Rule2026-05607
Air Plan Approval; Texas; Reasonably Available Control Technology in the Dallas-Fort Worth 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 Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW), 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Serious nonattainment area (NAA). The revisions were submitted by the State of Texas on May 12, 2020, and May 13, 2020. The EPA is approving revisions to 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapters 115 and 117 to implement the major source RACT requirements for VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> as addressed in the RACT analysis and 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 13762-13771]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-05607]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R06-OAR-2020-0164; FRL-12896-02-R6]
Air Plan Approval; Texas; Reasonably Available Control Technology
in the Dallas-Fort Worth 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 Dallas-Fort
Worth (DFW), 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) Serious nonattainment area (NAA). The revisions were submitted
by the State of Texas on May 12, 2020, and May 13, 2020. The EPA is
approving revisions to 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapters 115
and 117 to implement the major source RACT requirements for VOC and
NO<INF>X</INF> as addressed in the RACT analysis and 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-2020-0164. 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 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: Ms. Anupa Ahuja, 214-665-2701,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1e7f766b747f307f706b6e7f5e7b6e7f30797168"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="44252c312e256a252a313425042134256a232b32">[email protected]</span></a>, and Emad Shahin, 214-665-6717,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#05606864612b766d646d6c6b456075642b626a73"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a6c3cbc7c288d5cec7cecfc8e6c3d6c788c1c9d0">[email protected]</span></a>, EPA Region 6 Office, Infrastructure and Ozone
Section.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' means the EPA.
I. Background
The background for this action is discussed in detail in our July
24, 2025 \1\ and September 5, 2025 \2\ proposals (referred to as the
``proposals''). In those actions we proposed to approve Texas' May 13,
2020, RACT SIP revision and May 12, 2020, SIP revision to 30 TAC
Chapter 115 and Chapter 117 as meeting the 2008 8-hour ozone Serious
classification RACT level control requirements consistent with section
172(c)(1) and 182 of the CAA. The EPA's July 24, 2025, action proposed
to determine that the Texas SIP revisions fulfill the Serious
NO<INF>X</INF> RACT requirements for the DFW NAA for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS and to approve the concurrent Chapter 117 rule revisions. The
EPA's September 5, 2025, action proposed to determine that the Texas
SIP revisions meet the Serious RACT requirements for CTG and non-CTG
VOC major sources \3\ for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and to approve the
concurrent Chapter 115 rule revisions. The relevant Texas SIP revisions
included Texas' finding that previously approved federally enforceable
limits on cement kilns continue to fulfill RACT requirements, and CTG
RACT negative declarations for the following categories of sources
fiberglass boat manufacturing materials, surface coating for flat wood
paneling, letterpress printing, shipbuilding and ship repair surface
coating operations, vegetable oil manufacturing, and rubber tire
manufacturing categories. Texas also submitted negative declarations
for several CTG categories for Wise County: graphic arts--rotogravure
and flexography, flexible package printing, refinery vacuum producing
systems and process unit turnarounds, wood furniture manufacturing, and
manufacture of synthesized pharmaceutical products. 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 Nitric or Adipic Acid
Manufacturing Alternative Control Techniques (ACT) document. The EPA
has already taken final action through a different rulemaking process
to approve the requirement for implementation of RACT for sources
covered by the 2016 Oil and Natural Gas Industry Control Techniques
Guidelines (CTG).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 90 FR 34812 (July 24, 2025).
\2\ 90 FR 42885 (September 5, 2025).
\3\ Sources emitting VOCs in a quantity greater than the Serious
area major source definition (50 tpy) and not covered by a CTG
category or previously approved RACT rule.
\4\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the EPA's July and September 2025 public comment periods,
the EPA received a total of six comments on our proposals. As explained
in further detail below, several comments were received on a
NO<INF>X</INF> Technical Support Document (TSD) that is not associated
with this action and those comments do not reflect our evaluation of
Texas' RACT SIP submittal or current Texas rules. In the NO<INF>X</INF>
TSD associated with this action, the EPA gathered and analyzed relevant
information including Texas' rulemaking record which contained
information on specific control technologies and technical and economic
feasibility for the Emissions Specifications for Attainment
Demonstration (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>), and Emissions from Natural Gas Pipeline Compressor
Fuel[hyphen]Fired Prime Movers). In the VOC TSD for this action, the
EPA gathered and analyzed relevant information including comparing
Texas' CTGs and non-CTG major source RACT rules to other relevant state
VOC RACT rules, and reviewed EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC),
NSPS, MACT standards, and NESHAPs, where applicable. Consistent with
this analysis, we proposed to determine that Texas' EPA-previously-
approved Chapters 115 and 117 rules still fulfill the RACT level of
control requirements
[[Page 13763]]
for sources of VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> in the DFW Serious ozone
nonattainment area for the purpose of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
In this final action, we are responding to comments received on
both NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC proposals. The comments are available in
the docket for this action.
II. Response to Comments
A. Disproportionate Impacts of NAAQS Violations to Communities
Comment: Commenters stated that the EPA failed to incorporate
environmental justice analyses.
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 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.
B. Concerns Regarding RACT Control Technologies and Determination
Comment: Commenters claim that the EPA provided a cursory
NO<INF>X</INF> RACT analysis in its TSD.
Response: As an initial note, commenters appear to be commenting on
a TSD that is not associated with this action and is neither fully
cited nor made available for additional reference purposes by
commenters. Specifically, commenters reference a document titled ``EPA
Technical Support Document (TSD), Oxides of Nitrogen (NO<INF>X</INF>)
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT): Dallas--Fort Worth
(DFW) 2008 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area,'' Docket No'' (the
commenters' reference does not include a docket number). Furthermore,
in some comments, commenters reference TSD page numbers that are
greater than 27 pages, which is the length of the TSD for this action.
