Rule2026-05596
Air Plan Approval; Texas; Reasonably Available Control Technology in the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Ozone Nonattainment Area
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
March 23, 2026
Effective
April 22, 2026
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or "the Act"), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving revisions to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements for the Houston- Galveston-Brazoria (HGB), 2008 8-hour ozone National Air Quality Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Serious nonattainment area (NAA). The revisions were submitted to the EPA by the State of Texas ("the State") on May 13, 2020. EPA is also approving the VOC RACT negative declarations included in the Serious area Attainment Demonstration (AD) SIP revision.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 55 (Monday, March 23, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 55 (Monday, March 23, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13739-13747]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-05596]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R06-OAR-2020-0165; FRL-12829-02-R6]
Air Plan Approval; Texas; Reasonably Available Control Technology
in the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Ozone Nonattainment Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or ``the Act''),
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving revisions to the
Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning volatile organic
compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>) Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements for the Houston-
Galveston-Brazoria (HGB), 2008 8-hour ozone National Air Quality
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Serious nonattainment area (NAA).
The revisions were submitted to the EPA by the State of Texas (``the
State'') on May 13, 2020. EPA is also approving the VOC RACT negative
declarations included in the Serious area Attainment Demonstration (AD)
SIP revision.
DATES: This rule is effective on April 22, 2026.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2020-0165. All documents in the docket are
listed on the <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet. Publicly available
docket materials are available electronically through <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Emad Shahin, EPA Region 6 Office,
Infrastructure and Ozone Section, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas,
Texas,
[[Page 13740]]
telephone number: (214) 665-6717, email address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#35465d545d5c5b1b50585451755045541b525a43"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bbc8d3dad3d2d595ded6dadffbdecbda95dcd4cd">[email protected]</span></a> or
Ms. Anupa Ahuja, EPA Region 6 Office, Infrastructure and Ozone Section,
telephone number: (214) 665-2701, email address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6809001d02094609061d1809280d1809460f071e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1a7b726f707b347b746f6a7b5a7f6a7b347d756c">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' means the EPA.
I. Background
The background for this action is discussed in detail in (1) our
proposed rule published on March 10, 2021 (86 FR 13679) to approve
revisions to the Texas SIP for VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> RACT submitted by
Texas on May 13, 2020; (2) our July 24, 2025, supplemental proposal (90
FR 34790) for the VOC portion; and (3) our September 5, 2025,
supplemental proposal (90 FR 42887) for the NO<INF>X</INF> portion.
In this final action, we are approving the May 13, 2020, revisions
to the Texas SIP as meeting the 2008 8-hour ozone Serious
classification RACT level control requirements consistent with section
172(c)(1) and 182 of the CAA for the HGB NAA, with the exception of the
requirement to implement RACT for sources subject to the 2016 Oil and
Natural Gas Industry Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) because the
EPA has already taken final action via a different rulemaking process
to approve those SIP revisions.\1\ This action also approves the CTG
RACT negative declarations made by Texas in its May 13, 2020, SIP
revisions for fiberglass boat manufacturing materials, manufacturing of
pneumatic rubber tires, flat wood paneling coatings, letterpress
printing, and automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings sectors
in the HGB area. Texas stated in its May 13, 2020, submittal that it
did not locate any major sources subject to the NO<INF>X</INF>
Emissions from Cement Manufacturing Alternative Control Techniques
(ACT) document.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The EPA's approval of the revisions to the Texas SIP
concerning RACT requirements for sources covered by the 2016 Oil and
Natural Gas Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) for the DFW and HGB
nonattainment areas under the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 88 FR 55379
(August 15, 2023).
\2\ See 86 FR 13679, 13682 (March 10, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the EPA's March 2021 rulemaking proposing approval of the
May 2020 SIP revision, the EPA received comments from Air Alliance
Houston, Earthjustice, Sierra Club, Texas Environmental Justice
Advocacy Services (``t.e.j.a.s.''), and Harris County. The comments are
available in the docket for this rulemaking. Our responses to all
relevant comments follow this section.
Because of the comments the EPA received on the March 2021
proposal, the EPA provided additional analysis in our Technical Support
Documents (TSDs) associated with our July and September 2025
supplemental proposals (referred to as the ``supplemental proposals'',
``supplemental NO<INF>X</INF> TSD'', ``supplemental VOC TSD'', or
``supplemental TSDs''). Our supplemental NO<INF>X</INF> TSD analysis in
table 1 (pages 5-20) lists Chapter 117 Emissions Specifications for
Attainment Demonstration (ESAD) rates for each category of sources in
the HGB NAA. We gathered and analyzed relevant information, including
comments received during the 2021 comment period, Texas' rulemaking
record which contained information on specific control technologies and
technical and economic feasibility for the ESAD rates, Texas Register
documents which included Texas' response to comments on the rulemaking,
and recent documents issued by EPA (such as the 2017 OTC Draft White
Paper on Control Technologies, OTC State Regulations from Eight Source
Categories, 2019 OTC State Regulations from Eight Source Categories,
and 2019 OTC Regulatory and Technical Guideline for Control of Nitrogen
Oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>) Emissions from Natural Gas Pipeline Compressor
Fuel[hyphen]Fired Prime Movers). In our 2025 supplemental VOC TSD, the
EPA performed an additional evaluation of Texas' VOC RACT which
considered relevant information including comparing Texas' CTGs and
non-CTG categorical RACT rules to other relevant state rules, and
review of EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC), NSPS, MACT
standards, and NESHAPs, where applicable (see Supplemental VOC TSD,
pages 2-50). Consistent with this analysis, we proposed to determine
that Texas' EPA-previously-approved Chapter 115 and 117 rules still
fulfill the RACT level of control requirements for sources of VOC and
NO<INF>X</INF> in the HGB Serious ozone nonattainment area for the
purpose of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The supplemental VOC and
NO<INF>X</INF> TSDs that accompanied the supplemental proposals are
provided in the docket.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See EPA-R06-OAR-2012-0010 and EPA-R06-OAR-21-0055, available
through the <a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a> website at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
In these actions, EPA found that RACT provisions of CAA 172(c)(1)
and 182(b)(2) are being met for the HGB Moderate nonattainment area
for the purposes of the 2008 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA received no substantive technical comments on VOC or
NO<INF>X</INF> RACT on the supplemental proposals or supplemental TSDs
supporting EPA's proposed approval during the public comment period.
