require a permit, the Program must
qualify as a de minimis exemption to be
approvable. We find that the Program
does not qualify as an approvable de
minimis exemption from Minor NSR.
See 74 FR 48450, at 48462; Section
V.D.1. above. Therefore all of the
requirements under 40 CFR 51.160(a)–
(b) apply to the Program. As described
throughout this notice, the Qualified
Facilities Program fails to meet all of
these requirements. See 74 FR 48450, at
48460. As stated above, the Program
fails to require a permit that reflects all
of the changes that occurred in the
netting process and provides
enforceable emissions limits. The
notification and recordkeeping
requirements, while beneficial, are not
sufficient under Federal requirements to
ensure enforceability.
E. Comments Addressing Whether the
Qualified Facilities Rules Meet Federal
Requirements for Major New Source
Review
1. Comments Generally Supporting
Proposal
Comment: The UT Environmental
Clinic comments that nothing in the
Qualified Facility statute or rules limits
applicability to minor modifications.
The rules require documentation at the
plant site sufficient to comply with
Nonattainment NSR and PSD, but do
not clarify that changes that constitute
a major modification cannot be made
through a Qualified Facility change.
The commenter further stated that
because the Qualified Facilities rules
can be used to authorize major
E:\FR\FM\14APR2.SGM
14APR2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
modifications, the rules fail to meet the
substantive requirements of
Nonattainment NSR and PSD. For
emission increases associated with PSD,
the Qualified Facilities rules fail to
require: (1) Best Available Control
Technology; (2) an air quality analysis
of impacts on the NAAQS and PSD
increments; and (3) additional impact
analysis associated with the
implementation of the new source or
modification. For emission increases
associated with Nonattainment NSR, the
Qualified Facilities rules fail to require:
(1) Lowest Achievable Emission Rate;
(2) emission offsets; and (3)
demonstration of compliance by other
facilities in the State.
Response: These comments are
consistent with EPA’s analysis
concluding that Texas’s Qualified
Facilities Program does not meet Major
NSR Substantive requirements as
discussed at 74 FR 48450, at 48458–
48459.
EPA agrees that the Program is
deficient because it lacks provisions that
require a Major NSR applicability
determination for a change at a
Qualified Facility before it is exempted
from the permitting requirements. The
Program’s regulations do not contain
any emission limitations, applicability
statement, or regulatory provision
restricting the change to Minor NSR.
This lack of such express provisions
distinguishes the Qualified Facilities
Program from the Texas Minor NSR SIP
rules for Permits by Rule in Chapter 106
and Standard Permits in Chapter 116,
Subchapter F. The Standard Permits
rules require a Major NSR applicability
determination at 30 TAC 116.610(b),
and prohibit circumvention of Major
NSR at 30 TAC 116.610(c). Likewise, the
Permits by Rule provisions require a
Major NSR applicability determination
at 30 TAC 106.4(a)(3), and prohibit
circumvention of Major NSR at 30 TAC
106.4(b). The absence of these
provisions in the Qualified Facilities
rules creates an unacceptable ambiguity
in the SIP. Therefore, the Program could
allow circumvention of Major NSR. See
74 FR 48450, at 48456–48458.
EPA also agrees that the Program fails
to address the required air quality
impacts analysis. The comments
concerning BACT, LAER, emissions
offsets and a demonstration of
compliance by other facilities in the
State go beyond EPA’s analysis in the
proposal and are outside the scope of
this rulemaking.
Additionally, section 110(l) of the Act
prohibits EPA from approving any
revision of a SIP if the revision would
interfere with any requirement
concerning attainment and RFP, or any
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:40 Apr 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
other requirement of the Act. There is
not sufficient available information to
enable EPA to determine that the
submitted Program would not interfere
with any requirement concerning
attainment and RFP, or any other
requirement of the Act. See 74 FR
48450, at 48459; and response above.
Comment: The Office of the Mayor,
City of Houston, Texas, recognizes that
the Qualified Facilities Program has no
regulatory provisions that clearly
prevent the Program from
circumventing Major NSR SIP
requirements thereby allowing changes
at existing facilities to avoid the
requirement to obtain preconstruction
authorizations. Therefore, major sources
of emissions are making major
modifications to their facilities without
going through the permitting process.
The commenter states that this is a fatal
flaw in the program, it is inconsistent
with the CAA and should not be
included in the SIP.
Response: The comments by the
Office of the Mayor, City of Houston,
Texas, are consistent with EPA’s
conclusions as discussed at 74 FR
48450, at 48456–48457 and response
above.
2. Comments Generally Opposing
Proposal
Comment: The TCC comments that
Qualified Facilities is a Minor NSR
Program because TCEQ’s rules clearly
require sources making changes under
the Program to submit specific
documentation, including ‘‘sufficient
information as necessary to show that
the project will comply with 40 CFR
116.150 and 116.151 of this title
(relating to Nonattainment Review) and
40 CFR 116.160–116.163 of this title
(relating to Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Review) and with
Subchapter C of this Chapter 116
(relating to Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Regulations Governing Constructed or
Reconstructed Major Sources (CAA
112(g), 40 CFR Part 63)).’’ 30 TAC
116.117(a)(4).10
Response: As stated in the above,
TCEQ’s rules for Qualified Facilities are
insufficient to prevent circumvention of
major NSR. See 74 FR 48450, at 48456–
48458.
Comment: ERCC commented that the
Qualified Facilities Program is limited
to Minor NSR. Qualified Facilities
mandates compliance with 40 CFR
51.165 and 51.166, by clearly stating
10 In a separate SIP submittal dated February 1,
2006, Texas recodified the provisions of Subchapter
C into Subchapter E. TCEQ’s rules also state that
nothing in the rules governing the Program shall
limit the applicability of any Federal requirement.
30 TAC 116.117(d).
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19483
that any change authorized by Qualified
Facilities shall not ‘‘limit the application
of otherwise applicable state or Federal
requirements.’’ TCAA 382.0512(c).
TCEQ regulations require that Qualified
Facilities changes must be documented
minor source modifications. See 30 TAC
116.117(a)(4); 30 TAC 116.117(d). EPA’s
dismissal of Section 116.117(a)(4) as a
recordkeeping provision is unjustified.
74 FR 48450, at 48457. This Qualified
Facilities regulatory reference to the
PSD and NNSR programs requires the
regulated entity to document that the
change is in compliance with the
Federal major source permitting
programs and in compliance with state
and Federal law.
Response: As stated above, the
Qualified Facilities rules are insufficient
to prevent circumvention of Major NSR.
74 FR 48450, at 48456–48458.
Although there are recordkeeping
requirements in the Program at
submitted 40 TAC 116.117(a)(4)
requiring owners and operators to
maintain documentation containing
sufficient information as may be
necessary to demonstrate that the
project will comply with the Federal
CAA, Title I, parts C and D, these are the
same general provisions as those in the
SIP at 30 TAC 116.111(a)(2)(H) and (I)
for Minor and Major NSR SIP permits.
These recordkeeping requirements,
although necessary for NSR SIP
approvability, cannot substitute for clear
and enforceable provisions, consistent
with Texas’s other Minor NSR
programs, that limit applicability in the
submitted Program to Minor NSR only.
74 FR 48450, at 48456–48457.
Comment: TIP and BCCA comment
that sources cannot use the Qualified
Facilities Program to circumvent Major
NSR. 30 TAC 116.117(a)(4) and (d);
Modification of Existing Facilities
Guidance, at 2. Senate Bill 1126, which
authorized the Qualified Facilities
program, does not supersede any
Federal requirements. Further, ‘‘[i]f a
change made under the qualified facility
flexibility would result in the violation
of a permit special condition, the permit
holder must revise the permit special
conditions to stay in compliance with
the permit,’’ through either the permit
alteration process under 30 TAC
116.116(c) or the notification process of
30 TAC 116.117(d). Modification of
Existing Facilities Guidance, at 9.
Therefore, any changes to a facility must
comply with Federal NSR and PSD
rules. To further show that the current
Qualified Facilities rules are sufficient
to prevent circumvention, commenter
cites to EPA’s proposed Indian Country
rule and recently approved state SIPs
that do not contain explicit language
E:\FR\FM\14APR2.SGM
14APR2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
19484
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
calling for a major NSR applicability
determination before use of the minor
NSR tools. ALASKA ADMIN. CODE tit. 18,
§ 50.502, approved 72 FR 45378 (August
14, 2007); 7 DEL. CODE REGS. § 1102, 65
FR 2048 (January 13, 2000) (granting
limited approval based on EPA’s
concerns about public participation
provisions). Further, no Federal
requirement mandates such language.
Therefore, it is arbitrary for EPA to
require Texas to include additional
language. CleanCoalition v. TXU Power,
536 F.3d 469, 472 (5th Cir. 2008).
Response: As stated above, EPA finds
that the Qualified Facilities regulatory
provisions are inadequate to prevent
circumvention of Major NSR and limit
the Program to minor modifications.
TCEQ’s rules and guidance are not clear
on their face that circumvention of
Major NSR requirements is prohibited.
EPA does not understand how the
permit alteration and notification
requirements are relevant to the issue of
circumvention of Major NSR. EPA
disagrees with the commenter’s analogy
to the proposed Indian Country Minor
NSR rule. Today’s rulemaking
disapproves the Qualified Facility
Program for Major NSR, in part because
the Program fails to first require a Major
NSR applicability demonstration to
show that a proposed change does not
trigger Major NSR before the source can
take advantage of the Program. In
contrast, under the proposed Indian
Country rule, 40 CFR 49.153 would
explicitly require the proposed new
source or modification to determine
applicability to Major NSR before taking
advantage of the program. 71 FR 48696,
at 48705, 48728–48729. The source
could only use allowables netting under
the proposed Indian Country rule after
it determined that Major NSR does not
apply to the project. The Qualified
Facilities rules are deficient because
they lack such a requirement, i.e., that
Major NSR does not apply to the
change.
Comment: The ERCC commented that
EPA sent a comment letter on the
Qualified Facilities proposed rule and
agreed that it ‘‘adequately addresses the
applicability of major sources and major
modifications with respect to PSD and
NA permitting requirements.’’ 21 Tex.
Reg. 1569 (February 27, 1996).
Response: We acknowledge our 1995
comment letter stating that Texas
adequately satisfied our concern that the
Qualified Facilities Program, as
proposed, would not circumvent or
supersede any Major NSR SIP
requirements. Since we sent that letter,
however, the Texas Legislature has
revised the Texas Clean Air Act
significantly. Specifically, in 1999, the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:40 Apr 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
Texas legislature added an explicit
statutory prohibition against the use of
an Exemption or Permit by Rule or a
Standard Permit for major
modifications. See Texas Health and
Safety Code 382.05196 and .057. These
1999 legislative actions required a new
legal review of the statutory definition
for ‘‘modification of existing facility’’ to
see if it was still limited to minor
modifications. It is EPA’s interpretation
that the 1999 legislative changes made
this statutory definition ambiguous. 74
FR 48450, at 48456–48457.
F. Comments Addressing Whether the
Qualified Facilities Rules Meet Federal
Requirements for Minor New Source
Review
1. Comments Generally Supporting
Proposal
Comment: The UT Environmental
Clinic commented that the CAA
requires SIPs to include a program for
‘‘regulation of the modification and
construction of any stationary source.’’
42 U.S.C. 110(a)(2)(C). The program
must prohibit any sources, including
minor sources, from emitting pollution
in amounts that contribute significantly
to nonattainment and maintenance of
the NAAQS or interfere with measures
included in the SIP. 42 U.S.C.
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)–(II). EPA has
recognized the valuable role that Minor
NSR programs play in ensuring that air
quality is protected from emissions that
are not subject to Major NSR. Technical
Support Document for the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration and
Nonattainment Area New Source
Review Regulations, U.S. EPA, Nov.
2002, at I–5–I–12. The Qualified
Facilities Program is deficient as a
Minor NSR program because:
• The Qualified Facility rules do not
require enforceable limits. Qualified
Facilities provide notification of
‘‘qualified’’ changes on form PI–E,11
which TCEQ acknowledges is not
enforceable. TEXAS COMMISSION ON
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Guidance for
Air Quality, Qualified Changes Under
Senate Bill 1126 (Dec. 2000), 27
[hereinafter Qualified Facilities
Guidance]. Without enforceable limits,
facilities can use emission reductions as
part of a netting analysis and
subsequently increase those emissions
or rely on these reductions to offset
other increases. Some Qualified Facility
representations are consolidated into a
preexisting permit upon revision or
renewal at the discretion of the source.
Even if representations in the PI–E were
11 30 TAC § 116.117(b). See regulation text on
pages 23–24 of the TSD for this action, which refer
to 30 TAC 116.117(b)(2) and (4).
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
enforceable, there are no monitoring or
reporting requirements to demonstrate
compliance. 30 TAC 116.117(a). See 74
FR 48450 (Sept. 23, 2009), Docket,
Technical Support Document, pg. 22.
• The Qualified Facility Rules do not
include a pre-approval mechanism for
all authorized emission increases. The
rules have no mechanism that prevents
implementation of Qualified Facility
changes that may violate a control
strategy or interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS. The
Program only requires Qualified
Facilities to obtain pre-approval of a
Qualified Facility change if it involves
interplant 12 trading above a ‘‘reportable
limit.’’ 30 TAC 116.117(b)(4). Facilities
that do not rely on interplant trading are
only required to report their changes on
an annual basis. 30 TAC 116.117(b)(1).
Response: As stated above at Section
V.D.1, EPA agrees with the first point
that the submitted rules are practically
unenforceable because the reductions
are not incorporated into a permit. 74
FR 48450, at 48462.
EPA agrees with the commenter that
the Program does not include a preapproval mechanism for all authorized
emission increases. Under section
110(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, a Minor
NSR SIP must require enforceable
emission limits for all minor
modifications. The Texas Program is not
clear that for each Qualified Facility
involved in the netting transaction, the
owner or operator must submit a permit
application and obtain a permit revision
reflecting all of the changes made to
reduce emissions (relied upon in the
netting analysis) as well as reflecting the
change itself that increased emissions.