The commenters reference a TSD that is not the NO<INF>X</INF> TSD
that the EPA published in the docket for the proposed rulemaking. The
NO<INF>X</INF> TSD for the proposed rulemaking is titled, ``Technical
Support Document, Reasonably Available Control Technology Application
Analysis for Nitrogen Oxides in the Dallas-Fort Worth 2008 Ozone
Serious Nonattainment Area.''
The commenters' reference to an unrelated TSD is evidenced further
by other comments, which will be addressed on a comment-by-comment
basis in this Response to Comments section. However, even if commenters
were referring to the correct TSD, the EPA still disagrees with the
comment. The EPA's TSD provides an extensively detailed evaluation of
Texas' NO<INF>X</INF> RACT limits that includes a review and comparison
to recent Best Available Control Technology (BACT) determinations in
the RBLC, recent documents issued by the EPA to compare to Texas' SIP
submittal, and rules in other states where similar sources exist in
nonattainment areas to support our approval.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ <a href="https://www.epa.gov/catc/ractbactlaer-clearinghouse-rblc-basic-information">https://www.epa.gov/catc/ractbactlaer-clearinghouse-rblc-basic-information</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Commenters claim that Texas failed to impose new RACT
emissions limits in Wise County, despite such limits being
technologically and economically feasible.
Response: Referencing the incorrect TSD, commenters make a broad
general claim regarding all RACT limits in Wise County. This general
comment did not provide any technological or economic feasibility
information specific to any limit for any category of sources to
support their cursory statement for sources in Wise County. We note
that other comments with greater specificity to the type of source and
specific limits were received and our responses to those comments
follow below in this document. The EPA's NO<INF>X</INF> TSD (available
in the docket for this action) details relevant information, including
BACT, RACT rules in other states, the 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,
the 2017 OTC Draft White Paper on Control Technologies, and OTC State
Regulations from Eight Source Categories, considered in support of our
proposed approval of the Wise County RACT rates (pages 9-12 of the
NO<INF>X</INF> TSD).
Comment: Commenters claim that the EPA's TSD states that the EPA is
conditionally approving the NO<INF>X</INF> RACT limits for the Martin
Marietta Cement plant and that these limits are not part of the SIP
submission.
Response: Commenters appear to be commenting on an unrelated TSD to
this action. The EPA took final action to fully approve these limits
into the SIP on February 22, 2019 (84 FR 5601).
C. Control Technologies
Comment: Commenters state that NO<INF>X</INF> emissions limits in
California's South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for
electric generating units (EGUs) are lower than Texas' RACT rules.
Commenters point to the SCAQMD's 2022 proposal of Rule 1135(d)(1) table
1, which limits NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from EGUs to 5 parts per
million by volume (ppmv) and lower. Commenters claim, with specific TSD
page references, that the EPA's TSD does not address RACT for gas-fired
EGUs and only references the 1994 Alternative Control Techniques (ACT)
for utility boilers.
Response: Similar to previous comment responses in this document,
commenters reference specific pages of an unrelated TSD to support
their comment. Again, the specific pages referenced in their comment do
not correspond to the TSD associated with this action. The EPA's
NO<INF>X</INF> TSD associated with this action does not reference the
1994 ACT as the basis for our approval. The EPA disagrees that our
NO<INF>X</INF> TSD fails to address EGUs (see pages 24-26 of the
NO<INF>X</INF> TSD included in the docket).
Based on the information made available in the docket for this
action and in consideration of the comment received, we are responding
to provide additional clarity concerning the SCAQMD Rule 1135(d)(1)
limit, aside from the commenters review of the unrelated TSD and rules.
The SCAQMD Rule 1135(d)(1) is titled ``Emissions Limits for Boilers and
Gas Turbines'', and states that the emissions limits in table 1 apply
``On and after January 1, 2024''. In response to this comment, EPA
reviewed SCAQMD's 2018 ``Draft Staff Report, Proposed Amended Rule
1135'' (the ``Staff Report'').\6\ Of particular relevance in our review
of the Staff Report, is SCAQMD's determination that it has the
authority to require equipment replacement to meet state emissions
standards: ``SCAQMD retains broad statutory authority to adopt
emission-control requirements for stationary sources, and that
authority may require equipment replacement, as long as the requirement
is not arbitrary and capricious.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See ``par-1135---dsr---final'', available in the docket.
\7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to boilers, the Staff Report examines all of the
natural gas boilers to which the limit would apply. The Staff Report
states that ``18 of 23 natural gas boilers are planned to be shutdown.
Of those 18 natural gas boilers, all but four of them will be shut
[[Page 13764]]
down by January 1, 2024. . . . Another . . . two natural gas boilers
scheduled for shutdown in 2025 and the two natural gas boilers
scheduled for shutdown in 2029. Three natural gas boilers are expected
to be repowered to natural gas turbines or renewable power sources.
However, if they are not, they will be required to meet the proposed
limit. . . . The last two natural gas boilers have not been in
operation since 2012.'' The EPA notes that of the affected natural gas
boilers, 20 out of 23 sources will meet the Rule 1135(d)(1) limit
through shutdowns. The EPA also notes that the remaining three are
expected to be either converted to natural gas-fired turbines (thus
will no longer be boilers) or repowered to renewable power sources
(thus will no longer be gas-fired). Notably, the Staff Report does not
include any evaluation or even identification of any ``reasonably
available control technology considering technical and economic
feasibility'' \8\ that could be applied to these existing gas-fired
boiler units to meet the Rule 1135(d)(1) limit with the unit continuing
to remain a natural gas-fired boiler.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Memorandum from Roger Strelow, EPA Assistant Administrator
``Guidance for Determining Acceptability of SIP Regulations in Non-
attainment Areas'', December 9, 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It appears that the Rule 1135(d)(1) limit that commenters claim to
be RACT for natural gas-fired boiler EGUs is actually a specific RACT
limit for natural gas-fired boiler EGUs that will be converted to
natural gas-fired turbines or repowered to renewables, but we do not
agree that Rule 1135(d)(1) limits are RACT for natural gas-fired boiler
EGUs where the state does not require conversion to natural gas-fired
turbines or repowering to renewables for this category of sources to
meet RACT. Therefore, SCAQMD Rule 1135(d)(1) is not comparable to
Texas' Chapter 117.1310 limits due to the differences in the category
of sources regulated.