Comments were received from Texas (which were mainly corrections and
clarifications for the record) and two anonymous commenters.
In this final action, we are responding to comments received on the
2021 proposal, even though those comments are not reflective of EPA's
supplemental proposals or the supplemental TSDs. Our additional
analysis found in the supplemental proposals and supplemental TSDs was
conducted, in part, in response to the adverse comments we received in
2021. We note that we did not receive any adverse comments on the 2025
supplemental proposals or supplemental TSDs. We have also responded to
Texas' comments and non-substantive technical comments received on the
supplemental proposals and supplemental TSDs; the comments are
available in the docket for this action.
II. Response to Comments
We received comments from five entities on the 2021 proposed
rulemaking and comments from three entities on the supplemental
proposals.
A. Disproportionate Impacts of NAAQS Violations to Communities
Comment: Several commenters asserted that unhealthy air impacts
residents of the HGB NAA, especially those in environmental justice
communities. Commenters urged the EPA to bring relief to communities
across the state that suffer a disproportionate impact from violations
to federal (CAA) and state regulations.
Response: First, the EPA notes that Executive Order 14148,
``Initial Rescission of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions'' (90 FR
8237, January 28, 2025), revoked certain past Executive Orders that
specifically addressed environmental justice concerns, including
Executive Order 12898 and Executive Order 14094. Further, under section
110(k)(3) of the CAA, the EPA is required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the CAA. The EPA has determined
that the RACT SIP submittals at issue in this action do meet all
applicable requirements of the CAA, and therefore the EPA is finalizing
approval of the relevant SIP revisions. Implementation of RACT is
designed to assist with improving air quality in the nonattainment
area. To the extent commenters are raising concerns about violations of
the CAA and/or state regulations, those concerns are outside the scope
of this action which is only evaluating the approvability of the
identified RACT SIP revisions.
[[Page 13741]]
B. Adverse Impacts Associated With Ozone NAAQS Violations
Comment: The EPA received several comments regarding the adverse
health impacts of ozone on Houston residents.
Response: We agree that excessive ozone pollution is a significant
health issue in the HGB area, but we also recognize that significant
progress has been made in reducing ozone levels in the area. We
recognize that further improvement is necessary in the area to meet the
current ozone NAAQS and protect public health. The HGB area was
designated as nonattainment for the 1-hour and the 1997 8-hour revoked
ozone NAAQS and is now designated as nonattainment for the two current
(2008 and 2015) 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\4\ As a result, the State and HGB
NAA--including local governments, business and industry--have
implemented measures to reduce emissions of NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC that
form ozone. A list of permanent and enforceable measures that have been
implemented in the HGB NAA under the 1-hour and the 1997 8-hour revoked
ozone NAAQS may be found in 40 CFR 52.2270.\5\ The HGB NAA was recently
reclassified as a Severe nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS,
and therefore, the State is required to submit SIP revisions and
implement controls to satisfy the statutory and regulatory requirements
for a Severe area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\6\ Further, implementation
of RACT is designed to assist with improving air quality in the
nonattainment area. This action, which is finalizing the EPA's approval
of RACT SIP amendments to fulfill CAA ozone nonattainment plan
requirements, demonstrates that the State and the EPA continue to work
together to address air quality concerns in the HGB nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For the 1-hour and 1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone standards, the
Houston nonattainment area consists of Brazoria, Chambers, Fort
Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery, and Waller Counties:
56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991); 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004); and 77
FR 30088 (May 21, 2012). For the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the
Houston nonattainment area consists of Brazoria, Chambers, Fort
Bend, Galveston, Harris, and Montgomery Counties, 83 FR 25776 (June
4, 2018).
\5\ EPA also approved the HGB RACT for the 2008 Moderate ozone
NAAQS. See 84 FR 18145 (April 30, 2019).
\6\ See 87 FR 60926 (October 7, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. EPA's CTGs and ACTs and Texas' Rules Are Outdated, EPA Provided no
RACT Analysis To Support Its Approval of HGB RACT, and EPA's Approval
Is Unlawful
Comment: In 2021, commenters claimed that the EPA's CTGs and ACTs
are outdated as guidance documents for RACT, and that the contents of
the Texas rules and the CTG/ACT documents--i.e., the numerical
emissions requirements, control efficiency requirements, or work
practices--do not reflect current levels of performance. The commenters
also claim that many of Texas' VOC rules, and all of the Texas' 30 TAC
Chapter 117 rules dealing with NO<INF>X</INF> are also outdated.
Commenters further claimed in 2021 that approving Texas' RACT SIP
would be unlawful and arbitrary because Texas failed to meet its
statutory requirements under the Clean Air Act because it did not
evaluate additional measures that could reduce emissions in the HGB
area and relied on its existing controls. Commenters claimed that the
EPA's 2021 proposal to approve Texas' RACT SIP is unlawful, and
contrary to the EPA's own rule on implementing the 2008 ozone NAAQS and
case law. The commenters claim that, based on case law and the EPA's
statutory authority, the EPA must ``adequately explain'' its RACT
determinations, including explaining decisions that are contradictory
to information in the record.