Furthermore, the Program’s rules at 30
TAC 116.116(e)(4) and 116.117(b)(1)–(4)
are not clear that the PI–E form is a
permit application or registration that
must be submitted and that a revised
permit must be issued by TCEQ to
reflect the changes made by all of the
participating Qualified Facilities. There
is no discussion of when TCEQ issues
the revised permit. See the submittals at
30 TAC 116.117(b); 74 FR 48450, at
48462.
2. Comments Generally Opposing
Proposal
Comment: The TCEQ commented that
it has always considered the Qualified
Facilities Program to be a Minor NSR
Program although it is not stated in the
rule. The rule requires the person
making a change to maintain sufficient
documentation to demonstrate that the
12 Although the commenter refers to ‘‘interplant’’
trading, the Texas rules referred to by the
commenter relates to ‘‘intraplant’’ trading.
E:\FR\FM\14APR2.SGM
14APR2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
project will comply with 30 TAC
116.150 and 116.161 (Nonattainment
NSR), 116.160–116.163 (Prevention of
Significant Deterioration Review), and
Chapter 116, Subchapter C (relating to
implementing section 112(g) of the Act.
30 TAC 116.117(a)(4). A major
modification may not occur without
going through nonattainment or PSD
review. If a project is determined to be
a major modification, under PSD and/or
nonattainment rules,13 the owner/
operator must obtain a Federal NSR
permit/major modification. Then
Qualified Facilities Program does not
impair TCEQ’s authority to control air
pollution and take action to control a
condition of air pollution if TCEQ finds
that such a condition exists. Texas
Water Code section 5.514. TCEQ
commits to work with EPA to improve
and clarify the rule language to ensure
that the Qualified Facilities Program is
specifically limited to Minor NSR
changes. Texas comments that it does
not apply the Qualified Facilities
program to projects that are subject to
Major NSR or subject to section 112(g)
of the Act.
Response: We appreciate TCEQ’s
willingness to work with EPA to
improve and clarify its rules to ensure
that the Qualified Facilities Program
does not apply to projects that are
subject to Major NSR or subject to
section 112(g). However, the Program is
deficient because it fails to include
specific provisions in its rules that
assure that the Qualified Facilities
Program does not apply to projects that
are subject to Major NSR or subject to
section 112(g). See 74 FR 48450, at
48456–48457.
Comment: ERCC commented that EPA
has failed to demonstrate the proposed
revisions interfere with Texas’s ability
to achieve the NAAQS. Specifically:
• Texas requires all air emissions
from stationary sources (including
minor sources) receive authorization
from the State. Texas has developed an
extensive program to meet the
permitting and resource challenges of
this requirement and the State’s
numerous and varied emission sources.
States have discretion under the CAA to
implement the state minor source
program as long as it does not ‘‘interfere
with attainment of the NAAQS. Aside
from this requirement, which is stated
in broad terms, the Act includes no
specifics regarding the structure or
functioning of minor NSR programs
* * * as a result, SIP-approved minor
NSR programs can vary quite widely
from State to State.’’ Operating Permit
Programs; Flexible Air Permitting Rule;
13 40
CFR 51.165(a)(1)(v).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:40 Apr 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
Final Rule, 74 FR 51,418 at 51,421 (Oct.
6, 2009). Therefore, ERCC requests that
EPA re-evaluate and withdraw the
proposed disapprovals. Texas air quality
has shown dramatic improvement
because of the three submitted
programs. EPA fails to recognize that
these programs are similar to other
approved state minor NSR programs.
• EPA’s proposed disapprovals do not
meet Congress’ or the Courts’
documented standards for SIP
disapproval. The CAA grants EPA
authority to disapprove a SIP revision if
such revision would interfere with the
state’s SIP. A revision interferes with
the SIP if it impedes the state’s ability
to achieve the NAAQS. 42 U.S.C.
7410(l); S. Rep. No. 101–228, at 9, 1990
U.S.C.C.A.N. 3385, 3395; and Train v.
NRDC, 421 U.S. 60, 79 (1975). The
commenter argues that EPA has the
burden to demonstrate that the
submittals interfere with the NAAQS,
but EPA’s proposals shift this burden to
Texas. See Hall v. EPA, 273 F.3d 1146,
1161 (9th Cir. Cal. 2001) (citing Train,
421 U.S. at 93 and Ober v. Whitman,
243 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2001))
(requiring EPA’s analysis to ‘‘rationally
connect’’ approval of a revision to an
area’s likelihood of meeting the
NAAQS).
• Since their submittal to EPA, the
State’s implementation of these rules
has significantly reduced statewide
emissions. These improvements can be
demonstrated by reviewing both the
records of emissions reductions and the
reductions measured by Texas ambient
air quality monitors.
ERCC further commented that
Qualified Facilities is protective of air
quality by limiting the use of this
authorization under 30 TAC 116.116(e)
and 30 TAC 116.10 (11)(E) and
providing incentives to implement
emission reductions. Like the Qualified
Facilities Program, EPA’s proposed
Indian Country Minor NSR program is
based upon an increase of allowable and
not actual emissions. 71 FR 48696, at
48701. The EPA-developed Minor NSR
program also utilizes emission rates in
lieu of air quality impacts to determine
exemptions from the Minor NSR
definition of modification because
‘‘applicability determinations based on
projected air quality impacts would be
excessively complex and resource
intensive.’’ Id. at 48701.
Response: We agree that states have
great flexibility to create their own
Minor NSR SIP programs. However, at
a minimum, those Minor NSR SIP
programs must meet all of the Federal
requirements. Likewise, the Qualified
Facilities Program must meet all Federal
requirements under the CAA in order to
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19485
be approvable. Section V.C.1–2. As
discussed throughout our proposal and
this final notice, the current Qualified
Facilities Program fails to meet all
requirements. Moreover, the Qualified
Facilities Program would be an
exemption from the Texas Minor NSR
SIP. The Program does not provide an
alternative Minor NSR permit
authorization process but instead
exempts facilities from obtaining a NSR
permit for changes. The State failed to
demonstrate that this exemption is de
minimis and thus that the exempted
changes will not violate the Texas
control strategies or interfere with
NAAQS attainment, as required by
section 110(a)(2)(c) and 40 CFR 51.160.
74 FR 48450, at 48460; see also Section
V.C.1–2, D.1, and G. of this Response to
Comments. Additionally, EPA lacks
sufficient available information to
determine that the requested SIP
revision relaxation does not interfere
with any applicable requirements
concerning attainment and RFP, or any
other applicable requirement of the Act,
as required by section 110(l) of the Act.
74 FR 48450, at 48463; see also Section
V.D.1.
EPA disagrees with the commenter’s
analogy to the proposed Indian Country
Minor NSR rule. Today’s rulemaking
disapproves netting under the Qualified
Facilities Program for Minor NSR, in
part because the Program fails to first
require a Major NSR applicability
demonstration to show that a proposed
change does not trigger Major NSR
before the Qualified Facility can take
advantage of the Program. The proposed
Indian Country rule would explicitly
require the proposed new source or
modification first determine
applicability to Major NSR before taking
advantage of the program. 71 FR 48696,
at 48705, 48728–48729. The source
could only use allowables netting under
the proposed Indian Country rule after
it determined that Major NSR does not
apply to the project. The Qualified
Facilities rules are deficient because
they lack the requirement for a Major
NSR applicability determination, not
because the Program allows allowables
netting under Minor NSR. Further,
while the commenter is correct that the
proposed Indian Country rule would
allow the use of emissions rates in lieu
of air quality impacts, the use of
emissions rates is only to establish
applicability under Minor NSR. Such an
approach is acceptable as long as the
program assures protection of the
NAAQS. 71 FR 48696, at 48701.
Comment: TIP and BCCA commented
that SIP revisions are approvable if they
do not interfere with the NAAQS. States
have the primary responsibility for
E:\FR\FM\14APR2.SGM
14APR2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
19486
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
developing plans for attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS. See
CleanCOALition v. TXU Power, 536
F.3d 469, 472 n.3 (5th Cir. 2008) (stating
that ‘‘EPA has no authority to question
the wisdom of a State’s choices of
emissions limitations if they are part of
a SIP that otherwise satisfies the
standards set forth in 42 U.S.C.
7401(a)(2)’’). The last ten years have
seen unprecedented improvement in
Texas air quality, and Texas has been
implementing the Qualified Facilities
program during that time. The submittal
does not raise interference concerns
because it strengthens the existing SIP;
therefore the Qualified Facilities
program should be fully approvable.
The proposal states that Qualified
Facilities lacks safeguards to prevent
interference with attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS. The
commenters correlate this deficiency
with EPA’s comments on two facets of
the submittal that EPA proposed to find
approvable as long as ambient air is
protected in the trading: (1) netting is
not based on contemporaneous trading;
and (2) the Program’s netting is not
based totally on changes in actual
emissions. TIP states that the existing
Qualified Facilities rules contain
adequate safeguards of the NAAQS.
Additionally, changes are sufficiently
documented and quantified to ensure
that a decrease at a facility will only be
used in one netting analysis. The
provision requires that sources must
document compliance with Federal
requirements safeguards the NAAQS.
Commenter states that Qualified
Facilities could be viewed as an
exemption to Minor NSR requirements;
however, the rules prevent changes that
will violate the Texas control strategies
or interfere with NAAQS attainment.
Qualified Facilities flexibility is only
allowed where the change will not
result in a net increase above existing
BACT, and BACT limits were set to
protect the NAAQS. Qualified Facilities
incorporates Texas’s control strategies,
and therefore, safeguards the NAAQS.
Response: As stated above, in order to
be approved as part of the SIP, the
Qualified Facilities Program must meet
all applicable Federal requirements.
Here, the commenter’s argument is not
supported by the Fifth Circuit’s
language in CleanCOALition, 536 F.3d
at 472 n.3, because the Qualified
Facilities Program does not meet 42
U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(C). EPA agrees with
the commenter that the Qualified
Facilities Program is an exemption to
the Texas Minor NSR SIP (and can be
construed to be an exemption to the
Texas Major NSR SIP). A requirement
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:40 Apr 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
for approval of an exemption to a Minor
NSR SIP is a demonstration that the
exemption will not permit changes that
will violate a state’s control strategies or
interfere with NAAQS attainment.
Texas failed to submit such a
demonstration. In addition, EPA lacks
sufficient available information to
determine that this SIP relaxation would
not interfere with NAAQS attainment,
RFP, or any other requirement of the
Act. See Section V.D.1 above.
Furthermore, EPA cannot find any
provisions in the Program that require a
separate netting analysis be performed
for each such change. See 74 FR 48450,
at 48461–48462. We also find that the
Program does not prohibit future
increases at a Qualified Facility, or
include regulatory language that assures
that any future increase at a Qualified
Facility at which a previous netting
reduction occurred is analyzed in
totality to assure that the NAAQS are
protected. The Qualified Facilities rules
are deficient to protect the NAAQS for
the reasons stated above, not because
the Program allows allowables netting
under Minor NSR. The commenter
asserts that these safeguards exist in the
Qualified Facilities Program but
provides no citation or other basis to
support its assertion. Finally, EPA finds
that the Texas rules do not specifically
require maintenance of information and
analysis showing how a source
concluded that there will be no adverse
impact on air quality. 74 FR 48450, at
48462. The commenter provides no
citation or other basis to show how the
Qualified Facilities Program meets this
requirement.
Comment: TxOGA commented that
the documentation and notification
requirements of 30 TAC 116.117
provide safeguards to ensure that
changes will not violate the control
strategy or interfere with attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS. Also,
Qualified Facilities flexibility is only
available where the change will not
result in a net increase above BACT
levels at well controlled facilities.
Response: As stated above, there is
not sufficient available information to
enable EPA to make a determination
pursuant to section 110(l) that the
Qualified Facilities Program, as a whole,
would not interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and
RFP or any other requirement of the Act.
Additionally, as required by section
110(a)(2)(C) and 40 CFR 51.160, the
State failed to submit information to
demonstrate that the Program, as an
exemption from the Texas Minor NSR
SIP, would not permit a source that will
violate the control strategy or interfere
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
with NAAQS attainment. See Section
V.D.1 above for more information.
G. Comments Addressing Whether
Existing Qualified Facilities Have
Undergone an Air Quality Analysis
Comment: The UT Environmental
Clinic disagrees with EPA’s statement in
the proposal that any Qualified Facility
will have a Major or Minor NSR SIP
permit, will have been subject to an air
quality analysis, and will have
demonstrated that its emissions have no
adverse air quality impact. 74 FR 48450,
at 48560 (Sept. 23, 2009). A facility can
qualify as a Qualified Facility if it uses
technology at least as effective as 10year old BACT, ‘‘regardless of whether
the facility has received a
preconstruction permit or permit
amendment or has been exempted
under the TCCA, 382.057.’’ 30 TAC
116.11(E)(ii). Likewise, the Qualified
Facility rules specifically provide for
preapproval of Qualified Status of those
facilities that do not have an allowable
emissions limit in a permit, PI–8 or PI–
E form.
The commenter further states that,
while Texas rules generally require
emissions to have some sort of
authorization, the rules do exempt some
increases from the definition of
‘‘modification,’’ thereby allowing these
emissions to avoid any review. 30 TAC
116.10(11). For emissions that must be
permitted, TCEQ’s rules allow the use of
various permitting mechanism that do
not assure protection of the NAAQS and
control strategy requirements. 30 TAC
116.110(a).
The commenter states that the rules
additionally provide that unless one
‘‘facility’’ at an account has been subject
to public notice under the Chapter 116
permitting or renewal provisions, total
emissions from all facilities permitted
by rules at an account shall not exceed
the limits referenced in 30 TAC
106(a)(4). Because it is rare that at least
one facility at an account has not been
through public notice, companies are
allowed to use multiple permits-by-rule
to authorize emissions at a source. See
UT Environmental Clinic Comment
Letter, Attachment 5: Chart of facility
PBR authorizations. TCEQ does not
analyze the cumulative air quality
impact of these multiple authorizations.