For natural gas-fired utility boilers, our NO<INF>X</INF> TSD (see
pages 24-26) detailed relevant information considered, including but
not limited to, EPA's 2023 EGU NO<INF>X</INF> Mitigation Strategies
Final Rule TSD and RACT rules in other states for this category of
sources. EPA concluded that Texas' ESAD limits for utility boilers are
comparable to performance of Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) on
gas-fired utility boilers and fulfill RACT requirements.
With respect to stationary gas turbine EGUs, the Staff Report
examines both natural gas combined cycle and simple cycle gas turbines.
All of the combined cycle gas turbines are equipped with selective
catalytic reduction (SCR) pollution control equipment, and 15 out of 23
units are already permitted at 2 parts per million (ppm), which is the
Rule 1135(d)(1) limit for this category of sources. Of the remaining 8
units, two are limited to 2.5 ppm and the remaining units have limits
ranging from 7 ppm-9 ppm. For simple cycle gas turbines, out of the
total 59 units, all but two are equipped with SCR. The two units
without SCR are used sporadically to support renewable power generation
and can use the low-use provisions to be exempt from the limit. For the
remaining 57 SCR equipped units, 37 units are permitted at or below the
Rule 1135 limit of 2.5 ppm, and 20 units are equipped with SCR and have
a permit emission limitation of 5 ppm.
It appears that the Rule 1135(d)(1) limits, which commenters claim
to be RACT for all stationary gas turbine EGUs, may be RACT
specifically for stationary gas turbines with SCR EGUs that are already
permitted at or near Rule 1135(d)(1) rates, but we do not agree these
rates are RACT for existing units without SCR where the state does not
require replacement to meet state limits. Therefore SCAQMD Rule
1135(d)(1) rates are not comparable to Texas' Chapter 117.1310 limits
due to the differences in the category of sources regulated.
As detailed on page 26 of our NO<INF>X</INF> TSD for stationary gas
turbines EGUs, the EPA reviewed relevant information, including 2017
OTC Draft White Paper on Control Technologies and OTC State Regulations
from Eight Source Categories and RACT rules in other states, in support
of our approval.
Comment: Commenters claim Texas fails to establish RACT for gas-
fired boilers and process heaters because Texas' RACT limits for gas-
fired boilers are higher than other state's RACT rules. In support of
their claim, commenters refer to California SCAMQD Rule 1146(c)(1)(A)
which limits NO<INF>X</INF> from industrial boilers and process heaters
to a NO<INF>X</INF> limit of 0.035 lb/MMBtu or lower, and a New York
State NO<INF>X</INF> RACT limit of 0.05-0.08 lb/MMBtu for gas-fired
boilers.
Response: SCAQMD Rule 1146 applies to boilers, steam generators,
and process heaters. Specifically, SCAQMD Rule 1146(c)(1)(A) applies to
``All Units Fired on Gaseous Fuels''. Under the Texas rules, 30 TAC
Chapter 117.410 regulates process heaters and gas-fired boilers as
separate categories. Considering the significant differences in the
applicability of Rule 1146(c)(1)(A) and the applicability of Texas'
Chapter 117.410 rates (explained further below), the EPA disagrees with
commenters claims regarding natural gas-fired boilers and process
heaters for categories of sources in nine of the ten DFW NAA Counties.
For these two categories of sources, Texas' Chapter 117.410 includes
ESAD limits that are applicable to nine out of ten counties included in
the DFW NAA. These Texas ESAD rates include a range of limits and are
comparable to SCAQMD's Rule 1146(c)(1)(A) rates and lower than the New
York State RACT rule cited by the commenters (see pages 12 and 14 of
the NO<INF>X</INF> TSD). The remaining county in the DFW NAA, Wise
County, does not have any gas-fired boilers.
With respect to process heaters in Wise County, EPA notes that
SCAQMD 1146 (c)(1)(A) rule applies to ``all units firing gaseous
fuels'' and the rule is applicable to ``boilers, steam generators, and
process heaters'', not solely to process heaters. The EPA further notes
that ``process heaters'' have a different definition than ``thermal
fluid heaters''. In response to this comment, EPA reviewed the record
associated with the development of the limits in SCAQMD Rule 1146.\9\
The SCAQMD ``Final Staff Support'' report extensively documents the
testing data of the units to which these limits apply.\10\ There was no
discussion on ``process heaters'' in the Final Staff Support document,
thus EPA is unable to verify that any process heaters exist or were
considered in setting the limit for Rule 1146(c)(1)(A) ``All Units''
limit that commenters claim to be RACT for process heaters. It appears
that SCAQMD's Rule 1146(c)(1)(A) that commenters claim to be RACT for
process heaters is actually RACT specifically for gaseous fuel fired
boilers and steam generators and not process heaters. Therefore,
SCAQMD's Rule 1146(c)(1)(A) is not comparable to Texas' Chapter 117.410
limits due to the differences in the category of sources regulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See ``SCAQMD Rule 1146 development'' available in the
docket.
\10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thermal fluid heaters can be considered a subcategory of process
heaters and are subject to SCAQMD Rule 1146(c)(1)(L) (which commenters
do not cite, but we discuss here since it regulates a subcategory of
process heaters). In the Final Staff Support document, there was a
discussion on ``thermal fluid heaters'', which states that ``Source
tests records from a total of 14 thermal fluid heaters ranging from 2
MMBtu/hr to 10 MMBtu/hr with emissions limit of 30 ppm were evaluated.
Five out of 14 units source tested substantially (>64%) below the
[[Page 13765]]
permit limit. Out of the five units, 3 units were new or modified
equipment permitted at BACT and 2 units utilized burner replacements.