Response: As stated in EPA's March 2021 proposal, EPA previously
approved Texas' NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC RACT limits and analysis for
HGB's Severe area RACT requirements under the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.\7\ The EPA acknowledges that over time, control strategies/
technologies may result in a change in what represents RACT for a
particular category of emissions sources. In response to this concern
raised by comments on the March 2021 proposal, the EPA provided
additional analysis, explained above, in our 2025 supplemental
proposals and supplemental NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC TSDs. As noted above,
in 2025, during the public comment period for the supplemental
proposals and supplemental TSDs, EPA received no adverse comments on
the content or quality of our analysis or conclusions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 86 FR 13679, 13681 (March 10, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2021, EPA received comments that highlighted several specific
control technologies for RACT implementation to reduce NO<INF>X</INF>
and VOC emissions. Those specific comments are addressed in detail
further below. In this general comment, commenters did not present any
new technologies or any specific RACT limits for any category of
sources.
D. Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM)
Comment: In 2021, several comments were received on disapproving or
``pulling'' Texas' RACM.
Response: EPA did not propose approval of Texas' RACM in 2021 nor
in the 2025 supplemental proposals. RACM is outside the scope of this
action.
E. Texas' Failure To Attain by the Attainment Date
In 2021, the EPA received several comments related to Texas'
failure to attain by its attainment date and CAA requirements related
to a failure to attain. The comments claim the following:
<bullet> Since the state failed to meet its attainment deadlines,
additional controls are needed but the state's submission would keep
the same RACT determinations used for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS;
<bullet> Texas claims that ``additional control measures are not
necessary for the area to demonstrate attainment by the attainment
date'';
<bullet> The CAA does not restrict RACT requirements only for when
a state deems them necessary; it mandates RACT when an area fails an
attainment deadline, and the technology meets certain criteria;
<bullet> To remedy its failure to meet its attainment deadlines,
Texas is statutorily required to implement RACT-level controls on
existing sources in this nonattainment area.
<bullet> Texas has not updated its RACT rules to require more
stringent measures to reduce NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC emissions in the
HGB NAA;
<bullet> When areas fail to meet deadlines, the Act requires
enhanced air pollution abatement measures so that the area can meet its
next deadline. The HGB area failed to meet a deadline and Texas must
implement enhanced control technologies.
Response: Comments on failure to attain by the attainment date are
beyond the scope of this final action. The fact that the HGB NAA failed
to attain the NAAQS is not relevant to the question of whether the RACT
SIP revisions at issue here comport with the CAA. In this action, the
EPA is approving the Serious area RACT requirements for the HGB NAA
under the 2008 standard. The TSDs for the supplemental proposals detail
our review of relevant information, including comments submitted to the
EPA, to support our determination that the Texas Chapter 115 and 117
rules fulfill RACT level control requirements for the Serious
classification.
[[Page 13742]]
F. Concerns Regarding RACT Control Technologies and Determination
Comment: In 2021, several commenters stated Texas proposes no new
RACT and did not address control technologies identified in public
comment. Commenters request that the EPA require that Texas implement
new and better control technologies. Commenters requested that the EPA
conduct an independent analysis of RACT in the HGB area.
Response: In response to this comment on our 2021 proposed
approval, EPA provided additional analysis that is outlined in the 2025
supplemental TSDs for the supplemental proposals. As explained earlier
in the background section of this final action, EPA considered relevant
information, including comments on control technologies received in the
2021 comment period. We do not address specific technologies in
response to this broad and general comment made in 2021 but do respond
in detail to 2021 comments with specificity further below.
Comment: In response to the EPA's 2021 proposal, commenters claimed
that Texas failed to meet the standard outlined by the EPA that would
allow the state to use its previous RACT determination. Specifically,
commenters claim that the Texas final action failed to respond to
comments that they received that outlined how additional controls could
result in a large reduction of emissions in the HGB area. Commenters
state that many of the largest sources of NO<INF>X</INF> emissions in
the HGB area are associated with electric power generation. Commenters
claim that Texas did not conduct any analysis of the largest
NO<INF>X</INF> source, W.A. Parish station or consider additional
controls for NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC at this source.
Response: EPA disagrees with commenters' claim that Texas failed to
respond to comments. Texas identified comments submitted by
Earthjustice on behalf of Achieving Community Tasks Successfully, Air
Alliance Houston, Earthjustice, Sierra Club, and Texas Environmental
Justice Advocacy Services (Earthjustice). In its response to comments
document,\8\ Texas responded to Earthjustice's comments on pages 2, 3,
6, 10-12, 14-17, 19-20, and 22. With respect to the specific comment on
W.A. Parish station, the Earthjustice comment is on page 20, and
Texas's response is on pages 21-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See ``TCEQ Response to Comments--HGB 2008 Ozone'' in the
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA disagrees with commenters 2021 characterization of a state's
obligation with respect to a RACT determination. In 2015, EPA published
the final SIP Requirements Rule (SRR) for implementing the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS (80 FR 12279, March 6, 2015). EPA described in the SRR an
approach ``allowing in some cases for states to conclude that sources
already addressed by RACT determinations for the 1-hour and/or the 1997
ozone NAAQS do not need to implement additional controls to meet the
2008 ozone NAAQS RACT requirement'' and noted that ``in some cases, a
new RACT determination would result in the same or similar control
technology under the 1-hour or 1997 standard because fundamental
control techniques, as described in the CTGs and ACTs, are still
applicable.'' Importantly, EPA stated that while states should refer to
the existing CTGs and ACTs for purposes of informing their RACT
requirements, in doing an updated assessment of RACT for the
nonattainment the state should also refer to ``all relevant information
(including recent technical information and information received during
the public comment period) that is available at the time that they are
developing their RACT SIPs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.''