TCEQ rules require permits-by-rule and
standard permits to be ‘‘incorporated’
into the facility’s permit after the permit
is renewed or amended; and there are
no rules regarding procedures or
modeling for such ‘‘incorporation.’’
Finally, the commenter stated that
TCEQ has issued guidance that requires
standard permits and PBRs that
‘‘directly affect the emissions of
E:\FR\FM\14APR2.SGM
14APR2
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
permitted facilities’’ to be ‘‘consolidated
by reference’’ at renewal or amendment.
Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality, Permit by Rule and Standard
Permit Consolidation Into Permits (Sept
1, 2006), 3. Any PBRs and standard
permits that do not affect emissions
permitted facilities can be incorporated
at the discretion of the permittee. Id at
4. The TCEQ guidance requires such
PBRs and standard permits that are
consolidated by incorporation to
undergo an impacts review. Because
these permits are renewed every ten
years, this review may not occur for
many years. Furthermore, PBRs do not
require Texas BACT.
Response: We agree with the
commenter’s assertion that the
submitted regulations do not explicitly
require an air quality impacts analysis
whenever a facility uses technology at
least as effective as 10-year old Minor
NSR BACT, ‘‘regardless of whether the
facility has received a preconstruction
permit or permit amendment or has
been exempted under the TCCA
382.057.’’ Further, facilities ‘‘qualified’’
using technology at least as effective as
10-year old Minor NSR BACT, must use
actual emissions as a baseline. See 30
TAC 116.10(2) and 116.116(e)(2)(C).
Presumably, this provision exists
because facilities ‘‘qualified’’ under 30
TAC 116.10(11)(E)(ii), would not have a
permitted allowable emissions limit
because they lack an underlying permit.
If a facility could be ‘‘qualified’’ without
having a pre-construction permit, then
the facility could net-out of permit
requirements without ever having an air
quality analysis of the baseline
allowables limit. TCEQ’s comments,
which are summarized below, imply
that State law requires all sources in
Texas to get an underlying permit, and
therefore, receive an air quality impact
analysis. However, we view the State’s
comment to be vague as to whether a
permit is a pre-requisite under the
Program itself. Therefore, the Qualified
Facilities rules are deficient because
they fail to require an underlying Texas
NSR SIP permit and air quality impact
analysis in order to be ‘‘qualified’’ under
the Program.
Comments concerning the State’s
permit-by-rule and standard permit
programs are outside the scope of this
rulemaking.
Comment: TCEQ commented that the
Texas Legislature created the Qualified
Facilities Program to provide flexibility
to permitted facilities and to provide a
means by which grandfathered facilities
could apply control technology and
become ‘‘qualified’’ grandfathered
facilities without triggering Federal
NSR. Subsequently, in 2001, the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:40 Apr 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
legislature required all grandfathered
facilities to obtain authorization or
shutdown. The program remains in
effect as emissions are controlled, no
new emissions above existing allowable
limits are allowed, and Federal
requirements are considered and met.
In summary, the Program reinforced
the TCEQ’s duties under the Texas
Clean Air Act to protect air quality and
control air contaminant emissions by
practical and economically feasible
methods. Tex. Health & Safety Code
382.002, 382.003(9)(e). Therefore, the
environment has benefitted from the
Program because emissions were
controlled prior to the Texas Legislature
mandating shut down or obtaining
authorization; air quality benefitted as
demonstrated by monitoring which
measured continued improvement;
regulated entities benefitted because
they were given flexibility; and the State
benefitted by reasonable regulation that
encourages responsible economic
development.
TCEQ also commented that allowable
emissions (both hourly and annual
rates) are one of the criteria used to
provide ‘‘state qualified’’ flexibility
because the facilities must exist and be
authorized, and thereby undergone
appropriate permit review.
Response: As stated above, we find
that the Qualified Facilities rules fail to
explicitly require a permit before a
facility can be ‘‘qualified’’ under the
Program. While TCEQ asserts that to
become a Qualified Facility, a facility
must undergo permit review and be
authorized, the State does not cite to
any regulatory provision in the Program
that explicitly requires such permitting
authorization. EPA recognizes that State
legislation subsequent to the Qualified
Facilities Program required
grandfathered facilities to obtain permit
authorizations or shut down. There is
nothing sufficiently explicit, however,
in the Qualified Facilities Rules that
ensures all Qualified Facilities received
an air quality impacts analysis through
an initial permit application review
process. It is commendable that TCEQ
intends to implement its Qualified
Facilities Program in a manner that may
benefit the environment, but Texas
failed to incorporate these procedures
into its regulations; therefore, these
procedures are not Federally
enforceable.
H. Comments on the Definitions of
‘‘Grandfathered Facility,’’ ‘‘Maximum
Allowable Emission Rate Table,’’ and
‘‘New Facility’’
Comment: TCEQ and TCC agree with
EPA’s proposal to approve the
definitions of ‘‘grandfathered facility,’’
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19487
‘‘maximum allowable emission rate
table,’’ and ‘‘new facility.’’ The TCEQ
urges EPA to take final action to
approve these definitions.
Response: These comments further
support EPA’s action to approve these
definitions.
I. Comments on the Definitions of
‘‘Actual Emissions,’’ ‘‘Allowable
Emissions,’’ ‘‘Modification of Existing
Facility’’ at (E), and ‘‘Qualified Facility’’
Comment: TCEQ confirmed that
Senate Bill 1126 amended the Texas
Clean Air Act by revising the definition
of ‘‘modification of existing facility,’’
which changed the factors used to
determine whether a modification for
State permitting (i.e. Minor NSR) has
occurred. In 1996, 30 TAC Chapter 116
was revised to incorporate this
legislative directive. These changes
provide that modifications may be made
to existing facilities without triggering
the State’s Minor NSR requirements
whenever:
• Authorization for the facility to be
modified was issued a permit, permit
amendment, or was exempted from
permitting requirements within 120
months from when the change will
occur; or
• Uses air pollution control methods
that are at least as effective as the BACT
that was required within 120 months
from when the change will occur.
Such facilities are designated as
‘‘qualified facilities.’’ TCEQ considers
the use of ‘‘modification’’ to be separate
and severable from the Federal
definition of ‘‘modification’’ as reflected
in the SIP-approved Major NSR
Program.
TCEQ further asserts that the
definitions of ‘‘actual emissions,’’
‘‘allowable emissions,’’ ‘‘modification of
existing facility’’ at (E) ‘‘qualified
facility,’’ respectively at 30 TAC
116.10(1), (2), (11)(E), and (16), meet
Federal requirements.
Response: We are disapproving these
definitions because they are not
severable from the Qualified Facilities
Program, and the State failed to submit
information sufficient to demonstrate
how these definitions meet Federal
requirements. The definitions of ‘‘actual
emissions’’ and ‘‘allowable emissions’’
include a statement that limits these
definitions only when determining
whether there has been a net increase in
allowable emissions under 30 TAC
116.116(e), which implements the
Qualified Facilities Program, and thus
makes these definitions not severable
from the Program. Subsection (E) of the
definition of ‘‘modification of existing
facility’’ only applies to changes that do
not result in a net increase in allowable
E:\FR\FM\14APR2.SGM
14APR2
19488
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
emissions, which implements the
Qualified Facilities Program, and thus
makes this subsection not severable
from the Program. The definition of
‘‘qualified facility’’ defines a term that is
used in the Qualified Facilities Program,
which makes it not severable from the
Qualified Facilities Program.
Furthermore, the State did not
provide sufficient information to
demonstrate how these definitions meet
Federal requirements. Additionally,
State legislative actions in 1999 made
the statutory definition of ‘‘modification
of existing facility’’ ambiguous as to
whether the definition is still limited to
minor modifications. The State did not
submit any legal support for TCEQ’s
assertion that the use of ‘‘modification’’
in the Texas Clean Air Act is for Minor
NSR only; and therefore separate and
severable from the definition of
‘‘modification’’ in the Texas Major NSR
SIP. See 74 FR 48450, at 48456–48457
and Section V.E.2 above for further
information.
J. Comments on the Definition of ‘‘Best
Available Control Technology’’ (‘‘BACT’’)
Comment: The UT Environmental
Clinic, TCC, TIP, BCCA, TxOGA, GCLC,
and TCEQ provided comments on EPA’s
proposed disapproval of TCEQ’s
definition of BACT.
Response: We are not taking final
action on the definition of BACT in
today’s rulemaking; therefore, these
comments are outside the scope of our
rulemaking. They will be considered,
however, in our final action on this
definition.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
K. Comments on Severable Portions of
the Definition of ‘‘Modification of
Existing Facility’’ at 30 TAC
116.10(11)(A) & (B)
Comment: The UT Environmental
Clinic, TxOGA, TIP, BCCA, and TCEQ
provided comments on EPA’s proposed
disapproval of TCEQ’s changes to the
definition of ‘‘modification of existing
facility’’ at 30 TAC 116.10(11)(A) and (B)
regarding insignificant increases.
Response: We are not taking final
action on 30 TAC 116.10(11)(A) and (B)
of the definition of ‘‘modification of
existing facility’’ in today’s rulemaking;
therefore, these comments are outside
the scope of our rulemaking. They,
however, will be considered in our final
agency action on these two definitions.
L. Comments on the Definition of
Severable Subsection of ‘‘Modification of
Existing Facility’’ at 30 TAC
116.10(11)(G)
Comment: The UT Environmental
Clinic and TCEQ provided comments on
the proposed disapproval of 30 TAC
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:40 Apr 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
116.10(11)(G) of the definition of
‘‘modification of existing facility.’’
Response: We are not taking final
action on 30 TAC 116.10(11)(G) of the
definition of ‘‘modification of existing
facility’’ in today’s rulemaking;
therefore, these comments are outside
the scope of our rulemaking. They will
be considered, however, in our final
agency action on this definition.
M. Comments on the Reinstatement of
the Previously Approved Definition of
‘‘Facility’’
Comment: The TCEQ acknowledges
that EPA proposes to correct a
typographical error in 72 FR 49198 to
clarify that the definition of ‘‘facility,’’ as
codified at 30 TAC 116.10(6), was
approved as part of the Texas SIP in
2006 and remains part of the Texas SIP.
74 FR 48450, at 48455 at n.6.
Response: EPA thanks TCEQ for its
acknowledgement that the definition of
‘‘facility’’ at 30 TAC 116.10(6) was
approved as part of the Texas SIP in
2006 and remains part of the Texas SIP.
We are making the administrative
change to correct the typographical error
in the Code of Federal Regulations.
In our proposed rule notice, we
requested comments on the State’s legal
meaning of the term ‘‘facility.’’ See 30
TAC 116.10(6). We stated that the
interpretation of this term is critical to
our understanding of the Texas
Permitting Program. We received the
following comments on this issue:
1. Comments Generally Supporting
Proposal
Comment: The UT Environmental
Clinic understands that EPA’s proposal
is only to correct a typographical error
that inadvertently removed the
definition of ‘‘facility’’ from the SIP. The
commenter notes, however, that Texas’s
use of this term is problematic because
of its dual definitions and broad
meanings. The commenter compares
Texas’s definition of ‘‘facility’’ in 30
TAC 116.10 with the definition of
‘‘stationary source’’ in 30 TAC 116.12
and the definition of ‘‘building,
structure, facility, or installation’’ in 30
TAC 116.12 and conclude that these
definitions are quite similar. The
commenters acknowledge that this
argument assumes that one can rely on
the Nonattainment NSR rules to
interpret the general definitions. If one
cannot use the Nonattainment NSR
definitions to interpret the general
definition of ‘‘facility,’’ then one must
resort to the definition of ‘‘source’’ in 30
TAC 116.10(17), which is defined as ‘‘a
point of origin of air contaminants,
whether privately or publicly owned or
operated.’’ Pursuant to this reading, a
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
facility is more like a Federal ‘‘emissions
unit.’’ 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(vii).
‘‘‘Emissions unit’ means any part of a
stationary source that emits or would
have the potential to emit any regulated
NSR pollutant …’’ At least in the
Qualified Facility rules, it appears that
TCEQ use of the definition of ‘‘facility’’
is more like a Federal ‘‘emissions unit.’’
The circular nature of these definitions,
and the existence of two different
definitions of ‘‘facility’’ without clear
description of their applicability, makes
Texas’s rules, including the Qualified
Facility rules, vague. Commenters urge
EPA to require Texas to clarify its
definition of ‘‘facility’’ and to ensure that
its use of the term throughout the rules
is consistent with that definition.
2. Comments Generally Opposing
Proposal
Comment: TCEQ responded to EPA’s
request concerning its interpretation of
Texas law and the Texas SIP with
respect to the term ‘‘facility.’’ The
definition of ‘‘facility’’ is the cornerstone
of the Texas Permitting Program under
the Texas Clean Air Act. In addition, to
provide clarity and consistency, TCEQ
also provides similar comments in
regard to Docket ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–
2005–TX–0032 and EPA–R06–OAR–
2006–0133. EPA believes that the State
uses a ‘‘dual definition’’ for the term
facility. Under the TCAA and TCEQ
rule, ‘‘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. Tex.
Health & Safety Code 382.003(6); 30
TAC 116.10(6). A mine, quarry, well
test, or road is not considered to be a
facility.’’ A facility may contain a
stationary source—point of origin of a
contaminant. Tex. Health & Safety Code
382.003(12). As a discrete point, a
facility can constitute but cannot
contain a major stationary source as
defined by Federal law. A facility is
subject to Major and Minor NSR
requirements, depending on the facts of
the specific application. Under Major
NSR, EPA uses the term ‘‘emissions
unit’’ (generally) when referring to a part
of a ‘‘stationary source,’’ TCEQ translates
‘‘emissions unit’’ to mean ‘‘facility,’’ 14
which is at least as stringent as Federal
rule. TCEQ and its predecessor agencies
have consistently interpreted facility to
preclude inclusion of more than one
stationary source, in contrast to EPA’s
stated understanding. Likewise, TCEQ
14 The term ‘‘facility’’ shall replace the words
‘‘emissions unit’’ in the referenced sections of the
CFR. 30 TAC 116.160(c)(3).