This shows that it is technically feasible for thermal fluid heaters
applicable to Rule 1146.1 and Rule 1146 thermal fluid heaters to
achieve an emission level of 12 ppm with burner replacements after
providing at least 10% buffer for rule compliance.'' \11\ The EPA notes
that only ``thermal fluid heaters'' already achieving 30 ppm were
evaluated and that the Rule 1146 limit could only be achieved with
burner replacements of existing units having undergone a ``major
modification'' to trigger the installation of control equipment that
met BACT requirements. It appears that SCAQMD determined existing units
could not meet these limits without BACT level control. As a result,
SCAQMD Rule 1146(c)(6) extends the date of compliance for existing
sources as far out as 2033; for units permitted to construct or
permitted to operate prior to ``December 7, 2018, must meet the limits
in Rule 1146(c)(1) by 2033 or when 50% or more of the unit's burners
are replaced whichever is earlier.'' It further appears that SCAQMD
1146(c)(1)(L) may be RACT for existing units with emissions limits of
30 ppm and will have a 50% burner replacement at some future date, but
we do not agree that these rates are RACT for existing process heaters
where the state does not require a 50% burner replacement at some
future date to meet a future compliance date. Therefore, SCAQMD Rule
1146 (c)(1)(L) is not comparable to Texas' Chapter 117.405 limits for
Wise County due to the differences in the category of sources
regulated. The EPA's NO<INF>X</INF> TSD details relevant information,
including RACT rules in other states and economic and technical
feasibility issues considered by Texas in support of our approval for
the Wise County RACT limits for process heaters (see page 10 of the
NO<INF>X</INF> TSD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Id., at page 2-6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Referencing pages 37 of a TSD, commentors claim that EPA's
TSD only considered the 1994 ACT for process heater and industrial
boilers.
Response: Commenters again reference specific pages of an unrelated
TSD to support the basis of their comment. As the EPA has previously
detailed in this document, the specific pages referenced by the
commentor do not correspond to the TSD associated with this action and
included in the docket for this action. The EPA's NO<INF>X</INF> TSD
associated with this action does not reference the 1994 ACT as the
basis for our approval. The EPA's analysis of process heaters (see
pages 10 and 14 of the NO<INF>X</INF> TSD) did not consider the 1994
ACT. The EPA considered and discussed in a previous response, the
relevant information and consideration for the process heaters category
of sources in support of its proposed approval for this category of
sources.
Comment: Commenters provided comments related to the SCAQMD's Rule
1134, Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen From Stationary Gas Turbines, and
specifically Rule 1134(d)(3) related to Emissions Limitations.
Commenters state that SCAQMD's Rule 1134(d)(3) applicability threshold
starts at 0.3 megawatt (MW) stationary gas turbines and that Texas only
sets limits for 10 MW or greater units. Commenters claim that Texas'
limits are higher than SCAQMD's Rule 1134, which range from 2-12.5 ppm.
Commenters also included specific comments related to turbine units
located in Bexar County and Wise County. In Bexar County, commenters
stated that turbine units must be subject to RACT. For Wise County,
commenters claim that the TSD quotes reasoning from Texas for limits in
Wise County and generalized arguments about the cost of implementing
retrofit technology without providing adequate support. Commenters
reference specific page numbers from a TSD to claim that the TSD cites
information from 1994 and prior RACT approval.
Response: As previously detailed in this action, commenters are
referencing specific pages of an unrelated TSD and the EPA's
NO<INF>X</INF> TSD associated with this action does not reference the
1994 ACT as the basis for our approval. EPA disagrees that its
NO<INF>X</INF> TSD cited information from 1994 and prior RACT approvals
as the basis for our approval. Commenters cited to pages that are not
present in our NO<INF>X</INF> TSD that was included in the docket. The
EPA also disagrees that Texas' limits are only applicable to stationary
gas turbines greater than 10 megawatts (MW); commenters appear to be
commenting on threshold applicability rules that do not exist for the
DFW NAA. RACT for Bexar County is outside the scope of this action
because Bexar County is not part of the DFW NAA. The DFW NAA under the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS includes the counties of Collin, Dallas,
Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, Tarrant, and Wise.
Based on the information made available in the docket for this
action and consideration of the comment received, we are responding to
provide additional clarity concerning stationary gas turbines. All
existing stationary gas turbines are regulated in the DFW NAA under
Chapters 117.405 and 117.410.
SCAQMD Rule 1134(d)(3) which commenters claim to be RACT, states
that the table 1 limits are applicable ``On and after January 1, 2024,
or when required by a Permit to Construct or Permit to Operate,
whichever occurs first''. The EPA notes that a Permit to Construct is
required for new sources and does not apply to existing sources.
SCAQMD Rule 1134(d)(3) table 1 lists five different stationary gas
turbine limits that vary depending on the type of turbine (simple or
combined cycle), and type of fuel (natural gas, pipeline gas, produced
gas, or other gas). Texas Chapter 117.405 and Chapter 117.410 apply
limits based only upon the turbine's size. As such, EPA believes that
the limits cannot be directly compared because Texas may not have all
of the same types of stationary gas turbines as SCAQMD. The EPA notes
that Texas' limit of 0.032 lb/MMbtu (which converts to 9 ppm) for the
largest size of stationary gas turbine, in nine of the DFW NAA
Counties, is comparable to SCAQMD's limit of 8 ppm for Natural Gas
Simple Cycle Pipeline Gas Turbines.