As stated earlier, our 2025 supplemental proposals and
supplementals TSDs detail our analysis of the ESAD rates. Specifically
with respect to the W.A. Parish station, table 1, pages 17-18 of our
supplemental NO<INF>X</INF> TSD, identified the relevant information
considered by EPA in support of our approval, including ESAD rates,
combustion control technologies, flue gas controls, and other state
RACT rules for similar categories of sources. We have also responded in
more detail to specific technical comments on W.A. Parish that the EPA
received in 2021 elsewhere in this final action. In 2025, no comment
was received on our supplemental proposals and supplemental
NO<INF>X</INF> TSD for the W.A. Parish station.
Comment: In 2021, Commenters claim that a RACT determination is
unlawful and arbitrary when other states have RACT requirements that
are more stringent.
Response: The EPA disagrees with this general claim expressed by
commenters in 2021. RACT is defined as ``the lowest emission limitation
that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of
control technology that is reasonably available considering
technological and economic feasibility'' \9\ Technological and economic
feasibility can be affected by many factors including, but not
necessarily limited to, geographic location of the source, industry/
source specific considerations, and operational considerations. There
are many variables that can result in variations in RACT determinations
in different nonattainment areas, and for different sources, or groups
of sources. Just because RACT has been determined to be one thing for
certain sources in a certain state, that does not automatically mean
that RACT is always the same for similar sources in all states. The EPA
has reviewed Texas' SIP submissions and rulemaking records for their
analysis and RACT determination. In the EPA's 2025 supplemental
proposal actions, we provided a summary of our evaluation and we
received no comment on our supplemental proposals or TSDs related to
the stringency of RACT in other state rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 44 FR 53762 (September 17, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: In 2021, commenters quote language from a decision issued
by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit and assert that RACT determinations must be made and
implemented quickly, even with ``potentially expensive technology or
expensive process changes to reduce pollution.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Miss. Comm'n on Envtl. Quality v. EPA, 790 F.3d 138,
146 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: The CAA case cited by the commenters is not on point for
this action. The cited case briefly mentions ``reasonably available
control technology'' (when listing statutory language provided in the
CAA), but the case does not address the EPA's review and approval of a
state's RACT SIP submittal. The EPA agrees in general with the concepts
that the state ``must reach attainment as expeditiously as possible'',
that the EPA ``may extend the attainment date to the extent [it]
determines appropriate'',\11\ and that implementing control technology
to meet CAA requirements may be potentially expensive. This final
action does not conflict with the caselaw cited by commenters, nor does
this caselaw speak directly to the issue of whether the RACT SIP
revisions at issue in this action ought to be approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Control Technologies
Comment: In 2021, commenters suggested a RACT framework that could:
``(a) identify the NO<INF>X</INF> rates for each such large source; (b)
identify the current NO<INF>X</INF> controls if any (such as: low
NO<INF>X</INF> burners, ultra-low NO<INF>X</INF> burners, flue gas
recirculation (FGR), over-fire air, SNCR, or SCR, etc.) that each
source has; (c) identify, based on (a) and (b), the additional
NO<INF>X</INF>
[[Page 13743]]
reductions that can be obtained if additional or higher/better types of
technically feasible NO<INF>X</INF> controls could be applied; (d)
determine cost-effectiveness of the additional controls.''
Response: The EPA does not consider the source-specific review
methodology presented by commenters as necessary to fulfilling RACT
requirements when a state is not submitting source-specific RACT in a
SIP revision. The EPA's obligation under CAA sections 110(k)(2) and (3)
is to evaluate and act on the SIP revisions submitted by the state. In
this instance, Texas did not submit source-specific RACT determinations
akin to what the commenter is suggesting. States have discretion in
terms of how they wish to fulfill their RACT obligations. The EPA's
role here is to evaluate and act on the SIP revisions submitted by the
state. Our 2025 supplemental NO<INF>X</INF> TSD, table 1, pages 16-20
confirmed that Texas considered the same technologies as identified by
the commenters for the Chapter 117 ESAD rates. In 2025, EPA did not
receive any comments on technologies that Texas should have considered.
Comment: In 2021, commenters state that Texas provides little
explanation as to why it rejected commenters' RACT recommendations.
Commenters stated the W.A. Parish plant coal-burning units burn more
efficiently than the gas-burning units. Commenters speculate that
maintenance on the installed controls is the cause.
Response: This 2021 comment did not make a RACT-specific
recommendation. Our 2025 supplemental NO<INF>X</INF> TSD, table 1, page
17, details our analysis of the ESAD rates for gas-fired and coal-fired
utility boilers. The ESAD rates for the gas-fired utility boilers
category of sources are lower than the ESAD rates for the coal-fired
utility boilers category of sources. The 2025 supplemental TSD details
EPA's review in support of its approval of the ESAD rates for both of
these categories of sources as fulfilling RACT requirements (see Table
1, page 17). The EPA's obligation under CAA sections 110(k)(2) and (3)
is to evaluate and act on the SIP revisions submitted by the state. In
this instance, Texas did not submit source-specific RACT determinations
for W.A. Parish. States have discretion in terms of how they wish to
fulfill their RACT obligations. The EPA's role here is to evaluate and
act on the SIP revisions submitted by the state.
In 2025, EPA did not receive a comment on the supplemental proposal
or supplemental NO<INF>X</INF> TSD on ESAD rates for gas-fired or coal-
fired utility boiler units.
Comment: In 2021, commenters identified several available control
technologies and claimed that Texas did not adequately analyze them.
For boilers and furnaces, commenters identify ultra-low NO<INF>X</INF>
burners, flue gas recirculation, selective non-catalytic reduction, and
selective catalytic reduction. For turbines, commenters identify dry
low NO<INF>X</INF> combustors followed by SCR. Commenters also state
that Texas did not address maintenance and efficiency of installed
controls, including available NO<INF>X</INF> reductions at the W.A.