E:\FR\FM\14APR2.SGM
14APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
does not interpret facility to include
‘‘every emissions point on a company
site, even if limiting these emission
points to only those belonging to the
same industrial grouping (SIC Code).’’
The Federal definition of ‘‘major
stationary source’’ is not equivalent to
the state definition of ‘‘source.’’ 40 CFR
51.166(b)(1)(a). A ‘‘major stationary
source’’ 15 can include more than one
‘‘facility’’ as defined under Texas law—
which is consistent with EPA’s
interpretation of a ‘‘major stationary
source’’ including more than one
emissions unit. The above interpretation
of ‘‘facility’’ has been consistently
applied by TCEQ and its predecessor
agencies for more than 30 years. The
TCEQ’s interpretation of Texas statutes
enacted by the Texas Legislature is
addressed by the Texas Code
Construction Act. More specifically,
words and phrases that have acquired a
technical or particular meaning,
whether by legislative definition or
otherwise, shall be construed
accordingly. Tex. Gov’t Code 311.011(b).
While Texas law does not directly refer
to the two steps allowing deference
enunciated in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v.
Natural Resources Defense Council,
Inc., Texas law and judicial
interpretation recognize Chevron 16 and
follow similar analysis as discussed
below. The Texas Legislature intends an
agency created to centralize expertise in
a certain regulatory area ‘‘be given a
large degree of latitude in the methods
it uses to accomplish its regulatory
function.’’ Phillips Petroleum Co. v.
Comm’n on Envtl. Quality, 121 S.W.3d
502, 508 (Tex.App.—Austin 2003, no
pet.), which cites Chevron to support
the following: ‘‘Our task is to determine
whether an agency’s decision is based
upon a permissible interpretation of its
statutory scheme.’’ Further, Texas courts
construe the test of an administrative
rule under the same principles as if it
were a statute. Texas Gen. Indem. Co. v.
Finance Comm’n, 36 S.W.3d 635,641
15 Tex.
Health & Safety Code § 382.003(12).
U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources
Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 387, 842–43 (1984).
‘‘When a court reviews an agency’s construction of
the statute which it administers, it is confronted
with two questions. First, always is the question
whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise
question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear,
that is the end of the matter, for the court, as well
as the agency, must give effect to the
unambiguously express intent of Congress. If,
however, the court determines Congress has not
directly addressed the precise question at issue, the
court does not simply impose its own construction
on the statute, as would be necessary in the absence
of an administrative interpretation. Rather, if the
statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the
specific issue, the question for the court is whether
the agency’s answer is based on a permissible
construction of the statute.’’
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
16 Chevron
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:40 Apr 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
(Tex.App.—Austin 2000, no pet.). Texas
Administrative agencies have the power
to interpret their own rules, and their
interpretation is entitled to great weight
and deference. Id. The agency’s
construction of its rule is controlling
unless it is plainly erroneous or
inconsistent. Id. ‘‘When the construction
of an administrative regulation rather
than a statute is at issue, deference is
even more clearly in order.’’ Udall v.
Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 17 (1965). This is
particularly true when the rule involves
complex subject matter. See Equitable
Trust Co. v. Finance Comm’n, 99
S.W.3d 384, 387 (Tex.App.—Austin
2003, no pet.). Texas courts recognize
that the legislature intends an agency
created to centralize expertise in a
certain regulatory area ‘‘be given a large
degree of latitude in the methods it uses
to accomplish its regulatory function.’’
Reliant Energy, Inc. v. Public Util.
Comm’n, 62 S.W.3d 833,838
(Tex.App.—Austin 2001, no pet.)(citing
State v. Public Util. Comm’n, 883
S.W.2d 190, 197 (Tex. 1994). In
summary, TCEQ translates ‘‘emissions
unit’’ to mean ‘‘facility.’’ Just as an
‘‘emissions unit’’ under Federal law is
construed by EPA as part of a major
stationary source, a ‘‘facility’’ under
Texas law can be a part of a major
stationary source. However, a facility
cannot include more than one stationary
source as defined under Texas law.
Comment: TCC, BCCA, TIP, and
TxOGA commented that Texas rules are
clear that ‘‘facility,’’ as defined in 30
TAC 116.10(6) is equivalent to the
TCEQ term ‘‘emissions unit.’’17 TCC also
stated that the definition of ‘‘facility’’ is
so broad that it requires every possible
source of air contaminants to obtain
some type of approval from TCEQ.
Response: We have determined that
Texas’s use of this term ‘‘facility,’’ as it
applies to the State’s Qualified Facilities
Program, is overly vague, and therefore,
unenforceable. TCEQ comments that it
translates ‘‘emissions unit’’ to mean
‘‘facility.’’ Yet, Texas’s PSD non-PAL
rules explicitly limit the definition of
‘‘facility’’ to ‘‘emissions unit,’’ but the
Qualified Facilities rules fail to make
such a limitation. 74 FR 48450, at
48475; compare 30 TAC 116.10(6) to 30
TAC 116.160(c)(3). The State clearly
thought the prudent legal course was to
limit ‘‘facility’’ explicitly to ‘‘emissions
unit’’ in its PSD SIP non-PALs revision.
However, TCEQ did not submit
information sufficient to demonstrate
that the lack of this explicit limitation
in the submitted Qualified Facilities
17 Additionally, the definition of ‘‘facility’’ is
similar to the definition of ‘‘emission unit’’ in
Texas’s Title V rules. 30 TAC 122.10(8).
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19489
revisions is at least as stringent as the
revised definition in the PSD non-PALs
definition.
We recognize that TCEQ should be
accorded a level of deference to
interpret the State’s statutes and
regulations; however, such
interpretations must meet applicable
requirements of the Act and
implementing regulations under 40 CFR
part 51 to be approvable into the SIP as
Federally enforceable requirements. The
State has failed to provide any case law
or SIP citation that confirms TCEQ’s
interpretation for ‘‘facility’’ under the
Qualified Facilities Program that would
ensure Federal enforceability.
Nevertheless, as stated above, the
definition of ‘‘facility’’ at 30 TAC
116.10(6) was approved as part of the
Texas SIP in 2006 and remains part of
the Texas SIP. Therefore, EPA is
obligated to correct the typographical
error and reinstate the definition of
‘‘facility’’ into the Code of Federal
Regulations.
However, today’s final disapproval of
the Qualified Facilities Program is based
in part on the lack of clarity of the
definition of ‘‘facility’’ as it applies
specifically to this Program.
Additionally, EPA has proposed
disapproval of the State’s Flexible
Permit Program and NSR Reform SIP
submittals partially based on the need
for clarity of the definition of ‘‘facility’’
as it applies to those programs.
N. Comments on the Definition of the
Term ‘‘Air Quality Account Number’’
Comment: The TCEQ commented that
it no longer uses the term ‘‘air quality
account number’’ and now uses the term
‘‘account,’’ which is a SIP-approved
definition.18 Administrative changes to
the Qualified Facilities Program are
planned to reflect the change in terms.
Response: EPA’s evaluation of
‘‘account’’ and ‘‘air quality account
number’’ were based upon the SIPapproved definition of ‘‘account.’’ 74 FR
48450, at 48455, n.7. The State’s
comment that it no longer uses ‘‘air
quality account number’’ but uses
‘‘account’’ does not change EPA’s final
decision to disapprove the Qualified
Facilities Program SIP revision
submittal. In fact, the State’s using a
different definition that is not in the
Qualified Facilities Program’s rules
18 30 TAC 101.1(1) Account—For those sources
required to be permitted under Chapter 122 of this
title * * *, all sources that are aggregated as a site.
For all other sources, any combination of sources
under common ownership or control and located on
one or more contiguous properties, or properties
contiguous except for intervening roads, railways,
rights-of-way, waterways, or similar divisions.
Approved as part of the Texas SIP at 70 FR 16129
(March 30, 2005).
E:\FR\FM\14APR2.SGM
14APR2
19490
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
provides additional grounds for
disapproval. The Qualified Facilities
Program’s rules must be clear about
which sources on a site can participate
in the netting process. This goes to the
heart of whether the changes are made
outside a major stationary source. If
TCEQ makes the planned changes noted
in the comment letter, the changes must
be adopted and submitted to EPA for
approval as a SIP revision. Upon
receipt, we would review the regulatory
changes and evaluate whether they meet
the Act and EPA regulations.
The Texas SIP defines an ‘‘account’’ to
include an entire company site, which
could include more than one plant and
more than one major stationary source.
SIP rule 30 TAC 101.1(1), second
sentence. It does not limit the
combination of sources to a SIC code.
As stated above, EPA interprets the
Program to allow an emission increase
to net out by taking into account
emission decreases outside of the major
stationary source. Therefore, the
Program does not meet the CAA’s
definition of ‘‘modification’’ and the
Major NSR SIP requirements and is
inconsistent with Asarco v. EPA, 578
F.2d 320 (DC Cir. 1978). 74 FR 48450,
at 48458–48459; Section IV.B. above.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
O. Comments on Whether the Qualified
Facilities Rules Meet New Source
Review Public Participation
Requirements
1. Comments Generally Supporting
Proposal
Comment: HCPHES commented that
the State’s public participation rules are
not user friendly with regards to
timeliness of initial notification and the
time restrictions for public comment.
Specifically, it is not uncommon for a
permit modification or amendment
notification to be delayed on occasion,
which results in a shorter period for
citizens as well as HCPHES to respond.
These situations have unduly limited
the opportunities for the public and
affected agencies to be able to provide
meaningful reviews and submit
appropriate comments. The commenter
supports EPA’s conclusion to
disapprove portions of the SIP as
proposed until such time as TCEQ
addresses all of the specifics noted in
the Federal Register. In addition,
HCPHES strongly supports
strengthening public participation rules
such that Texas citizens are able to
participate meaningfully in the process.
Comment: Several members of the
Texas House commented that while the
Qualified Facilities Program was a
legislative creation, these members of
the Texas House recognize that the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:40 Apr 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
statutory language and associated
regulations are inconsistent with current
CAA requirements regarding
modifications and public participation.
A particular concern is inadequate
public participation.
Comment: HCPHES strongly supports
strengthening public participation rules
such that Texas citizens are able to
participate meaningfully in the process.
Response: General comments on
Texas’s public participation
requirements are outside the scope of
this rulemaking. However, in a separate
action, EPA has proposed a limited
approval/limited disapproval of Texas’s
SIP submittal for public participation
(73 FR 72001 (Nov. 26, 2008)). In
addition, TCEQ has proposed revisions
to these rules and EPA is working with
TCEQ to strengthen its rules for public
participation to ensure the State’s rules
comply with all Federal requirements.
2. Comments Generally Opposing
Proposal
Comment: The UT Environmental
Clinic commented that the Qualified
Facilities Rules allow industrial plants
to make changes that can affect
neighboring residents with absolutely
no notice or opportunity for
participation. These rules allow
modifications without meeting the
Federal public participation
requirements that are applicable to
Nonattainment NSR and PSD permits
under the Act, 40 CFR 51.161, and 40
CFR 51.166(q). TCEQ’s Qualified
Facilities guidance specifically states
that the qualified facility notification
process may be used instead of the
alteration process to change permit
special conditions. Qualified Facilities
Guidance, at 14.
Response: EPA agrees with the
commenter that the Qualified Facilities
rules do not meet the Federal public
participation requirements for each
individual change, either for a Major or
Minor NSR SIP revision. As discussed
in more detail in Section V.D.1 above,
the Program does not clearly require a
permit for each change. Therefore, the
Program does not provide an
opportunity for public review, which
circumvents public participation
requirements in 40 CFR 51.161. See 74
FR 48450, at 48459–48460.
Comment: The UT Environmental
Clinic comments that the Texas rules
also allow sources to amend terms and
conditions of a Major NSR or Minor
NSR permit without public
participation. EPA has already
expressed concerns to Texas about using
methods other than permit amendment
for making changes to individual NSR
permits. Letter to Dan Eden, TCEQ,
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Deputy Director, from Carl Edlund,
EPA, Region 6, Director, Multimedia
Planning and Permitting Division
(March 12, 2008), p. 8. Letter to Richard
Hyde, TCEQ, Director Air Permits
Division from Jeff Robinson, EPA, Chief,
Air Permits Section (May 21, 2008), p.
6.
Response: The comments that TCEQ’s
rules allow sources to amend terms and
conditions of a Major NSR or Minor
NSR permit without public
participation and the use of methods
other than permit amendments are
outside the scope of this rulemaking.
Comment: GCLC provided comments
on Texas’s public participation program
because the public participation issues
are implicated throughout the three
Federal Register notices (Qualified
Facilities, Flexible Permits, and NSR
Reform). GCLC considers these
comments timely and appropriate
because EPA’s proposal directs the
public to read the three pending notices
and the November 2008 public
participation proposal ‘‘in conjunction’’
with each other.
Response: We recognize the need to
read the notices in conjunction with
each other because the permits issued
under these State programs are the
vehicles for regulating a significant
universe of the air emissions from
sources in Texas and thus directly
impact the ability of the State to achieve
and maintain attainment of the NAAQS
and to protect the health of the
communities where these sources are
located. 74 FR 48450, at 48453.
However, this final rulemaking only
addresses the Qualified Facilities
Program. Therefore, specific issues
related to the public participation
submittal package are outside the scope
of this rulemaking.
Comment: The ERCC commented that
public review requirements have been
met because the implementing
regulations for Qualified Facilities were
subject to notice and comment.
Proposed on 20 Tex. Reg. 8308 (October
10, 1995) finalized on 21 Tex. Reg. 1569
(February 27, 1996).
Response: EPA agrees with the
commenter that the Qualified Facilities
rules met the public participation
requirements for SIP revision
submittals. EPA, however, disagrees
with the commenter that the permit
application public participation
requirements of this submitted
Qualified Facilities program meets the
NSR public participation requirements
for individual permit applications.