In response to this comment, the EPA reviewed SCAQMD's 2018
``Preliminary Draft Staff Report, Stationary Gas Turbines'' (the
``Preliminary Draft Staff Report'').\12\ Table 2-2, Natural Gas
Combined Cycle Gas Turbines, identifies information on the sources in
this category. The EPA's review notes that all but one of units appear
to be operating at or just above the limits provided for in Rule
1134(d)(3) for sources that commenced operation in 2009 or later,
equipped with SCR as new or replacement units. Preliminary Draft Staff
Report, Table 2-3--Natural Gas Simple Cycle Gas Turbines identifies the
information on sources in this category. All but two of the units
permitted at 5 ppm or lower have SCR and were installed in 2001. SCAMQD
recognizes that a unit would have to be a new or replacement unit with
SCR by providing a low-use provision in Rule 1134(h)(4) for existing
units without SCR that are unable to meet the limit without
replacement. Furthermore, the Preliminary Draft Staff Report discusses
SCAQMD's determination that it has the authority to require equipment
replacement to meet state emissions standards: ``The SCAQMD retains
broad statutory authority to adopt emission-control requirements for
stationary sources, and that authority may require equipment
replacement, as long as the
[[Page 13766]]
requirement is not arbitrary and capricious.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See ``par-1134---pdsr---;final'', available in the docket.
\13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It appears that the use of SCR either as a new installation or as a
replacement unit is the basis of Rule 1134(d)(3) limits. While Rule
1134(d)(3) limits may be RACT for gas-fired turbines with SCR where the
state requires existing units to be replaced to meet RACT, we do not
agree that Rule 1134(d)(3) limits are RACT for existing gas-fired
turbines where the state does not require units to be replaced to meet
RACT. Therefore, SCAQMD Rule 1134(d)(3) is not comparable to Texas'
Chapter 117.405 and 117.410 due to the differences in sources
regulated.
As detailed in our analysis in the NO<INF>X</INF> TSD, 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. The emission specifications for
all stationary gas turbines . . . are expected to be achievable through
combustion modifications such as water or steam injection or other
modifications''.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See 32 TexReg 3206 (June 8, 2007), available in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas considered the same technologies as identified as SCAQMD when
determining the Chapter 117.410 ESAD rates for the nine DFW NAA
counties. However, applying the same control technology to existing
units and achieving the same rate as a new or replacement unit subject
rates presents reasonable technological and economic feasibility
issues.
For Chapter 117.405 rates in Wise County, Texas stated ``These
limits for industrial gas turbines are based on . . .comments and
supplemental information provided by affected source owners and
operators: retrofit options or kits to reduce NO<INF>X</INF> emissions
may not exist for some of these particular makes and models; some units
have already been retrofitted with dry low-NO<INF>X</INF> combustors to
reduce emissions and thus may be unable to further reduce
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions; and in some cases the cost to retrofit the
unit may be more than the cost of a new unit. . . Additional
information provided by commenters indicated unit performance
variability among various turbine model ratings, and stack test data
provided by an affected source owner or operator for specific units
identified in Wise County, indicated greater unit-specific performance
variability. The commission therefore determined that 0.55 lb/MMBtu for
units rated less than 10,000 hp is an appropriate RACT control level
considering current performance levels of existing units in Wise
County''.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See 40 TexReg 3695 (June 19, 2015), available in the
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As detailed in the NO<INF>X</INF> TSD on pages 11-12 for Wise
County and pages 15-16 for the other nine DFW NAA Counties, the EPA
considered relevant information, including the 2017 OTC Draft White
Paper on Control Technologies and OTC State Regulations from Eight
Source Categories, 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, and RACT rules in
other states in support of its proposed approval of Texas' limits for
this category of sources.
Comment: Commenters claim that Texas fails to establish RACT for
gas-fired, stationary, internal combustion engines. Commenters state
that the State of New York limits gas-fired, stationary internal
combustion engines with a mechanical output rating of 200 bhp or
greater to 1.5 g/bhp-hr which applies to rich-burn and lean-burn
engines. Commenters claim that Texas' rule does not cover lean-burn
engines. Commenters also claim that the EPA's TSD provided no support
for our proposed approval and cited information from 1994 and previous
approvals. Commenters cite to pages in a TSD in support of their
statements.
Response: Based on the information made available in the docket for
this action and consideration of the comment received, we are
responding to provide additional clarity concerning RACT for gas-fired,
stationary, internal combustion engines. Again, as previously detailed
in this action, commenters are referencing specific pages of a TSD that
is not associated with this action. The New York State rule that
commenters cite is applicable to 200 hp or greater engines. This limit
from a New York State rule is for engines that are only fired with
natural gas. New York State's RACT limits for engines that are fired
with other types of fuel range from 2.0-2.3 grams per brake hp-hr (g/
bhp-hr). Unlike New York State's rule, which has a size applicability
threshold, Texas' limits for stationary internal combustion engines
apply to all engines. Texas' limits for rich-burn engines in nine of
the ten counties in the DFW NAA are lower than New York State's RACT
limit (see page 14 of the NO<INF>X</INF> TSD). Texas' limits in Wise
County are comparable to the New York State rule (see pages 10-11 of
the NO<INF>X</INF> TSD).
Commenters incorrectly claim that Texas' rules do not cover lean-
burn engines. Texas' Chapter 117.405 and 117.410 rules limit
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from lean-burn engines and these emission
limitations apply to all sizes of engines, not just those of 200 brake
hp or greater (see pages 10-11, and 14 of the NO<INF>X</INF> TSD).
Texas presented economic considerations in setting the rate for pre-
2015 lean-burn engines in Wise County (discussed in detail in a later
comment in this action). Texas does not apply different limits for
different fuels, unlike New York State's rule. Wise County's RACT rate
for post-2015 engines, 2.0 g/hp-hr, is comparable to New York's RACT
rates considering all fuel types. For the other nine counties in the
DFW NAA, all ESAD rates for lean-burn engines are lower than New York
State's RACT rule (see pages 10-11, and 14 of the NO<INF>X</INF> TSD).
The EPA disagrees that our NO<INF>X</INF> TSD cited 1994 information
and past approvals as the basis for its proposed approval. The
NO<INF>X</INF> TSD for this action details our review of relevant
information, including 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, 2017 OTC Draft
White Paper on Control Technologies and OTC State Regulations from
Eight Source Categories and RACT rules in other states for this
category of sources. Commenters appear to have reviewed a TSD other
than the one associated with this action.