Parish power plant.
Response: The 2021 comment broadly categorizes ``boilers, furnaces,
and heaters'', but Texas regulates eight categories of boilers, six
categories of furnaces, two categories of turbines, and one category of
heaters. Our 2025 supplemental NO<INF>X</INF> TSD, table 1 page 5-19,
contains our analysis and review for all of the different types of
sources identified by the 2021 commenters. Page 4 of the 2025
supplemental NO<INF>X</INF> TSD broadly identifies Texas' ``Tier I'' as
combustion modifications (low NO<INF>X</INF> burners, dry low
NO<INF>X</INF> burners (DLN), mid kiln firing), ``Tier II'' (flue gas)
controls (i.e., Selective Non-catalytic Reduction (SNCR), Selective
Catalytic Reduction (SCR, NO<INF>X</INF> oxidation scrubbers), and
``Tier III'' controls as a combination of Tier I and Tier II controls.
The EPA's 2025 supplemental NO<INF>X</INF> TSD confirmed that, for the
Chapter 117 ESAD rates, Texas considered the same technologies as
identified by the commenters. We did not receive any technology
specific comments on our 2025 supplemental proposals or supplemental
NO<INF>X</INF> TSD for these categories of sources.
Comment: In 2021, commenters state that table F-4 (the last column)
in appendix F of Texas' submittal shows the NO<INF>X</INF> RACT rules
that apply to each source per Texas and the rules in Sec. Sec. 117.300
through 117.356 apply to almost every one of these sources. Section
117.305 addresses the NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from gas-fired
combustion equipment, such as boilers and heaters burning natural gas,
expressed in lb/MMBtu of heat input to such devices. Commenters claim
that the requirements of Sec. 117.305 for gas-fired combustion
equipment are outdated and are not consistent with current RACT. Thus,
EPA's approval of Sec. 117.305 in its current form is improper because
it does not represent current RACT.
Response: The EPA agrees that table F-4 lists the Chapter 117 rules
applicable to NO<INF>X</INF> major sources and that list includes
section 117.305. However, Sec. 117.305(g) states that the section no
longer applies after the appropriate compliance date(s) for emission
specifications for attainment demonstration (referred to as ESAD rates)
The ESAD rates are listed in Sec. 117.310. 30 TAC Sec. 117.9020(2)(F)
requires compliance by March 31, 2005. Therefore, Sec. 117.305 rates
no longer apply. Our 2025 supplemental proposals and supplemental TSDs
detail our review of relevant information, including comments submitted
to EPA, to support its determination that ESAD rates fulfill RACT
requirements. We received no comments on our 2025 supplemental
proposals or supplemental NO<INF>X</INF> TSD for these categories of
sources.
Comment: In 2021, Commenters claim that W.A. Parish coal units,
each equipped with SCR, has had a deterioration in the SCR performance,
as reflected in the higher NO<INF>X</INF> rates for the recent years as
compared to the NO<INF>X</INF> rates in the years immediately after SCR
installation. Commenters further claim that replacing catalyst and
obtaining post-SCR NO<INF>X</INF> levels that are similar to original
performance is RACM and RACT.
Response: Our 2025 supplemental NO<INF>X</INF> TSD (table 1, page
17) details our review of the category of sources that include gas-
fired and coal-fired utility boilers. The ESAD rates for the coal-fired
utility boilers category of sources has not changed over time.
The EPA's obligation under CAA sections 110(k)(2) and (3) is to
evaluate and act on the SIP revisions submitted by the state. In this
instance, Texas did not submit source-specific RACT determinations for
W.A. Parish. States have discretion in terms of how they wish to
fulfill their RACT obligations. The EPA's role here is to evaluate and
act on the SIP revisions submitted by the state.
Commenters did not present any information or analysis to support
their claim that replacing the catalyst on coal-fired utility boilers
equipped is RACT for this category of sources. Our 2025 supplemental
NO<INF>X</INF> TSD (see pages 17-18) details EPA's review in support of
its approval of the ESAD rates for this category of sources as
fulfilling RACT requirements. We received no comments on our 2025
supplemental proposals or supplemental NO<INF>X</INF> TSD for these
categories of sources.
Comment: In 2021, commenters claim that Texas' HGB SIP RACM and
RACT analyses do not address NO<INF>X</INF> sources. Commenters claim
that a RACM/RACT analysis must: (a) identify the NO<INF>X</INF> rates
for each such large source; (b) identify the current NO<INF>X</INF>
controls if any (such as: low NO<INF>X</INF> burners, ultra-low
NO<INF>X</INF> burners, flue gas recirculation (FGR),
[[Page 13744]]
over-fire air, SNCR, or SCR, etc.) that each such source has; (c)
identify, based on (a) and (b), the additional NO<INF>X</INF>
reductions that can be obtained if additional or higher/better types of
technically feasible NO<INF>X</INF> controls could be applied; (d)
determine cost-effectiveness of the additional controls. Typical (i.e.,
installed in such units at refineries) NO<INF>X</INF> controls for
boilers, furnaces, and heaters would be a combination of ultra-low
NO<INF>X</INF> burners/FGR/SNCR or ultra-low NO<INF>X</INF> burners/
SCR. Similarly, controls for turbines would typically be dry low
NO<INF>X</INF> combustors followed by SCR.
Response: The EPA does not consider the source-specific review
methodology presented by commenters as necessary to fulfilling the
requirements of RACT when a state is not submitting a source-specific
RACT analysis in a SIP revision. The EPA's obligation under CAA
sections 110(k)(2) and (3) is to evaluate and act on the SIP revisions
submitted by the state. In this instance, Texas did not submit source-
specific RACT determinations akin to what the commenter is suggesting.