Where the adopted State rules fail to
provide for the minimum public
participation required under Federal
law for individual permit applications,
E:\FR\FM\14APR2.SGM
14APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal public participation
requirements cannot be considered met
just because the deficient State rules
were adopted after public notice and
comment. Please see our comments
above.
VI. Final Action
EPA is disapproving revisions to the
SIP submitted by the State of Texas that
relate to the Modification of Qualified
Facilities, identified in the Table in
section III.B of this action. These
affected provisions include the
following regulations under Chapter
116: 30 TAC 116.116(e), 30 TAC
116.117, 30 TAC 116.118, and the
following definitions under 30 TAC
116.10—General Definitions: 30 TAC
116.10(1)—definition of ‘‘actual
emissions,’’ 30 TAC 116.10(2)—
definition of ‘‘allowable emissions,’’ 30
TAC 116.10(11)(E) under the definition
of ‘‘modification of existing facility,’’
and 30 TAC 116.10(16)—definition of
‘‘qualified facility.’’ EPA finds that these
submitted provisions and definitions in
the submitted Texas Qualified Facilities
Program are not severable from each
other.
EPA is disapproving the submitted
Texas Qualified Facilities Program as a
substitute Major NSR SIP revision
because it does not meet the Act and
EPA’s regulations. We are also
disapproving the submitted Qualified
Facilities Program as a Minor NSR SIP
revision because it does not meet the
Act and EPA’s regulations.
The Qualified Facilities Program
submittals do not meet the requirements
for a substitute Major NSR SIP revisions
because (1) the Program does not
prevent circumvention of Major NSR;
(2) the State failed to submit
information sufficient to demonstrate
that the Program’s regulatory text
requires an evaluation of Major NSR
applicability before a change is
exempted from permitting; (3) the
Program is deficient for Major NSR
netting because (a) it authorizes the use
of allowable, rather than actual
emissions, to be used as a baseline to
determine applicability. This use of
allowables violates the Act and Major
NSR SIP requirements and is contrary to
New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3, 38–40 (DC
Cir. 2005) (‘‘New York I’’) and (b) it
could allow an emission increase to net
out by taking into account emission
decreases outside of the major stationary
source and, in other circumstances,
allow an evaluation of emissions of a
subset of units at a major stationary
source; and (4) there is not sufficient
available information to enable EPA to
make a determination that the requested
SIP revision relaxation would not
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:40 Apr 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
interfere with any applicable
requirements concerning attainment,
RFP, or any other applicable CAA
requirement, as required by section
110(l).
The Qualified Facilities Program
submittals do not meet the requirements
for a Minor NSR SIP revision. The
submitted Program (1) fails to ensure
that the Major NSR SIP requirements
continue to be met; (2) is not limited
only to Minor NSR; (3) fails to include
sufficient legally enforceable safeguards
to ensure that the NAAQS and control
strategies are protected; (4) the State
failed to demonstrate that the Program’s
exemption from the Texas Minor NSR
SIP includes legally enforceable
procedures to ensure that the State will
not permit a source that will violate the
NAAQS or the State’s control strategies,
(5) the submitted Program does not
provide clear and enforceable
requirements for a basic Minor NSR
netting program; and (6) EPA lacks
sufficient information to make a
determination that the requested SIP
revision relaxation does not interfere
with any applicable requirements
concerning attainment and RFP, or any
other applicable requirement of the Act,
as required by section 110(l). Therefore,
we are disapproving the submitted
Qualified Facilities Program as a Minor
NSR SIP revision because it does not
meet sections 110(a)(2)(C) and 110(l) of
the Act and 40 CFR 51.160.
EPA is approving the submitted
definitions for ‘‘grandfathered facility,’’
‘‘maximum allowable emissions rate
table (MAERT),’’ and ‘‘new facility.’’
Finally, EPA is finalizing an
administrative correction in today’s
action by specifically correcting a
typographical error at 72 FR 49198 to
clarify that the definition of ‘‘facility’’ as
codified at 30 TAC 116.10(6) was
approved as part of the Texas SIP in
2006 and remains part of the Texas SIP.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review
This final action has been determined
not to be a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993).
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 disapproval under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
19491
will not in-and-of itself create any new
information collection burdens but
simply disapproves certain State
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 and part D 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, the submissions do not meet the
requirements of the Act and EPA cannot
approve 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 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
E:\FR\FM\14APR2.SGM
14APR2
19492
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S.
EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42
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 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 preexisting 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.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
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
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 disapproves 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 in Executive
Order 13175 (59 FR 22951, November 9,
2000), because the SIP EPA is
disapproving would not apply in Indian
country located in the State, and EPA
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:40 Apr 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
notes that it will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law. This final rule does
not have tribal implications, as specified
in Executive Order 13175. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal
governments, on the relationship
between the Federal government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.
This action does not involve or impose
any requirements that affect Indian
Tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this action.
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.
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
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, part
D of the Clean Air Act and will not inand-of 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.
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
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 No.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
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.
E:\FR\FM\14APR2.SGM
14APR2
19493
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section
307(b)(2).
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 June 14, 2010.
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
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
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.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7410 et seq.
Subpart SS—Texas
2. The table in § 52.2270(c) entitled
‘‘EPA-Approved Regulations in the
Texas SIP’’ is amended by revising the
entry for section 116.10 to read as
follows:
■
Dated: March 31, 2010.
Al Armendariz,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
■
§ 52.2270
*
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
Identification of plan.
*
*
(c) * * *
*
*
EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE TEXAS SIP
State citation
*
State approval/submittal date
Title/subject
EPA approval date
Explanation
*
*
*
*
*
Chapter 116 (Reg 6)—Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification
*
Subchapter A—Definitions
Section 116.10 ........
General Definitions
*
8/21/2002
*
*
3. Section 52.2273 is amended by
designating the existing text as
paragraph (a) and by adding a new
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.2273
Approval status.
*
*
*
*
(b) EPA is disapproving the Texas SIP
revision submittals as follows:
(1) The following definitions in 30
TAC 116.10—General Definitions:
(i) Definition of ‘‘actual emissions’’ in
30 TAC 116.10(1), submitted March 13,
1996 and repealed and re-adopted June
17, 1998 and submitted July 22, 1998;
(ii) Definition of ‘‘allowable
emissions’’ in 30 TAC 116.10(2),
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES2
*
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:40 Apr 13, 2010
4/14/2010 [Insert FR page number
where document begins].
Jkt 220001
*
*
submitted March 13, 1996; repealed and
re-adopted June 17, 1998 and submitted
July 22, 1998; and submitted September
11, 2000;
(iii) Portion of the definition of
‘‘modification of existing facility’’ in 30
TAC 116.10(11)(E), submitted March 13,
1996; repealed and re-adopted June 17,
1998 and submitted July 22, 1998; and
submitted September 4, 2002; and
(iv) Definition of ‘‘qualified facility’’ in
30 TAC 116.10(16), submitted March 13,
1996; repealed and re-adopted June 17,
1998 and submitted July 22, 1998; and
submitted September 4, 2002;
(2) 30 TAC 116.116(e)—Changes at
Qualified Facilities—submitted March
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
The SIP does not include paragraphs
(1), (2), (3), (7)(F), (11), and (16).
Sfmt 9990
*
*
13, 1996 and repealed and re-adopted
June 17, 1998 and submitted July 22,
1998;
(3) 30 TAC 116.117—Documentation
and Notification of Changes to Qualified
Facilities—submitted March 13, 1996
and repealed and re-adopted June 17,
1998 and submitted July 22, 1998;
(4) 30 TAC 116.118—Pre-Change
Qualification—submitted March 13,
1996 and repealed and re-adopted June
17, 1998 and submitted July 22, 1998.
[FR Doc. 2010–8019 Filed 4–13–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\14APR2.SGM
14APR2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 14, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19468-19493]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-8019]
[[Page 19467]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 52
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Revisions to
the New Source Review (NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP);
Modification of Existing Qualified Facilities Program and General
Definitions; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 19468]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R06-OAR-2005-TX-0025; FRL-9135-7]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas;
Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State Implementation Plan
(SIP); Modification of Existing Qualified Facilities Program and
General Definitions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final Rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to disapprove revisions to the SIP
submitted by the State of Texas that relate to the Modification of
Existing Qualified Facilities (the Qualified Facilities Program or the
Program). EPA is disapproving the Texas Qualified Facilities Program
because it does not meet the Minor NSR SIP requirements nor does it
meet the NSR SIP requirements for a substitute Major NSR SIP revision.
EPA is also approving three definitions that are severable from the
Qualified Facilities submittals. These three definitions we are
approving are, ``grandfathered facility,'' ``maximum allowable emission
rate table (MAERT),'' and ``new facility.'' Moreover, we are making an
administrative correction to the SIP-approved definition of
``facility.''
We are taking this action under section 110, part C, and part D of
the Federal Clean Air Act (the Act or CAA).
DATES: This rule is effective on May 14, 2010.
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 https://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 https://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 FOIA
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 to make an appointment. If
possible, please make the appointment at least two working 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, which is part of the EPA record, is also
available for public inspection at the State Air Agency listed below
during official business hours by appointment: Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality, 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 214-665-7263; e-mail address spruiell.stanley@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the following
terms have the meanings described below:
``we,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to EPA.
``Act'' or ``CAA'' means Federal Clean Air Act.
``40 CFR'' means Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations--Protection of Environment.
``SIP'' means State Implementation Plan as established
under section 110 of the Act.
``NSR'' means new source review, a phrase intended to
encompass the statutory and regulatory programs that regulate the
construction and modification of stationary sources as provided under
CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), CAA Title I, parts C and D, and 40 CFR 51.160
through 51.166.
``Minor NSR'' means NSR established under section 110 of
the Act and 40 CFR 51.160.
``Major NSR'' means any new or modified source that is
subject to NNSR and/or PSD.
``NNSR'' means nonattainment NSR established under Title
I, section 110 and part D of the Act and 40 CFR 51.165.
``PSD'' means prevention of significant deterioration of
air quality established under Title I, section 110 and part C of the
Act and 40 CFR 51.166.
``Program'' means the SIP revision submittals from the
TCEQ concerning the Texas Qualified Facilities Program.
``NAAQS'' means any national ambient air quality standard
established under 40 CFR part 50.
Table of Contents
I. What Action Is EPA Taking?
II. What Submittals Is EPA Taking No Action On?
A. Subparagraph (F) under the definition of ``federally
enforceable''
B. Definition of ``best available control technology (BACT)''
C. Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of the submitted definition of
``modification of existing facility''
D. Subparagraph (G) of the submitted definition of
``modification of existing facility''
E. Trading Provision in 30 TAC 116.116(f)
III. What Is the Background for This Action?
A. Summary of Our Proposed Action
B. Summary of the Submittals Addressed in this Final Action
C. Other Relevant Actions on the Texas Permitting SIP Revision
Submittals
IV. What Are the Grounds for This Disapproval Action of the Texas
Qualified Facilities Program?
A. Why the Qualified Facilities Program Submittal Is Unclear
Whether It Is for a Major or Minor NSR SIP Revision
B. Why the Submitted Texas Qualified Facilities Program Is Not
Approvable as a Substitute Major NSR SIP Revision
C. Why the Submitted Texas Qualified Facilities Program Is Not
Approvable as a Minor NSR SIP Revision
D. Definition of ``facility''
V. Response to Comments
A. General Comments
B. Comment That This Action Is Inconsistent With the CAA
C. Comments Addressing Whether the Qualified Facilities Rules
Allow Sources to ``Net Out'' of Major and Minor NSR Through Rules
that Are Not Adequate To Protect the NAAQS and State Control
Strategies
D. Comments Addressing Whether the Qualified Facilities Rules
Are Practically Enforceable
E. Comments Addressing Whether the Qualified Facilities Rules
Meet Federal Requirements for Major NSR
F. Comments Addressing Whether the Qualified Facilities Rules
Meet Federal Requirements for Minor NSR
G. Comments Addressing Whether Existing Qualified Facilities
Have Undergone an Air Quality Analysis
H. Comments on the Definitions of ``Grandfathered Facility,''
``Maximum Allowable Emission Rate Table,'' and ``New Facility''
I. Comments on the Definitions of ``Actual Emissions,''
``Allowable Emissions,'' ``Modification of Existing Facility'' at
(E), and ``Qualified Facility''
J. Comments on the Definition of ``Best Available Control
Technology'' (``BACT'')
K. Comments on Severable Portions of the Definition of
``Modification of Existing Facility'' at 30 TAC 116.10(11)(A) and
(B)
L. Comments on the Definition of Severable Subsection of
``Modification of
[[Page 19469]]
Existing Facility'' at 30 TAC 116.10(11)(G)
M. Comments on the Reinstatement of the Previously Approved
Definition of ``Facility''
N. Comments on the Definition of the Term ``Air Quality Account
Number''
O. Comments on Whether the Qualified Facilities Rules Meet NSR
Public Participation Requirements
VI. Final Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Action Is EPA Taking?
EPA is taking final action to disapprove the Texas Qualified
Facilities Program, as submitted by Texas on March 13, 1996, and July
22, 1998, in Title 30 of the Texas Administrative Code (30 TAC) at 30
TAC Chapter 116--Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New
Construction or Modification. This includes the following regulations
under Chapter 116: 30 TAC 116.116(e), 30 TAC 116.117, 30 TAC 116.118,
and the following definitions under 30 TAC 116.10--General Definitions:
30 TAC 116.10(1)--definition of ``actual emissions,'' 30 TAC
116.10(2)--definition of ``allowable emissions,'' 30 TAC 116.10(11)(E)
under the definition of ``modification of existing facility,'' and 30
TAC 116.10(16)--definition of ``qualified facility.'' These regulations
and definitions do not meet the requirements of the Act and EPA's NSR
regulations. It is EPA's position that none of these identified
elements for the submitted Qualified Facilities Program is severable
from each other.