Comment: Commenters made a claim that, for gas-fired stationary
engines where Texas and the EPA believes that existing rules constitute
RACT, they must provide justification that stronger controls are
infeasible. Commenters claim that the cost of these controls must be
computed in order to know whether the retrofit would be economically
feasible. Commenters state that Texas acknowledges that the limits
adopted for Wise County are less stringent than elsewhere in the DFW
area.
Response: Commenters present no new technologies or other RACT
limits that are lower than the ESAD limits in nine out of the ten
counties in the DFW NAA for this category of sources. Commenters also
do not present any cost data demonstrating the economic feasibility of
new retrofit technologies for sources in Wise County. The EPA
acknowledges that the Wise County RACT rates for lean burn engines
appear to be higher than the other nine counties' ESAD limits. While
the Wise County RACT rates for lean burn engines appear to be higher
than the
[[Page 13767]]
ESAD limits for the other nine counties in the DFW NAA, Texas addressed
this issue in their rulemaking record. Specifically, Texas stated that
requiring the same limits in Wise County ``may necessitate the
installation of SCR technology. SCR would cost more than the
technologies already evaluated for the particular stationary engines in
Wise County, and would likely result in the replacement of many of the
gas-fired lean-burn engines in Wise County. Such an outcome is contrary
to the definition of RACT, i.e., the lowest emission limitation that a
particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control
technology that is reasonable available considering technological and
economic feasibility. A control level cannot represent RACT for a
``particular source'' if it is more cost effective to replace that
source with an entirely new source in order to meet the emission
limitation. Additionally, the commission is allowed to make source-
specific RACT determinations, as the definition of RACT states. The
commission contends that the NO<INF>X</INF> emission specifications in
adopted Sec. 117.405(b)(2)(B) present RACT for the particular gas-
fired lean-burn engines in Wise County.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See 40 TexReg 3695 (June 19, 2015), available in the
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated on page 11 of the NO<INF>X</INF> TSD, EPA reviewed recent
information including, New York State's RACT limit, 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, 2017 OTC Draft White Paper on Control Technologies and OTC
State Regulations from Eight Source Categories, and Texas' rulemaking
records, in support of its proposed approval of the Wise County RACT
limits and ESAD limits for this category of sources (see pages 11 and
14 of the NO<INF>X</INF> TSD).
D. Notice & Comment
Comment: Commenters claim that the EPA's Federal Register
publication is inadequate, because the proposal does not identify the
specific facilities that are the subject of the rule making and a
person would have no way of knowing whether to be ``interested'' in the
rule making without resorting to the technical support document in the
docket.
Response: The EPA disagrees with the comment. We are required to
provide adequate notice to the public and interested parties, and we
did this through publishing a document in the Federal Register, where
we outlined Texas' RACT program featuring rules for specific industry
sectors. In that notification, we also provided our analysis to support
why Texas' SIP revisions and existing rules fulfill the Serious RACT
requirements for the DFW nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Finally, in our document we provided a link to the online docket that
contains all of the supporting materials, and EPA's technical support
documents that contain our extensive analysis of the Texas RACT
program.
This approach to public notice is consistent with EPA's previous
proposed approval for the Moderate RACT requirements for the DFW
nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (82 FR 33026 (July 19,
2017)), and EPA's recent RACT proposed approval actions.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See e.g., EPA's proposed approval notices for areas in
Arizona (91 FR 6557 (February 12, 2026)), Ohio (90 FR 41925 (August
28, 2025)), and Colorado (90 FR 25960 (June 18, 2025)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Commenters state that the notification is inadequate
because, according to the Office of the Federal Register, proposed
rulemaking must provide ``a statement of the proposed rule's basis and
purpose . . . in plain language that the reader can easily
understand.''
Response: Based on the information provided by the commenter, it is
unclear how the information provided by the EPA failed to meet the
direction provided by the Office of the Federal Register. In the EPA's
proposals for this action, the EPA provided background information, an
explanation of Texas' SIP submission, the EPA's analysis, and the
proposed publications. The proposals were further supplemented by
technical support documents for both NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC emissions.
Comment: Commenters refer to the Office of Federal Register's
``Document Drafting Handbook'' \18\ (DDH) and state that the document
must include a physical mailing address for persons who wish to submit
comments by mail and noted that the EPA's proposed rulemaking does not
include this information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Office of the Federal Register, ``Document Drafting
Handbook,'' page 2-8 (Aug. 2018 ed.), available at <a href="https://www.archives.gov/files/federal-register/write/handbook/ddh.pdf">https://www.archives.gov/files/federal-register/write/handbook/ddh.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: The DDH states that all proposed rulemakings ``must have
at least one address.'' \19\ The DDH then provides a list of potential
addresses that an agency could use, including addresses for mailing
public comments, sending public comments electronically, hand-
delivering public comments, or attending a public hearing (or meeting).
In the proposals for this action, the EPA properly complied with the
DDH by offering an address to send public comments electronically (via
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>), and by providing an email address where a
potential commenter could contact the EPA staff contact to submit
comments via alternative methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Comments
The EPA received comment letters from the TCEQ in support of our
proposals. TCEQ requested clarification and administrative corrections
to the VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> TSDs.
VOC TSD
TCEQ requested the following corrections to the VOC TSD:
<bullet> In table 2 on page 6, TCEQ requests the EPA correct the
CTG Reference Document for Cutback Asphalt, which is mislabeled as
Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Bulk Gasoline Plant.
<bullet> In table 2 on page 7, TCEQ requests the EPA correct the
CTG Reference Document for Petroleum Liquid Storage Fixed Roof Tanks
CTG to document number EPA-450/2-77-035.