States have discretion in terms of how they wish to fulfill their RACT
obligations. The EPA's role here is to evaluate and act on the SIP
revisions submitted by the state. As detailed in our 2025 supplemental
NO<INF>X</INF> TSD, the EPA's review confirmed that Texas considered
the same technologies identified by the commenters for the Chapter 117
ESAD rates. Commenters did not suggest any RACT limits lower than
Chapter 117 ESAD rates for any category of sources.
H. Other Comments
The EPA received several comments that were not relevant to this
action. Consistent with CAA section 110, a SIP is designed to address
the relevant NAAQS pollutant and its precursors. Under section
110(k)(3) of the CAA, the EPA is required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the CAA. As such, the EPA is
required to review the state's RACT SIP revision to determine if it
meets the RACT requirements of the CAA. RACT requirements apply to
NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC, which are ozone precursors.
Comment: Commenters claim that the EPA's review does not adequately
address the potential for increased carbon dioxide (CO<INF>2</INF>) and
other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the Texas analysis provided
does not appear to include an evaluation of the potential GHG impacts,
and an overall environmental impact must also consider the economic
costs associated with increased CO<INF>2</INF> emissions.
Response: Emissions and impacts associated with CO<INF>2</INF> and
other GHG emissions are outside of the scope of this action.
Comment: Residents are impacted by the release of particulate
matter from chemical manufacturing and industry and should be protected
under national guidance.
Response: Particulate matter standards are outside of the scope of
this action which is limited to ozone RACT.
Comment: Several comments requested better enforcement of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standard.
Response: Comments regarding general enforcement of the CAA are
outside of the scope of this action. Implementation of RACT is designed
to assist with improving air quality in the nonattainment area. To the
extent commenters are raising concerns about violations of the CAA and/
or state regulations, those concerns are outside the scope of this
action which is only evaluating the approvability of the identified
RACT SIP revisions.
Comment: Commenters requested that the EPA implement better
protective National Ambient Air Quality standards. Commenters also
stated the standard must be lowered as it is not protective yet.
Response: Reviewing and determining NAAQS standards are outside the
scope of this action, which is limited to review and approval of RACT
SIP revisions from Texas. The EPA's process for reviewing and possibly
revising the ozone NAAQS is different from this action.
Comment: The EPA has also issued a finding of failure to meet
Sulfur Dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>) national standards.
Response: SO<INF>2</INF> standards are outside of the scope of this
ozone action. RACT requirements for SO<INF>2</INF> standards are
separately addressed in other SIP revisions that address requirements
related to areas designated nonattainment under the SO<INF>2</INF>
standards.
Comment: Commenters expressed concerns regarding Texas' ability to
achieve compliance with so many industrial facilities in the HGB area.
Commenters assert that the ability to achieve compliance is regarded as
nearly impossible due to the discounting of enforcement penalties.
Commenters identified a need for a revision to achieve compliance based
on the multiple major disasters experienced by the Houston Ship Channel
communities. When an evaluation is done on the enforcement calculation,
this calculation demonstrates more of a focus on harm from minor
sources of emissions.
Response: Commenters did not make a RACT-specific recommendation.
General enforcement and penalties on specific industrial sources are
outside the scope of this action.
Comment: Commentors assert that the Texas SIP for RACT should be
``pulled'' to see enforcement of the NAAQS.
Response: Under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, the EPA is required
to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the
CAA. The EPA has determined that the RACT SIP revisions at issue here
comport with the CAA and are therefore approvable.
Comment: Commenter says that the State needs pressure to make a SIP
revision. A revision that could potentially offer better monitoring,
accurate information and afford the ability to prevent harmful
exposures to health.
Response: Under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, the EPA is required
to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the
CAA. The EPA has determined that the RACT SIP revisions at issue here
comport with the CAA and are therefore approvable. Increased monitoring
requirements outside of RACT are outside the scope of this action.
Comment: Commenter expressed its wish that the State develop a
public participation plan for SIP revisions tailored to Limited English
Proficient (LEP) persons.
Response: This is beyond the scope of this action.
I. Comments Received From Texas
We received comment letters from Texas in support of our actions.
Texas also requested specific corrections to the supplemental VOC and
NO<INF>X</INF> TSDs.
Requested Corrections in VOC TSD
Comments:
<bullet> In the Stage 1 Vapor Control Systems (1975) table on page
2 of the supplemental VOC TSD, Texas requested EPA remove floating roof
tank from the Texas Requirement Summary. While a floating roof tank may
be an equivalent control under Sec. 115.223, this control option is
not specifically mentioned in Sec. Sec. 115.221-115.229.
<bullet> In the Tank Truck Gasoline Loading Terminals (1977) table
on page 11, Texas requested EPA remove floating roof tank from the
Texas Requirement Summary. While a floating roof tank may meet the 90%
control requirement at Sec. 115.212 or be considered an equivalent
control under Sec. 115.213 or Sec. 115.223, it is not specifically
mentioned in Sec. Sec. 115.211-115.219 or Sec. Sec. 115.221-115.229.
[[Page 13745]]
<bullet> In the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture (1977) and Metal
Furniture Coatings (2007) table on page 13, Texas requested EPA add
Sec. Sec. 115.450-115.459 to the Texas Requirement Summary. Texas
implemented the 1977 CTG in Sec. Sec. 115.420-115.429 and the 2007 CTG
in Sec. Sec. 115.450-115.459. EPA's stated range of 2.3 to 5.1 pound
per gallon (lb/gal) applies to Sec. 115.453. The correct limit in
Sec. 115.421(2) is 3.0 lb/gal. In the Bulk Gasoline Plants (1977)
table on page 16, Texas requested EPA remove floating roof tank from
the Texas Requirement Summary. While a floating roof tank may meet the
90% control requirement at Sec. 115.212(a)(5) or be considered an
equivalent control under Sec. 115.213, it is not specifically
mentioned in Sec. Sec. 115.211-115.219.