Secondly, in an action separate from the above action on the
submitted Texas Qualified Facilities Program, we are approving the
following severable definitions: 30 TAC 116.10(8)--definition of
``grandfathered facility,'' 30 TAC 116.10(10)--definition of ``maximum
allowable emission rate table (MAERT),'' and 30 TAC 116.10(12)--
definition of ``new facility.'' It is EPA's position that these
definitions are severable from those in the submitted Texas Qualified
Facilities Program; moreover, each is severable from each other.
EPA proposed the above actions on September 23, 2009 (74 FR 48450).
We accepted comments from the public on this proposal from September
23, 2009, until November 23, 2009. A summary of the comments received
and our evaluation thereof is discussed in section V below. In the
proposal and in the Technical Support Document (TSD), we described our
basis for the actions identified above. The reader should refer to the
proposal, the TSD, section IV of this preamble, and the Response to
Comments in section V of this preamble for additional information
relating to our final action.
We are disapproving the submitted Texas Qualified Facilities
Program as not meeting the requirements for a substitute Major NSR SIP
revision. Our grounds for disapproval as a substitute Major NSR SIP
revision include the following:
It is not clearly limited to Minor NSR thereby allowing
major modifications to occur without a Major NSR permit;
It has no regulatory provisions clearly prohibiting the
use of this Program from circumventing the Major NSR SIP requirements
thereby allowing changes at existing facilities to avoid the
requirement to obtain preconstruction permit authorizations for
projects that would otherwise require a Major NSR preconstruction
permit;
It does not require that first an applicability
determination be made whether the modification is subject to Major NSR
thereby exempting new major stationary sources and major modifications
from the EPA Major NSR SIP requirements;
It does not include a demonstration from the TCEQ, as
required by 40 CFR 51.166(a)(7)(iv), showing how the use of
``modification'' is at least as stringent as the definition of
``modification'' in the EPA Major NSR SIP program
It does not include the requirement to make Major NSR
applicability determinations based on actual emissions and on emissions
increases and decreases (netting) that occur within a major stationary
source;
It fails to meet the statutory and regulatory requirements
for a SIP revision;
It is not consistent with applicable statutory and
regulatory requirements as interpreted in EPA policy and guidance on
SIP revisions; and
EPA lacks sufficient available information to determine
that the requested relaxation to the Texas Major NSR SIP will not
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress (RFP), or any other applicable requirement
of the Act.
In addition to the failures to protect Major NSR SIP requirements,
EPA cannot find that the submitted Program, as an exemption to the
State's Minor NSR SIP program, will ensure noninterference with NAAQS
attainment, and there will not be a violation of applicable portions of
a Texas SIP control strategy, as required by section 110(a)(2)(D) and
40 CFR 51.160(a)-(b). EPA cannot approve the exempting of certain
modifications from obtaining a Minor NSR SIP permit as part of the
Texas Minor NSR SIP because the Act and EPA regulations are not met and
the State has not shown that the sources will have only a de minimis
effect. The Program fails to include legally enforceable procedures to
ensure that the State will not permit a modification that will violate
the control strategies or interfere with NAAQS attainment. Our grounds
for disapproval as a Minor NSR SIP revision include the following:
It is not clearly limited to Minor NSR thereby allowing
major modifications to occur without a Major NSR permit;
It has no regulatory provisions clearly prohibiting the
use of this Program from circumventing the Major NSR SIP requirements
thereby allowing sources to avoid the requirement to obtain
preconstruction permit authorizations for projects that would otherwise
require a Major NSR preconstruction permit;
It does not require that first an applicability
determination be made whether the modification is subject to Major NSR
thereby exempting new major stationary sources and major modifications
from the EPA Major NSR SIP requirements;
It fails to meet the statutory and regulatory requirements
for a SIP revision;
It is not consistent with applicable statutory and
regulatory requirements as interpreted in EPA policy and guidance on
SIP revisions;
It is not an enforceable Minor NSR permitting program;
It lacks legally enforceable safeguards to ensure that the
exempted changes will not violate a Texas control strategy and will not
interfere with NAAQS attainment;
EPA lacks sufficient available information to determine
that the requested relaxation to the Texas Minor NSR SIP will not
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and
RFP, or any other applicable requirement of the Act.
The provisions in these submittals relating to the Texas Qualified
Facilities State Program that include the Chapter 116 regulatory
provisions and the nonseverable definitions in the General Definitions
were not submitted to meet a mandatory requirement of the Act.
Therefore, this final action to disapprove the submitted Texas
Qualified Facilities State Program does not trigger a sanctions or
Federal Implementation Plan clock. See CAA section 179(a).
[[Page 19470]]
II. What Submittals Is EPA Taking No Action On?
A. Subparagraph (F) Under the Definition of ``Federally Enforceable''
On September 18, 2002 (67 FR 58697), EPA approved the definition of
``federally enforceable'' in 30 TAC 116.10(7), introductory paragraph
and subparagraphs (A) through (E), as submitted July 22, 1998. We
proposed to take no action on the submitted severable new subparagraph
(F) under the SIP-approved definition of ``federally enforceable,''
submitted September 11, 2000, because it is outside the scope of the
SIP. See 74 FR 48450, at 48466. EPA is not finalizing action today on
the proposal concerning the submitted 30 TAC 116.10(7)(F). This
subparagraph (F) is severable from the final rulemaking on the
Qualified Facilities Program
B. Definition of ``Best Available Control Technology (BACT)''
On September 23, 2009, EPA proposed to disapprove the definition
``best available control technology (BACT)'' under 30 TAC 1161.10(3).
74 FR 48450, at 48463-48464. EPA is still reviewing approvability of
this definition; therefore, we are not taking final action on the
proposal today. This definition is severable from the final rulemaking
on the Qualified Facilities Program. We will take final action on the
definition of BACT when we take action on Texas's submission concerning
NSR Reform (Rule Project Number 2005-010-116-PR), which also addresses
BACT. See 74 FR 48450, at 48472.\1\ Under the Consent Decree entered on
January 21, 2010 in BCCA Appeal Group v. EPA, Case No. 3:08-cv-01491-N
(N.D. Tex), EPA's final action concerning NSR Reform will be finalized
by August 31, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA made this determination in a separate proposed action
published at 74 FR 48467, September 23, 2009. This proposal relates
to Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), Nonattainment NSR
(NNSR) for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard, NSR Reform, and a
Standard Permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of the Submitted Definition of
``Modification of Existing Facility''
Also, on September 23, 2009, EPA proposed to disapprove 30 TAC
116.10(11) subparagraphs (A) and (B) of the submitted definition of
``modification of existing facility,'' which are severable from the
other submissions addressed in this notice but not severable from each
other. 74 FR 48450, at 48464-48465. EPA is not taking final action
today on the proposed disapproval of these submitted subparagraphs
under the submitted definition of ``modification of existing facility''
at 30 TAC 116.0(11)(A) and (B). We are still reviewing the proposed
disapproval of these subparagraphs 30 TAC 116.10(11)(A) and (B) which
relate to ``insignificant increases.'' These subparagraphs are
severable from this final rulemaking on the Qualified Facilities
Program. We will take final action on 30 TAC 116.10(11)(A) and (B) when
we act on Texas's submission concerning Air Permits (SB 766) Phase II
(Rule Project Number 99029B-116-A1). Under the Settlement Agreement in
BCCA Appeal Group v. EPA, Case No. 3:08-cv-01491-N (N.D. Tex), that
action will be finalized by December 31, 2012. Additionally, we have
received petitions requesting EPA review of the State's implementation
of Texas Commission on Environmental Quality's (TCEQ) permit by rule
(PBR) program under Subchapter K (30 TAC Chapter 106).\2\ EPA intends
to review TCEQ's PBR program and its implementation in response to
those petitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Petitions, August 28, 2008, from the Environmental Integrity
Project on behalf of the Galveston-Houston Association for Smog
Prevention, Environmental Integrity Project, Texas Campaign for the
Environment, Sierra Club, and Public Citizen; and January 5, 2009,
supplementing the August 28, 2008, petition (the supplemental
petition added the Environmental Defense Fund as an additional
petitioner).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Subparagraph (G) of the Submitted Definition of ``Modification of
Existing Facility''
On September 23, 2009, EPA proposed to disapprove the subparagraph
(G) at 30 TAC 116.10(11) of the submitted definition of ``modification
of existing facility.'' See 74 FR 48450, at 48465. EPA is not taking
final action today on the proposed disapproval of the submitted
subparagraph (G) of the definition of ``modification of existing
facility.'' We are still reviewing the proposed disapproval of this
definition. This subparagraph states that changes to 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 emitted at the maximum
design capacity for grandfathered facilities. This definition is
severable from this rulemaking on the Qualified Facilities Program. See
74 FR 48450, at 48452. We will take final action on 30 TAC
116.10(11)(G) when we act on Texas's submission concerning Air Permits
(SB 766) Phase II (Rule Project Number 99029B-116-A1). Under the
Settlement Agreement in BCCA Appeal Group v. EPA, Case No. 3:08-cv-
01491-N (N.D. Tex), that action will be finalized by December 31, 2012.
E. Trading Provision in 30 TAC 116.116(f)
EPA proposed to take no action on the submitted portion of 30 TAC
116.116(f) that includes, among other things, a trading provision
containing a cross-reference that is no longer in Texas's rules. See 74
FR 48450, at 48465-48466. EPA is not taking final action today on this
submitted portion because we are still reviewing approvability of the
provision. This portion of the provision is severable from this
rulemaking on the Qualified Facilities Program. We will take final
action on 30 TAC 116.116(f) when we take action on Texas's submission
concerning NSR Rules Revisions; 112(g) Revisions (Rule Project No.
98001-116-AI). Under the Settlement Agreement in BCCA Appeal Group v.
EPA, Case No. 3:08-cv-01491-N (N.D. Tex), that action will be finalized
by October 31, 2011.
III. What Is the Background?
A. Summary of Our Proposed Action
Also on September 23, 2009 (74 FR 48450), EPA proposed to
disapprove revisions to the SIP submitted by the State of Texas that
relate to the Modification of Qualified Facilities. These affected
provisions include regulatory provisions at 30 TAC 116.116(e) and
definitions of ``actual emissions,'' ``allowable emissions,'' a
nonseverable portion of the definition at subparagraph (E) of
``modification of existing facility,'' and ``qualified facility'' under
Texas's General Definitions in Chapter 116, Control of Air Pollution by
Permits for New Construction or Modification. See 30 TAC 116.10(1),
(2), (11)(E), and (16), respectively. EPA finds that these submitted
provisions and definitions in the submittals affecting the Texas
Qualified Facilities Program are not severable from each other.
In the September 23, 2009, EPA also proposed to take action on
revisions to the SIP submitted by Texas that relate to the General
Definitions in Chapter 116. EPA proposed to approve three of these
submitted definitions, ``grandfathered facility,'' ``maximum allowable
emissions rate table (MAERT),'' and ``new facility'' at 30 TAC
116.10(8), (10), and (12), respectively. These definitions are
severable from the Qualified Facilities Program.
EPA proposed to make an administrative correction to the severable
submittal for the SIP-approved
[[Page 19471]]
definition of ``facility'' under 30 TAC 116.10(6). Consistent with our
proposal, EPA is finalizing this administrative correction in today's
action. Specifically, EPA corrects a typographical error at 72 FR 49198
(August 28, 2007), to clarify that the definition of ``facility,'' as
codified at 30 TAC 116.10(6), was approved as part of the Texas SIP in
2006 and remains part of the Texas SIP. 74 FR 48450, at 48465.
See Sections I and IV for further information on EPA's final action
on the above submittals.
Further, EPA proposed to disapprove the following severable
definitions: (1) the submitted definition of ``best available control
technology (BACT)'' and (2) subparagraphs (A) and (B) of the submitted
definition of ``modification of existing facility,'' which are
severable from the other submissions but not severable from each other,
and (3) subparagraph (G) of the submitted definition of ``modification
of existing facility.'' EPA proposed to take no action on the severable
submitted subparagraph (F) for the SIP-approved severable definition of
``federally enforceable'' under 30 TAC 116.10(7) because the submitted
paragraph relates to a federal program that is implemented separately
from the SIP. In addition, EPA proposed to take no action on the
severable submitted portion of a provision at 30 TAC 116.116(f) that
includes, among other things, a trading provision containing a cross-
reference that no longer is in Texas's rules. See Section II for
further information on why EPA is not taking final action today on
these submittals.
B. Summary of the Submittals Addressed in this Final Action
Table 1 below summarizes the changes that are in the SIP revision
submittals. A summary of EPA's evaluation of each section and the basis
for this action is discussed in Sections IV through VI of this
preamble. The Technical Support Document includes a detailed evaluation
of the submittals.
Table 1--Summary of Each SIP Submittal That is Affected by This Action.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submittal
Section Title dates Description of change Proposed action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30 TAC 116.10................... General Definitions
30 TAC 116.10(1)................ Definition of 3/13/1996 Added new definition... Disapproval.
``actual
emissions''.
7/22/1998 Repealed and a new
definition submitted
as paragraph (1).
30 TAC 116.10(2)................ Definition of 3/13/1996 Added new definition... Disapproval.
``allowable
emissions''.
7/22/1998 Repealed and a new
definition submitted
as paragraph (2).
9/11/2000 Revised paragraphs
(2)(A) through (D).
30 TAC 116.10(6)................ Definition of 3/13/1996 Added new definition... Administrative
``facility''. correction to
clarify the
definition of
``facility'' is in
the SIP.
7/22/1998 Repealed and a new
definition submitted
as paragraph (4).
Approved 9/6/2006 (71
FR 52698).
9/4/2002 Redesignated to
paragraph (6).
Inadvertently
identified as non-SIP
provision in 8/28/2007
SIP revision.
30 TAC 116.10(8)................ Definition of 3/13/1996 Added new definition... Approval.
``grandfathered
facility''.
7/22/1998 Repealed and a new
definition submitted
as paragraph (6).
7/31/2002 Revised definition.....
9/4/2002 Redesignated to
paragraph (8).