<bullet> In the Stage 1 Vapor Control Systems (1975) table on page
32 of the TSD, TCEQ requests the EPA remove the floating roof tank from
the Texas Requirement Summary. While a floating roof tank may be an
equivalent control under 30 TAC Sec. 115.223, this control option is
not specifically mentioned in 30 TAC Sec. Sec. 115.221-115.229.
<bullet> In the Tank Truck Gasoline Loading Terminals (1977) table
on page 40 of the TSD, TCEQ requests the EPA remove the floating roof
tank from the Texas Requirement Summary. While a floating roof tank may
meet the 90% control requirement at 30 TAC Sec. 115.212 or be
considered an equivalent control under 30 TAC Sec. 115.213 or 30 TAC
Sec. 115.223, it is not specifically mentioned in 30 TAC Sec. Sec.
115.211-115.219 or 30 TAC Sec. Sec. 115.221-115.229.
<bullet> In the Surface Coating of Metal Furniture (1977) and Metal
Furniture Coatings (2007) table on page 42 of the TSD, TCEQ requests
that the EPA add 30 TAC Sec. Sec. 115.450-115.459 to the Texas
Requirement Summary. TCEQ implemented the 1977 CTG in 30 TAC Sec. Sec.
115.420-115.429 and the 2007 CTG in 30 TAC Sec. Sec. 115.450-115.459.
The EPA's stated range of 2.3 to 5.1 pound per gallon (lb/gal) applies
to 30 TAC Sec. 115.453. The correct limit in 30 TAC Sec. 115.421(2)
is 3.0 lb/gal.
[[Page 13768]]
<bullet> In the Bulk Gasoline Plants (1977) table on pages 45-46 of
the TSD, TCEQ requests the EPA remove the floating roof tank from the
Texas Requirement Summary. While a floating roof tank may meet the 90%
control requirement at 30 TAC Sec. 115.212(a)(5) or be considered an
equivalent control under 30 TAC Sec. 115.213, it is not specifically
mentioned in 30 TAC 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 50 of the TSD, TCEQ requests the EPA add
30 TAC Sec. Sec. 115.450-115.459 to the Texas Requirement Summary.
TCEQ implemented the 1978 CTG in 30 TAC Sec. Sec. 115.420-115.429 and
the 2008 CTG in 30 TAC Sec. Sec. 115.450-115.459.
<bullet> In the Graphic Arts-Rotogravure and Flexography table on
pages 55-56 of the TSD, TCEQ requests the EPA correct the Texas
Requirement Summary. TCEQ 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 57 of the TSD, TCEQ requests the EPA correct
the Texas Requirement Summary. TCEQ rules in 30 TAC 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 size of the tank.
<bullet> In the Aerospace (1997) table on pages 70-71 of the TSD,
TCEQ requests the EPA correct the Texas Requirement Summary. TCEQ rules
in 30 TAC Sec. Sec. 115.420-115.429 require VOC content limits ranging
from 60 to 1,230 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.
Conventional spray application is prohibited.
NO<INF>X</INF> TSD
Comment: TCEQ stated their support for the proposed approval. TCEQ
requested the following changes: (1) on page 11, remove the incorrect
reference to SCR, (2) on page 14, remove the incorrect reference to
SNCR, (3) the correct ratings are less than 1 MW; 1.0 MW or greater,
but less than 10MW; and 10 MW or greater. TCEQ also requested
correcting minor discrepancies in the VOC TSD table of states' RACT
comparisons.
Response: The EPA has provided final NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC TSDs
that reflect these corrections to the supplemental TSDs and the
corrected TSDs are available in the docket.
F. Other Comments
The EPA received several comments that were not relevant to this
action and/or which were outside the scope of this action. Consistent
with CAA section 110, a SIP is designed to address the relevant NAAQS
pollutant and its precursors. For ozone nonattainment purposes, the EPA
is required to review the State's SIP revision to determine if it meets
the RACT requirements of the CAA. RACT requirements for the ozone NAAQS
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, 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. Commenters request
that the EPA include an analysis of CO<INF>2</INF> emissions changes
associated with the proposed RACT determinations, and the environmental
impacts of carbon pollution.
Response: Emissions and impacts associated with CO<INF>2</INF> and
other GHG emissions are outside of the scope of this action.
Comment: Commenters recommend if an area does not meet Federal
standards then any and all industry in the State that does not meet air
quality standard emissions be immediately shut down until air quality
standards are met and sustained for one quarter. The commenters also
recommended the implementation of a mandatory prison sentence for
repeat polluters.
Response: Cessation of operation of industrial sources,
enforcement, and penalties are outside the scope of this action.
Comment: Commenter stated their support for the approval and
implementation of the proposed regulation to protect the environment
and reduce pollution.
Response: The EPA appreciates the support.
III. Final Action
The EPA is approving the SIP revisions submitted by Texas on May
12, 2020, and May 13, 2020, that fulfill the Serious RACT requirements
for the DFW nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA is
also approving the concurrent 30 TAC Chapters 115 and 117 rule
revisions. Specifically, the EPA is approving amendments to 30 TAC
Chapter 115, Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds,
Sec. Sec. 115.10, 115.111, 115.112, 115.119, and 115.421, and 30 TAC
Chapter 117, Control of Air Pollution from Nitrogen Compounds,
Sec. Sec. 117.10, 117.403, 117.8000, and 117.9030, into the Texas SIP.
The 30 TAC Chapter 115 and 117 amendments implement major source
NO<INF>X</INF> and VOC RACT requirements to the DFW nonattainment area
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS Serious classification.
We are also approving in this action the CTG VOC RACT negative
declarations for the following categories of sources: fiberglass boat
manufacturing materials, surface coating for flat wood paneling,
letterpress printing, shipbuilding and ship repair surface coating
operations, vegetable oil manufacturing, rubber tire manufacturing
categories; for Wise County only: graphic arts--rotogravure and
flexography, flexible package printing, refinery vacuum producing
systems and process unit turnarounds, wood furniture manufacturing, and
manufacture of synthesized pharmaceutical products.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference the
revisions to the Texas 30 TAC Chapters 115 and 117 regulations as
described in Section III of this preamble, Final Action. The EPA has
made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available
through <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> (please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA
for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by the
EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110
and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of
the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next
update to the SIP compilation.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
[[Page 13769]]
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is
to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the
Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
action:
<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 State Implementation Plan approvals under the
CAA 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 Clean Air Act.