<bullet> In the Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and
Products (1978) and Control Techniques for Miscellaneous Metal Parts
Coatings (2008) table on page 2, Texas requested EPA add Sec. Sec.
115.450-115.459 to the Texas Requirement Summary. Texas implemented the
1978 CTG in Sec. Sec. 115.420-115.429 and the 2008 CTG in Sec. Sec.
115.450-115.459.
<bullet> In the Graphic Arts-Rotogravure and Flexography table on
page 26, Texas requested EPA correct the Texas Requirement Summary.
Texas rules contain a requirement for 90% control of captured vapors
and capture requirements for various printing processes ranging from
60% to 75%.
<bullet> In the Petroleum Liquid Storage in External Floating Roof
Tanks (1978) table on page 28, Texas requested EPA correct the Texas
Requirement Summary. Texas rules in Sec. Sec. 115.110-115.119 require
various combinations of a submerged fill pipe, floating roof, floating
roof with seals, and/or a vapor control system based on the vapor
pressure of the liquid stored and the size of the tank.
<bullet> In the Aerospace (1997) table on page 41, Texas requested
EPA correct the Texas Requirement Summary. Texas rules in Sec. Sec.
115.420-115.429 require VOC content limits ranging from 60 to 1230
grams per liter. The cleaning solvents used must be over 80% water by
volume or have a composite vapor pressure less than or equal to 45
millimeters of mercury at 20 degrees Celsius.
<bullet> In the Industrial Cleaning Solvents (2006) table on page
42, Texas requested EPA remove Sec. Sec. 115.420-115.429 from the
Texas Requirement Summary. Texas rules implementing the 2006 CTG are in
Sec. Sec. 115.460-115.469. While Sec. Sec. 115.420-115.429 have some
cleaning solvent regulations, these are associated with recommendations
from the various surface coating and cleaning CTGs implemented in
Chapter 115, Subchapter E, Divisions 1 and 2, not the 2006 CTG.
Response: We provide a final VOC TSD that reflects these
corrections to the supplemental VOC TSD, which can be found in the
docket for this action.
Requested Corrections in NO<INF>X</INF> TSD
Comment: Texas requested that EPA update the TSD, Documents
Reviewed section of Table 1, to reflect the following:
<bullet> On page 5 of the NO<INF>X</INF> TSD, the current
NO<INF>X</INF> concentration limit in 30 TAC Sec. 117.310(a)(2) was
part of the Texas Register document published on January 3, 2003 (28
Texas Register (TexReg) 242).
<bullet> On page 7, the current NO<INF>X</INF> emission
specification in 30 TAC Sec. 117.310(a)(5) was part of the Texas
Register document published on January 3, 2003 (28 TexReg 242).
<bullet> On pages 10 and 11 of the TSD, Texas requests EPA correct
the Documentation section of the table to include Texas' proposal
rulemaking that was published in the Texas Register on June 21, 2002
(27 TexReg 5454).
<bullet> On page 11, the current NO<INF>X</INF> emission
specification in 30 TAC Sec. 117.310(a)(10) was part of the Texas
Register document published on January 3, 2003 (28 TexReg 242).
<bullet> On pages 13 and 14, include Texas' proposal and adoption
rulemakings that were published in the Texas Register on June 21, 2002
(27 TexReg 5454), and on January 3, 2003 (28 TexReg 242), respectively.
These Texas Register document, in conjunction with the other documents
cited by EPA, explain why the 30 TAC Sec. 117.310(a)(13)
NO<INF>X</INF> emission specification for lightweight aggregate kilns
changed to its current value.
<bullet> On page 16 and 17 for the utility boilers, auxiliary steam
boilers, and stationary gas turbines (including duct burners used in
turbine exhaust ducts) that are subject to the requirements in 30 TAC
Sec. 117.1210(a)(1)-(3), include the document published in the Texas
Register on June 21, 2002 (27 TexReg 5454), and on January 3, 2003 (28
TexReg 242), since these document, in conjunction with the other
documents cited by EPA, help to explain how Texas arrived at the
current NO<INF>X</INF> emission specifications in 30 TAC Sec.
117.1210(a).
Response: EPA appreciates the additional information. We are
including it in the docket for this action.
Comment: On pages 9 and 10 of the TSD, Texas requests EPA correct
the Documents Reviewed section of the table to reflect that the current
NO<INF>X</INF> emission specification in 30 TAC Sec. 117.310(a)(8) was
part of the Texas Register document published on June 8, 2007 (32
TexReg 3206). This document states that selective catalytic reduction
(SCR) may be necessary for process heaters with a maximum rated
capacity equal to or greater than 40 million British thermal units per
hour (MMBtu/hr), and owners or operators of gas-fired process heaters
with maximum rated capacities less than 40 MMBtu/hr may be required to
install low-NO<INF>X</INF> burners or make other combustion
modifications.
Response: EPA did review 32 TexReg 3206 and it was inadvertently
omitted from the table. EPA has provided a corrected TSD that reflects
the review of 32 TexReg 3206, SCR for units with equal to 40 MMBtu/hr
or greater, and low NO<INF>X</INF> burners or other combustion
modifications for units with capacities less 40 MMBtu/hr.
Comment: On pages 10 and 11 of the TSD, the June 15, 2001 Texas
Register document (26 TexReg 4400), provides Texas' explanation for the
rule provision option of the lower of 11.0 grams per horsepower-hour
(g/hp-hr) or the emission rate established by testing, monitoring,
manufacturer's guarantee, or manufacturer's other data. This same
document also provides the discussion for the reason to include the
rule provision compliance option, which at the time was to ensure that
an inadvertent windfall was not created for existing diesel engines
that emitted less than 11.0 g/hp-hr. As EPA noted, the discussion is
also provided in Texas' Rule Project No. 2002-038-117-AI.