30 TAC 116.10(10)............... Definition of 3/13/1996 Added new definition... Approval.
``maximum
allowable emission
rate table''.
7/22/1998 Repealed and a new
definition submitted
as paragraph (8).
9/4/2002 Redesignated to
paragraph (10).
30 TAC 116.10(11)............... Definition of 3/13/1996 Added new definition... Disapproval of
``modification of subparagraph (E).
existing
facility''.
7/22/1998 Repealed and a new
definition submitted
as paragraph (9).
9/4/2002 Redesignated to
paragraph (11).
30 TAC 116.10(12)............... Definition of ``new 3/13/1996 Added new definition... Approval.
facility''.
7/22/1998 Repealed and a new
definition submitted
as paragraph (10).
9/04/2002 Redesignated to
paragraph (12).
30 TAC 116.10(16)............... Definition of 3/13/1996 Added new definition... Disapproval.
``qualified
facility''.
7/22/1998 Repealed and a new
definition submitted
as paragraph (14).
9/4/2002 Redesignated to
paragraph (16).
30 TAC 116.116.................. Changes to 3/13/1996 Added subsection (e)... Disapproval.
Facilities.
7/22/1998 Repealed and a new Disapproval.
116.116(e) submitted.
[[Page 19472]]
30 TAC 116.117.................. Documentation and 3/13/1996 Added new section...... Disapproval.
Notification of
Changes to
Qualified
Facilities.
7/22/1998 Repealed and a new
116.117 resubmitted.
30 TAC 116.118.................. Pre-Change 3/13/1996 Added new section...... Disapproval.
Qualification.
7/22/1998 Repealed and a new
116.118 submitted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Other Proposed Relevant Actions on the Texas Permitting SIP Revision
Submittals
The Settlement Agreement in BCCA Appeal Group v. EPA, Case No.
3:08-cv-01491-N (N.D. Tex), as amended, currently provides that EPA
will take final action on the State's Public Participation SIP revision
submittal on October 29, 2010. EPA intends to take final action on the
submitted Texas Flexible Permits State Program by June 30, 2010, and
the NSR SIP by August 31, 2010, as provided in the Consent Decree
entered on January 21, 2010 in BCCA Appeal Group v. EPA, Case No. 3:08-
cv-01491-N (N.D. Tex).
Additionally, EPA acknowledges and appreciates that TCEQ is
developing a proposed rulemaking package to address EPA's concerns with
the current Qualified Facilities rules. We will, of course, consider
any rule changes if and when they are submitted to EPA for review.
However, the rules before us today are those of the current Qualified
Facilities program, and we have concluded that the current program is
not approvable for the reasons set out in this notice.
IV. What Are the Grounds for This Disapproval Action of the Texas
Qualified Facilities Program?
EPA is disapproving revisions to the SIP submitted by the State of
Texas that relate to the Modification of Qualified Facilities,
identified in the above Table 1. Sources are reminded that they remain
subject to the requirements of the Federally- approved Texas SIP and
may be subject to enforcement actions for violations of the SIP. See
EPA's Revised Guidance on Enforcement During Pending SIP Revisions,
(March 1, 1991). However, because the Qualified Facilities Program is a
permitting exemption, not a permit amendment, this final disapproval
action does not affect Federal enforceability of Major and Minor NSR
SIP permits.
The provisions affected by this disapproval action include
regulatory provisions at 30 TAC 116.116(e), 116.117, and 116.118; and
definitions at 30 TAC 116.10(1), (2), (11)(E), and (16) under 30 TAC
Chapter 116, Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction
or Modification. EPA finds that these submitted provisions and
definitions in the submittals affecting the Texas Qualified Facilities
Program are not severable from each other. Specifically, EPA is making
the following findings and taking the following actions as described
below:
A. Why the Qualified Facilities Program Submittal Is Unclear Whether it
Is for a Major or Minor NSR SIP Revision
While the TCEQ and other commenters asserted that the program was
intended to be limited to Minor NSR, we continue to be concerned that
the program is not explicitly limited to Minor NSR. Specifically, EPA
finds that the submittals contain no applicability statement or
regulatory provision that limits applicability to minor modifications.
The Program is analogous to two other Minor NSR programs in Texas's SIP
because although they do not exempt facilities from NSR, as does the
Qualified Facilities Program, they do exempt facilities from obtaining
source-specific (i.e., case-by-case) permits. However, both of the
State's other Minor NSR programs include an applicability statement and
a regulatory provision that expressly limits applicability to minor
modifications.\3\ Moreover, the Texas Clean Air Act clearly prohibits
the use of these two other Minor NSR programs for Major NSR. See Texas
Health and Safety Code 382.05196 and .057. Therefore, the absence of
these provisions in the Qualified Facilities rules creates an
unacceptable ambiguity in the SIP. Without a clear statement of
applicability of the Program, the Program as submitted is confusing to
the public, regulated sources, government agencies, or a court, because
it can be interpreted as an alternative to evaluating the new
modification as a major modification under Major NSR requirements.
Because of the overbroad nature of the regulatory language in the
State's SIP revision submittal, we find that the State has failed to
limit its submitted Program only to Minor NSR. See 74 FR 48450, at
48456-48457 and Section V.E.1 below for further information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Standard Permits rules require a Major NSR applicability
determination at 30 TAC 116.610(b), and prohibit circumvention of
Major NSR at 30 TAC 116.610(c). Likewise, the Permits by Rule
provisions require a Major NSR applicability determination at 30 TAC
106.4(a)(3), and prohibit circumvention of Major NSR at 30 TAC
106.4(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consequently, we evaluated this submitted Program as being a
substitute for the Texas Major NSR SIP. We also evaluated it for
approvability as a Minor NSR SIP. Accordingly, we evaluated whether the
submitted Program meets the requirements for a Major NSR SIP revision,
the general requirements for regulating construction of any stationary
sources contained in Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA, and the
applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for an approvable SIP
revision. See 74 FR 48450, at 48457.
B. Why the Submitted Texas Qualified Facilities Program Is Not
Approvable as a Substitute Major NSR SIP Revision
EPA finds that the State failed to submit information sufficient to
demonstrate that the submitted Program's regulatory text explicitly
prevents the circumvention of Major NSR. Therefore, EPA is disapproving
the Program as not meeting the Major NSR SIP requirements to prevent
circumvention of Major NSR. See 74 FR 48450, at 48458; Sections V.C.2.
and E. below for further information.
EPA finds that that the State failed to submit information
sufficient to demonstrate that the submitted Program's regulatory text
requires an evaluation of Major Source NSR applicability before a
change is exempted from permitting. Therefore, EPA is disapproving the
Program as not meeting the Major NSR SIP requirements that require the
Major NSR applicability requirements be met. See
[[Page 19473]]
74 FR 48450, at 48458; Section V.C.2 below for further information.
We find that the Program is deficient for Major NSR netting for two
main reasons. First, the Program may allow an emission increase to net
out by taking into account emission decreases outside of the major
stationary source and, in other circumstances, allow an evaluation of
emissions of a subset of units at a major stationary source. Therefore,
the Program does not meet the CAA's definition of ``modification'' and
the Major NSR SIP requirements and is inconsistent with Alabama Power
v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323, 401-403 (DC Cir. 1980) and Asarco v. EPA, 578
F.2d 320 (DC Cir. 1978). 74 FR 48450, at 48458-48459; Section V.C.1
below. Second, the Program authorizes existing allowable emissions,
rather than actual emissions, to be used as a baseline to determine
applicability. This use of allowables is inconsistent with the
requirements of the Act for Major NSR and is contrary to New York v.
EPA, 413 F.3d 3, 38-40 (DC Cir. 2005) (``New York I''). 74 FR 48450, at
48459; Section V.C.1 below.
EPA finds that it lacks sufficient available information to
determine, pursuant to section 110(l) that the requested relaxation to
the Texas NSR SIP would not interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and RFP, or any other applicable CAA requirement.
See 74 FR 48450, at 48459 for further information.
C. Why the Submitted Texas Qualified Facilities Program Is Not
Approvable as a Minor NSR SIP Revision
EPA finds that the Program is not clearly limited to Minor NSR. The
submitted Program also does not prevent circumvention of the Major NSR
SIP requirements. The Program lacks requirements necessary for
enforcement of the applicable emissions limitations, including a permit
application and issuance process. Overall, the Program fails to include
sufficient legally enforceable safeguards to ensure that the NAAQS and
control strategies are protected. Furthermore, the Program provides a
de minimis exemption from the Texas Minor NSR SIP, and therefore, it is
a SIP relaxation, which creates a risk of interference with NAAQS
attainment, RFP, or any other requirement of the Act. EPA lacks
sufficient information to determine that this SIP relaxation would not
interfere with these requirements. 74 FR 48450, at 48463. Additionally,
the legal test for whether a de minimis threshold can be approved is
whether it is consistent with the need for a plan to include legally
enforceable procedures to ensure that the State will not permit a
source that will violate the control strategy or interfere with NAAQS
attainment, as required by 40 CFR 51.160(a)-(b). 74 FR 48450, at 48460.
The State failed to demonstrate that this exemption will not permit
changes that will violate the Texas control strategies or interfere
with NAAQS attainment. Therefore, we are disapproving the submitted
Qualified Facilities Program as a Minor NSR SIP revision because it
does not meet sections 110(a)(2)(C) and 110(l) of the Act and 40 CFR
51.160.
The Qualified Facilities Program does not ensure protection of the
NAAQS and prevent violations of any State control strategy. First, the
Program fails to ensure that all participating Qualified Facilities
must have obtained a Texas NSR SIP permit. Without the assurance that
all Qualified Facilities have obtained a Texas NSR SIP permit, EPA
cannot determine that all Qualified Facilities must have Federally
enforceable emission limitations based on the chosen control
technology, and that the Qualified Facility will not interfere with
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS or violate any control
strategy. Therefore, EPA finds that the Qualified Facilities Program is
inadequate to ensure that all Qualified Facilities have an appropriate
allowable limit to prevent interference with attainment and maintenance
of the NAAQS or violations of any State control strategy that is
required by the Texas NSR SIP. See Section V.G.1 for further
information. In addition, the Program does not require the owner or
operator to maintain the information and analysis showing how it
concluded that there will be no adverse impact on ambient air quality
before undertaking the change. Therefore, EPA finds that the Qualified
Facilities Program is inadequate to ensure that all changes under the
Program that are exempted from permitting will not prevent interference
with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS or violations of any State
control strategy that is required by the Texas NSR SIP. 74 FR 48450, at
48462; Section V.F.1.
Regarding the State's use of minor source netting in the Qualified
Facilities Program, EPA makes the following findings:
The Qualified Facilities Program is inadequate because it fails to
provide clear and enforceable requirements for a basic netting program.
Therefore, this Program, as submitted, does not meet the fundamental
requirements for an approvable Minor NSR netting program. To analyze
the Program's Minor NSR netting for approvability, we used the
fundamental principles of Major NSR and NSR netting because these
principles are designed to ensure that there is no interference with
the NAAQS and control strategies.\4\ The Major NSR netting program
requires the following: (1) An identified contemporaneous period, (2)
the reductions must be contemporaneous and creditable, (3) the
reductions must be of the same pollutant as the change, (4) the
reductions must be real, (5) the reductions must be permanent, and (6)
the reductions must be quantifiable. See 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(vi) (the
definition of ``net emissions increase''); 40 CFR 51.166(b)(3). To be
considered creditable, the reduction's old level of emissions must
exceed the new level of emissions, the reduction must be enforceable as
a practical matter at and after the time the actual change begins, and
the reduction must have approximately the same qualitative significance
for public health and welfare as that attributed to the increase from
the particular change. See 74 FR 48450, at 48461.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ However, our analysis of the netting provisions in the
Qualified Facilities Program under Minor NSR is not intended to
create a binding Agency position on evaluating the approvability of
Minor NSR netting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed below, the Program's netting provisions do not meet
all of the requirements; therefore, the Qualified Facilities netting is
disapproved as a Minor NSR netting program.
The Program fails to define a contemporaneous or other
period for the netting and that the emission reductions must occur
within that specified period. 74 FR 48450, at 48461; Section V.C.1
below.
Emissions reductions under the Qualified Facilities
program are not enforceable as a practical matter at and after the time
of the actual change begins; and therefore, not sufficiently
creditable. First, the Program fails to ensure a separate netting
analysis is performed for each proposed change because the rules are
not clear that reductions can only be relied upon once. Therefore, we
find that the Program fails to prevent double counting; and
consequently these types of reductions are not creditable. Second, the
Program does not require that each Qualified Facility involved in the
netting transaction must submit a permit application and obtain a
permit revision reflecting all of the changes made to reduce emissions
(relied upon in the netting analysis) as well as reflecting the change
itself that increased emissions. As a result, emissions reductions are
not enforceable; and therefore, not
[[Page 19474]]
sufficiently creditable. 74 FR 48450, at 48462; Section V.C.1.
EPA proposed to find that the State's ``interchange''
methodology, submitted 30 TAC 116.116(e)(3), is consistent with the
Federal requirement that reductions must be of the same pollutant as
the change.\5\ 74 FR 48450, at 48461. However, after evaluation of
received comments, EPA finds that the term ``sulfur compounds'' in 30
TAC 116.116(e)(3)(F), is broad enough to include hydrogen sulfide.
Hydrogen sulfide is a regulated NSR pollutant (see 40 CFR
52.21(b)(23)(i) and 52.21(i)(5)(i)) and, in certain instances, may
require separate analysis from sulfur oxides in a netting analysis.