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 final 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 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 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 dioxide, 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 40 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:
0
a. In paragraph (c), the table titled ``EPA Approved Regulations in the
Texas SIP'' is amended by revising the entries for ``Section 115.10'',
``Section 115.111'', ``Section 115.112'', ``Section 115.119'',
``Section 115.421'', ``Section 117.10'', ``Section 117.403'', ``Section
117.8000'', and ``Section 117.9030''; and
0
b. In paragraph (e), the table titled ``EPA Approved Nonregulatory
Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas SIP'' is amended
by adding entries for ``VOC RACT negative declarations for fiberglass
boat manufacturing materials, surface coating for flat wood paneling,
letterpress printing, shipbuilding and ship repair surface coating
operations, vegetable oil manufacturing, and rubber tire manufacturing;
for Wise County only: graphic arts--rotogravure and flexography,
flexible package printing, refinery vacuum producing systems and
process unit turnarounds, wood furniture manufacturing, and manufacture
of synthesized pharmaceutical products'', ``Dallas-Fort Worth 2008
eight-hour ozone serious nonattainment NO<INF>X</INF> RACT
demonstration'', and ``Dallas-Fort Worth 2008 eight-hour ozone serious
nonattainment VOC RACT demonstration'' to the end of the table.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.2270 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
EPA Approved Regulations in the Texas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State approval/
State citation Title/subject submittal EPA approval date Explanation
date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 115 (Reg 5)--Control of Air Pollution From Volatile Organic Compounds
Subchapter A--Definitions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 115.10............... Definitions............. 3/4/2020 3/23/2026, 91 FR
[INSERT FEDERAL
REGISTER PAGE WHERE
THE DOCUMENT BEGINS].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subchapter B--General Volatile Organic Compound Sources
Division 1: Storage of Volatile Organic Compounds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Section 115.111.............. Exemptions.............. 3/4/2020 3/23/2026, 91 FR
[INSERT FEDERAL
REGISTER PAGE WHERE
THE DOCUMENT BEGINS].
[[Page 13770]]
Section 115.112.............. Control Requirements.... 3/4/2020 3/23/2026, 91 FR
[INSERT FEDERAL
REGISTER PAGE WHERE
THE DOCUMENT BEGINS].
* * * * * * *
Section 115.119.............. Compliance Schedules.... 3/4/2020 3/23/2026, 91 FR
[INSERT FEDERAL
REGISTER PAGE WHERE
THE DOCUMENT BEGINS].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subchapter E--Solvent-Using Processes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Division 2: Surface Coating Processes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Section 115.421.............. Emission Specifications. 3/4/2020 3/23/2026, 91 FR
[INSERT FEDERAL
REGISTER PAGE WHERE
THE DOCUMENT BEGINS].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 117--Control of Air Pollution from Nitrogen Compounds
Subchapter A--Definitions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 117.10............... Definitions............. 3/4/2020 3/23/2026, 91 FR
[INSERT FEDERAL
REGISTER PAGE WHERE
THE DOCUMENT BEGINS].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subchapter B--Combustion Control at Major Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Sources in Ozone
Nonattainment Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Division 4--Dallas-Fort Worth Eight-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area Major Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 117.403.............. Exemptions.............. 3/4/2020 3/23/2026, 91 FR
[INSERT FEDERAL
REGISTER PAGE WHERE
THE DOCUMENT BEGINS].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subchapter G--General Monitoring and Testing Requirements
Division 1--Compliance Stack Testing and Report Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 117.8000............. Stack Testing 3/4/2020 3/23/2026, 91 FR
Requirements. [INSERT FEDERAL
REGISTER PAGE WHERE
THE DOCUMENT BEGINS].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subchapter H--Administrative Provisions
Division 1--Compliance Schedules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 117.9030............. Compliance Schedule for 3/4/2020 3/23/2026, 91 FR
Dallas-Fort Worth Eight- [INSERT FEDERAL
Hour Ozone REGISTER PAGE WHERE
Nonattainment Area THE DOCUMENT BEGINS].
Major Sources.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(e) * * *
[[Page 13771]]
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 Dallas-Fort Worth, 3/4/2020 3/23/2026, 91 FR For the DFW Serious
for fiberglass boat TX, 2008 8-hour [INSERT FEDERAL classification
manufacturing materials, surface ozone NAAQS REGISTER PAGE
coating for flat wood paneling, nonattainment area. WHERE THE DOCUMENT
letterpress printing, BEGINS.
shipbuilding and ship repair
surface coating operations,
vegetable oil manufacturing, and
rubber tire manufacturing; for
Wise County only: graphic arts--
rotogravure and flexography,
flexible package printing,
refinery vacuum producing
systems and process unit
turnarounds, wood furniture
manufacturing, and manufacture
of synthesized pharmaceutical
products.
Dallas-Fort Worth 2008 eight-hour Dallas-Fort Worth, 5/12/2020 3/23/2026, 91 FR
ozone serious nonattainment NOX TX, 2008 8-hour [INSERT FEDERAL
RACT demonstration. ozone NAAQS REGISTER PAGE
nonattainment area. WHERE THE DOCUMENT
BEGINS].
Dallas-Fort Worth 2008 eight-hour Dallas-Fort Worth, 5/13/2020 3/23/2026, 91 FR
ozone serious nonattainment VOC TX, 2008 8-hour [INSERT FEDERAL
RACT demonstration. ozone NAAQS REGISTER PAGE
nonattainment area. WHERE THE DOCUMENT
BEGINS].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2026-05607 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.