Response: EPA has provided a final TSD that reflects the correction
to include ``or the emission rate established by testing, monitoring,
manufacturer's guarantee, or manufacturer's other data''.
Comment: On page 11 of the TSD, Texas requests EPA correct the last
paragraph of the Evaluation section of the table to reflect that in the
June 8, 2007, Texas Register document (32 TexReg 3206), Texas stated it
expected NSCR to be the primary control technology for gas-fired rich-
burn engines. Texas further stated it expected combustion
modifications, exhaust gas recirculation kits combined with Non-
Selective Catalytic Reduction (NSCR), or SCR to be necessary to meet
the NO<INF>X</INF> specifications for gas-fired lean-burn engines in 30
TAC Sec. 117.310(a)(9).
Response: EPA broadly summarized the information from 32 TexReg
3206 for the gas-fired engines overall. In response to this comment,
EPA has provided a final TSD that reflects the correction to add
``exhaust gas
[[Page 13746]]
recirculation kits with'' to the last paragraph of the TSD.
Comment: On pages 11 and 12 of the TSD, regarding the first
paragraph of the Evaluation section of the table, Texas requests EPA
clarify that Texas' statements concerning the anticipated need for
combustion modifications such as dry low-NO<INF>X</INF> burners or
water or steam injection to achieve the NO<INF>X</INF> emission
specification of 0.15 pounds per million British thermal units (lb/
MMBtu) heat input were for stationary gas turbines and duct burners
used in turbine exhaust ducts were related to minor sources of
NO<INF>X</INF> in the HGB area.
Response: EPA has provided a final TSD that includes this
correction for stationary gas turbines related to minor sources of
NO<INF>X</INF>.
Comment: On page 12 of the TSD, regarding the last paragraph of the
Evaluation section of the table, Texas requests EPA clarify that Texas
stated that compliance with the emission specification of 0.032 lb/
MMBtu for stationary gas turbines and duct burners used in turbine
exhaust ducts may require the installation of SCR. Texas further stated
the emission specifications for all stationary gas turbines less than
10 megawatts and duct burners used in associated turbine exhaust ducts
were expected to be achievable through combustion modifications such as
water or steam injection or other modifications.
Response: EPA has provided a final TSD that reflects the correction
to include the clarifications requested.
Comment: On page 14 of the TSD, Texas requests EPA update the
Documents Reviewed section of the table to include the Texas Register
document published on January 12, 2001 (26 TexReg 524), since the
relevant information pertains to both the heat-treating furnaces in
Sec. 117.310(a)(14)(A) and the reheat furnaces 30 TAC Sec.
117.310(a)(14)(B).
Response: 26 TexReg 524 was reviewed by EPA and inadvertently
omitted from the table. The final TSD reflects the correction to
include this reference.
III. Final Action
The EPA is approving the SIP revision submitted by Texas on May 13,
2020, concerning NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC RACT requirements for the HGB
2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA is finalizing the determination that Texas' rules
continue to fulfill NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC RACT requirements for the
HGB nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS under the
Serious classification. The EPA is also approving the VOC RACT negative
declarations made by Texas for fiberglass boat manufacturing materials,
manufacturing of pneumatic rubber tires, flat wood paneling coatings,
letterpress printing, and automobile and light-duty truck assembly
coatings sectors.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
<bullet> Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065,
February 6, 2025) because SIP actions are exempt from review under
Executive Order 12866;
<bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
<bullet> Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
<bullet> Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
<bullet> Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
<bullet> Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
<bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
<bullet> Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe
has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed rule does not have Tribal implications and
will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or
preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000).
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the EPA
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by May 22, 2026. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: March 10, 2026.
Walter Mason,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends CFR part 52
as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart SS--Texas
0
2. In Sec. 52.2270, the second table in paragraph (e) titled ``EPA
Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the
Texas SIP'' is amended by adding the entries: ``VOC RACT negative
declarations for fiberglass boat manufacturing materials, manufacturing
of pneumatic rubber tires, flat wood paneling coatings, letterpress
printing, and automobile and light-duty truck assembly coatings
sectors'', ``Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 2008 eight-hour ozone serious
nonattainment NO<INF>X</INF> RACT demonstration'' and ``Houston-
[[Page 13747]]
Galveston-Brazoria 2008 eight-hour ozone serious nonattainment VOC RACT
demonstration'' at the end of the table to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2270 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable State
Name of SIP provision geographic or submittal/ EPA approval date Comments
nonattainment area effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
VOC RACT negative declarations Houston-Galveston- 5/13/2020 3/23/2026, 91 FR For the HGB Serious
for fiberglass boat Brazoria, TX 2008 [INSERT FEDERAL classification.
manufacturing materials, 8-hour ozone NAAQS REGISTER PAGE
manufacturing of pneumatic nonattainment area. WHERE THE DOCUMENT
rubber tires, flat wood paneling BEGINS].
coatings, letterpress printing,
and automobile and light-duty
truck assembly coatings sectors.
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 2008 Houston-Galveston- 5/13/2020 3/23/2026, 91 FR
eight-hour ozone serious Brazoria, TX 2008 [INSERT FEDERAL
nonattainment NOX RACT 8-hour ozone NAAQS REGISTER PAGE
demonstration. nonattainment area. WHERE THE DOCUMENT
BEGINS].
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 2008 Houston, Galveston, 5/13/2020 3/23/2026, 91 FR
eight-hour ozone serious Brazoria, TX 2008 [INSERT FEDERAL
nonattainment VOC RACT 8-hour ozone NAAQS REGISTER PAGE
demonstration. nonattainment area. WHERE THE DOCUMENT
BEGINS].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As revised 9/26/01.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2026-05596 Filed 3-20-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on March 23, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.