Therefore, the interchange methodology may not ensure the health
impacts of all sulfur compounds will be equal. The State failed to
demonstrate that such use of hydrogen sulfide would protect the sulfur
dioxides NAAQS. Additionally, this provision allows PM-2.5 to be
interchanged with PM-10. However, because PM-10 and PM-2.5 are two
separate pollutants and the State failed to demonstrate that such use
of PM-10 would protect the PM-2.5 NAAQS, this interchange is
inappropriate. Therefore, this provision is unapprovable for the sulfur
dioxides and PM NAAQS. Section V.C.1 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(vi)(A) and 51.166(b)(3)(i), which
define net emissions increase ``with respect to any regulated NSR
pollutant.'' Emphasis added.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Program also lacks any provisions that require the
reductions to be permanent. Specifically, the submitted Program does
not include provisions that either prohibit future increases at the
Qualified Facility, or ensure that any future increase at a Qualified
Facility at which a previous netting reduction occurred is analyzed in
totality to assure that the NAAQS remains protected from the original
increase. 74 FR 48450, at 48461; Section V.C.1 below.
Section 30 TAC 116.117(b) lacks any provisions that require a
permit application to be submitted to TCEQ for a change under the
Program. There are no provisions in 30 TAC 116.117(b) that clearly
indicate that TCEQ must issue a revised permit for the changes made by
all of the participating Qualified Facilities. Thus, EPA finds that the
Program is not approvable because it lacks this requirement and
therefore is not enforceable. See 74 FR 48450, at 48462, Section V.D.1
below.
The Qualified Facilities SIP submittal is a relaxation under CAA
section 110(l) because it provides an exemption from NSR permitting not
previously available to facilities. As such, this revision creates a
risk of interference with NAAQS attainment, RFP, or any other
requirement of the Act. EPA lacks information sufficient to make a
determination that the requested SIP revision relaxation does not
interfere with any applicable requirements concerning attainment and
RFP, or any other applicable requirement of the Act, as required by
section 110(l). See 74 FR 48450, at 48463.
For the reasons discussed above in this section and as further
discussed below in Section V (Response to Comments), EPA is
disapproving the submitted Qualified Facilities Program as not meeting
section 110(a)(2)(C) and 110(l) of that Act and 40 CFR 51.160. See 74
FR 48450, at 48462.
D. Definition of ``Facility''
EPA proposed to make an administrative correction to the severable
submittal for the SIP-approved definition of ``facility'' under 30 TAC
116.10(6). Consistent with our proposal, EPA is finalizing this
administrative correction in today's action. Specifically, EPA corrects
a typographical error at 72 FR 49198 to clarify that the definition of
``facility,'' as codified at 30 TAC 116.10(6), was approved as part of
the Texas SIP in 2006 and remains part of the Texas SIP. 74 FR 48450,
at 48465.
However, EPA wishes to note that each part of the Texas NSR program
depends greatly upon the definition of ``facility'' that is applicable
to it and upon how that definition is used in context within each part
of the program. There are instances where a specific part of the Texas
NSR program does not meet the Act and EPA regulations due to the
definition of ``facility'' that applies to that part of the program.
For example Texas's PSD non-PAL rules explicitly limit the definition
of ``facility'' to ``emissions unit,'' but the NNSR non-PAL rules fail
to include such a limitation. 74 FR 48450, at 48475; compare 30 TAC
116.10(6) to 30 TAC 116.160(c)(3). TCEQ did not provide information to
demonstrate that the lack of this explicit limitation in the NNSR SIP
non-PALs revision is at least as stringent as the revised Major NSR SIP
requirements. 74 FR 48450, at 48455; Section V.M. below.
V. Response to Comments
In response to our September 23, 2009, proposal, we received
comments from the following: Sierra Club--Houston Regional Group;
Sierra Club Membership Services (including 2,062 individual comment
letters); Harris County Public Health and Environmental Services; Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality; Members of the Texas House of
Representatives; Office of the Mayor--City of Houston, Texas;
University of Texas at Austin School of Law--Environmental Clinic;
Baker Botts, L.L.P., on behalf of BCCA Appeal Group; Baker Botts,
L.L.P., on behalf of Texas Industrial Project; Bracewell & Guiliani,
L.L.P., on behalf of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council;
Gulf Coast Lignite Coalition; Texas Chemical Council.
A. General Comments
1. Comments Generally Supporting Proposal
Comment: Harris County Public Health & Environmental Services
(HCPHES) acknowledges that EPA takes issue with the TCEQ regulations
because of the lack of specificity regarding definitions and general
lack of checks and balances to ensure that Federal requirements are met
during the State's permitting processes, and because they do not meet
the Minor NSR SIP and Major NSR SIP, including the Major NSR
Nonattainment SIP requirements. Those concerns, currently unaddressed
by the TCEQ, have ultimately resulted in EPA's proposed disapproval of
portions of the TCEQ's most recent SIP submittal. HCPHES views a TCEQ
program that meets the Federal requirements as being critical to
ensuring that air quality in the Houston Galveston Brazoria (HGB) area
returns to levels compliant with the NAAQS. HCPHES is very concerned
that the TCEQ programs fall short of Federal requirements and
encourages EPA to aggressively pursue the timely correction of these
deficiencies to ensure the health, safety, and well being of the
citizens of Harris County. HCPHES supports EPA's conclusion to
disapprove portions of the SIP as proposed until such time as TCEQ
addresses all of the specifics noted in the Federal Register.
Comment: Several members of the Texas House of Representatives
support EPA's proposed disapproval of the Qualified Facilities Program.
While the Qualified Facilities Program was a legislative creation,
these members of the Texas House recognize that the statutory language
and associated regulations are inconsistent with current CAA
requirements regarding modifications and public participation.
Particular concerns are:
Inadequate TCEQ oversight. The rules authorize many
changes at facilities without any pre-approval by TCEQ or procedures
for denial for
[[Page 19475]]
cause. These off-permit changes are difficult to track and enforce and
may threaten ambient air quality.
The lack of understandable and traceable permits. Texas
industry, regulators, and the public should be able to obtain a permit,
read it, and know what quantity of what pollutants the facility is
authorized to emit. The off-permit changes authorized through the
Qualified Facilities rules prevent such transparency.
Comment: Houston Regional Group of the Sierra Club (Sierra Club)
supports EPA's analysis and agrees that all of the September 23, 2009,
proposals (including the Qualified Facilities Program) should be
disapproved. The commenter generally supported EPA's proposed
disapproval of the Qualified Facilities Program; Flexible Permits
Program; and Texas Major and Minor NSR SIP for 1997 8-hour and 1-hour
ozone NAAQS, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) SIP, and
Standard Permit for Pollution Control Projects. The commenter provided
additional comments on our proposed disapproval of the Flexible Permits
Program, which EPA will address in its separate action on the Flexible
Permits Program.
Response: Generally, these comments support EPA's analysis of
Texas's Qualified Facilities Program as discussed in detail at 74 FR
48450, at 48455-48463, and further support EPA's action to disapprove
the Qualified Facilities submission.
Comment: The Sierra Club Membership Services (SCMS) sent numerous
similar letters via e-mail that relate to this action. These comments
include 1,789 identical letters (sent via e-mail), which included the
following comments:
The TCEQ is broken and the commenters applaud EPA's
proposed ruling that major portions of the TCEQ air permitting program
does not adhere to the CAA and should be thrown out;
While agreeing that the proposed disapprovals are a good
first step, the commenters state that EPA should take bold actions as
follows:
--Halting any new air pollution permits being issued by TCEQ utilizing
TCEQ's current illegal policy;
--Creating a moratorium on the operations of any new coal fired power
plants in Texas until TCEQ cleans up its act by operating under the
Federal CAA;
--Requiring coal companies clean up their old, dirty plants--no
exceptions, no bailouts, and no special treatment--by reviewing all
permits issued since TCEQ adopted its illegal policies and requiring
that these entities resubmit their applications in accordance with the
Federal CAA; and
--Put stronger rules in place in order to reduce global-warming
emissions and to make sure new laws and rules do not allow existing
coal plants to continue polluting with global warming emissions.
The commenters further state that Texas: (1) Has more
proposed coal and pet coke fired power plants than any other state in
the nation; (2) Is number 1 in carbon emissions; and (3) Is on the list
for the largest increase in emissions over the past five years.
The commenters do not want coal to stand in the way of a
clean energy future in Texas. Strong rules are needed to make sure the
coal industry is held responsible for their mess and that no permits
are issued under TCEQ's illegal permitting process. Strong regulations
are vital to cleaning up the energy industry and putting Texas on a
path to clean energy technology that boosts economic growth, creates
jobs in Texas, and protects the air quality, health, and communities.
In addition, SCMS sent 273 similar letters (sent via e-mail) that
contained additional comments. These additional comments include the
following:
Commenters suggest that Texas rely on wind power, solar
energy, and natural gas as clean alternatives to coal.
Other comments expressed general concerns related to:
Impacts on global warming, lack of commitment by TCEQ to protect air
quality, the need for clean energy efficient growth, impacts of upon
human health, endangerment of wildlife, impacts on creation of future
jobs in Texas, plus numerous other similar concerns.
Response: To the extent the SCMS letters comment on the proposed
disapproval of the Qualified Facility program, they support EPA's
action to disapprove the Qualified Facilities submission. The remaining
comments are outside the scope of our proposed action relating to the
Qualified Facilities Program.
Comment: The Environmental Clinic, the University of Texas at
Austin School of Law (UT Environmental Clinic) commented that EPA
should disapprove several other sections of 30 TAC Chapter 116.
Response: This final rulemaking only addresses the Qualified
Facilities Program. Therefore, issues related to other portions of
Texas's regulations are outside the scope of this rulemaking.
2. Comments Generally Opposing Proposal
Comment: TCEQ provided several general comments on the proposal.
The TCEQ commented that the Qualified Facilities Program was developed
by the 74th Texas Legislature through Senate Bill (SB) 1126, which
became effective May 19, 1995. SB 1126 amended the Texas Clean Air Act
by revising the definition of ``modification of existing facility,''
which changed the factors used to determine whether a modification for
State permitting (i.e. Minor NSR) has occurred. In 1996, 30 TAC Chapter
116 was revised to incorporate this legislative directive. These
changes provide that modifications may be made to existing facilities
without triggering the State's Minor NSR requirements whenever: (1) The
facility to be modified has received a permit, permit amendment, or has
been exempted from permitting requirements no earlier than 120 months
from when the change will occur; or (2) uses air pollution control
methods that are at least as effective as the Minor NSR SIP best
available control technology (BACT) that the Commission required 120
months before the change will occur. Such facilities are designated as
``qualified facilities.''
TCEQ has always considered the Qualified Facilities Program to be
applicable only to Minor NSR and not applicable to Major NSR, although
this is not specifically stated in the rule. In summary, under the
Qualified Facilities Program, TCEQ: (1) Determines Federal
applicability as a first step in processing a Qualified Facilities
request; and uses actual emissions, not allowable emission rates; (2)
applies Federal NSR requirements when triggered; (3) does not
circumvent Federal requirements applicable to major stationary sources
or major modifications; (4) considers the use of ``modification'' to be
separate and severable from the Federal definition of ``modification''
as reflected in the SIP-approved Major NSR Program; and (5) does not
violate the approved SIP with regard to Major NSR or Minor NSR Program
requirements.
Comment: The Texas Chemical Council (TCC) comments that it would be
short-cited to analyze the three programs (Qualified Facilities,
Flexible Permits, and NSR Reform) apart from the dramatic improvements
in the air quality in Texas in the past 15 years. TCC goes on to
describe these improvements. TCC supports full approval of Qualified
Facilities. The Qualified Facilities Program is not intended to shield
a source from major NSR. The Program is a robust, Federally enforceable
program. The Qualified
[[Page 19476]]
Facilities Program is authorized by the TCAA, promotes flexibility, and
allows sources to make certain changes without triggering NSR. If Major
NSR is triggered, a facility cannot be a Qualified Facility. The
definition of a Qualified Facility makes it clear that a Qualified
Facility is an existing facility. A Qualified Facility may make a
physical change in or change the operation of that facility as long as
the change does not result in a net increase in allowable emissions of
any air contaminant and does not result in the emission of any air
contaminant not previously emitted. Additionally, the facility must be
using equipment at least as effective as the BACT required by TCEQ. TCC
supports full approval of the three Texas air permitting program
submittals. The SIP revisions submitted to EPA by TCEQ over the last 15
years are critical components to Texas air permitting program. Texas
should not be punished for EPA's failure to act within the statutory
timeframe in the CAA. EPA offers little or no legal justification for
proposing disapproval of these programs. EPA's proposed action will
have an enormous impact on the country's largest industrial state. The
SIP revision submittals for these programs are at least as stringent as
the applicable Federal requirements and should be fully approved.
Comment: Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, counsel to the Electric
Reliability Coordinating Council (ERCC), commented that Qualified
Facilities provides incentives to implement pollution reduction
measures at existing facilities. EPA's proposed disapproval does not
provide any evidence that this authorization is actually used for major
modifications or in fact interferes with air quality improvements.
Discontinuance of this program could deter or delay many pollution
reduction measures because the cost and resources associated with a
full notice and comment case-by-case permit would outweigh the economic
benefits of the additional controls. EPA should determine that the
Qualified Facilities Program satisfies the CAA requirements for a state
minor source program and retract the SIP disapproval and approve this
SIP revision. EPA should recognize the validity of permits issued under
the Texas permitting program and refrain from taking enforcement
actions to address EPA concerns.
Comment: Jackson Walker, LLP, counsel to Gulf Coast Lignite
Coalition GCLC, provided the following general comments on all three
proposed disapprovals (Qualified Facilities, Flexible Permits, and NSR
Reform): (1) Commenters disagree with all the proposed disapprovals
because the SIP as implemented by TCEQ meets or exceeds CAA
requirements and has met the goals of the CAA; (2) EPA has a history of
focusing on results; so, EPA should look beyond immaterial differences
in the rule provisions and focus on the positive results that Texas has
achieved under the TCAA and the State's submittals; (3) Texas sources
have relied on the submitted rules for as long as 15 years in some
cases. To disapprove the submittals after so long puts too much burden
on the regulated community, creates regulatory uncertainty, hurts the
vulnerable economy by potentially increasing compliance costs, and may
discourage future business expansion; and (4) GCLC requests that EPA
work collaboratively, not combatively, with TCEQ to resolve any issues
under the CAA.
Comment: B