[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 217 (Wednesday, November 10, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68989-69002]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28135]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2006-0132; FRL-9223-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Excess
Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and Malfunction
Activities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The EPA is finalizing its proposal to partially approve and
partially disapprove a revision to the Texas State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submitted by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)
in a letter dated January 23, 2006 (the January 23, 2006 SIP
submittal). Today's action finalizes our May 13, 2010 proposal that
concerned revisions to 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 101,
General Air Quality Rules, Subchapter A General Rules; and Subchapter F
Emissions Events and Scheduled Maintenance, Startup, and Shutdown
Activities. We are finalizing our proposed approval of those portions
of the rule that are consistent with the federal Clean Air Act (the Act
or CAA), and finalizing our proposed disapproval of those portions of
the rule that are inconsistent with the Act. More specifically, we are
finalizing our proposed disapproval of provisions that provide for an
affirmative defense against civil penalties for excess emissions during
planned maintenance, startup, or shutdown activities and related
provisions that contain nonseverable cross-references to the
affirmative defense provision. A disapproval of these provisions means
that an affirmative defense is not available in an enforcement action
in Federal court to enforce the SIP for violations due to excess
emissions during planned maintenance, startup, or shutdown activities.
We are taking this action under section 110 of the Act.

DATES: This rule will be effective on January 10, 2011.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2006-0132. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-
2733. The file will be made available by appointment for public
inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room between the hours of 8:30
a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal holidays. Contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph below to
make an appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least
two working days in advance of your visit. There will be a 15 cent per
page fee for making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit,
please check in at the EPA Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Alan Shar, Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax
(214) 665-7263, e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What actions did we propose?
II. When did the public comment period end?
III. Who submitted comments to us?
IV. What is our final action?
V. What are the public comments and EPA's responses to them?
    A. General Comments of Support
    B. Comments Related to the SIP Stringency and CAA Section 110(l)
Requirements
    C. Comments Related to Texas' Phase Out Approach and Disapproval
Effects
    D. Comments Related to National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS), Air Quality, and State Control Options
    E. Comments Related to Technical Infeasibility and Disapproval
Effects
    F. Comments Related to EPA Guidance and Policies and Disapproval
Effects
    G. Comments Related to Procedural Aspects of the Rulemaking
    H. Comments Related to Interpretation of 30 TAC 101.221(d)
    I. Comments Related to Potential Enforcement Actions
    J. Comments Related to Administrative Necessity and One-Step-at-
a-Time Doctrine
    K. Comments Related to Weakening of the SIP
    L. Comments Related to Clarification Requests
VI. Final Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What actions did we propose?

    In EPA's May 13, 2010 proposal (75 FR 26892), we proposed to
partially approve and partially disapprove a revision to the Texas SIP,
as submitted to EPA on January 23, 2006. More specifically, the May 13,
2010 proposal reflected EPA's intent to partially approve and partially
disapprove submitted revisions to 30 TAC General Air Quality Rule 101
into the Texas SIP, as outlined in the Table below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  30 TAC General Air Quality
           Rule 101             Type of action       Type of change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subchapter A, Section 101.1    Proposed         Revised Section.
 (Definitions).                 Approval.
Subchapter F, Section 101.201  Proposed         Revised Section.
 (Emissions Event Reporting     Approval.
 and Recordkeeping
 Requirements) \1\.
Subchapter F, Section 101.211  Proposed         Revised Section.
 (Scheduled Maintenance,        Approval.
 Startup, and Shutdown
 Reporting and Recordkeeping
 Requirements) \2\.
Subchapter F, Section 101.221  Proposed         New Section.
 (Operational Requirements).    Approval.
Subchapter F, Section 101.222  Proposed         New Section.
 (a)-(g) (Demonstrations).      Approval.
Subchapter F, Section 101.222  Proposed         New Section.
 (h)-(j) (Demonstrations).      Disapproval.
Subchapter F, Section 101.223  Proposed         New Section.
 (Actions to Reduce Excessive   Approval.
 Emissions).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Subsequent to the proposal, TCEQ withdrew section 101.201(h) from
  EPA's review. Letter from Bryan W. Shaw, TCEQ Chairman to Alfredo
  Armendariz, EPA Region 6 Administrator, dated August 5, 2010.
\2\ Subsequent to the proposal, TCEQ withdrew section 101.211(f) from
  EPA's review. Letter from Bryan W. Shaw, TCEQ Chairman to Alfredo
  Armendariz, EPA Region 6 Administrator, dated August 5, 2010.

    Section E of the May 13, 2010 proposal (75 FR at pp. 26896-26897)
stated EPA's reasoning for the proposal to disapprove sections
101.222(h) (Planned Maintenance, Startup, or Shutdown Activity),
101.222(i) (concerning effective date of permit applications), and
101.222(j) (concerning processing of permit applications) into the
Texas SIP. In short, we proposed to disapprove section 101.222(h)
because it provides an affirmative defense for excess emissions during
planned maintenance. Section 101.222(h) also provides for an
affirmative defense for excess emissions during planned startup and
shutdown. However, because the provisions regarding excess emissions
during planned startup and shutdown are not severable from that for
planned maintenance, we proposed to disapprove section 101.222(h) in
its entirety. We further noted that a preferable means of dealing with
excess emissions from planned startup and shutdown, in cases where
sources are unable to comply with an applicable emission limit during
those periods, would be to establish an alternative limit that would
apply during startup and shutdown.
    We proposed to disapprove sections 101.222(i) and (j), which
concern the timing and processing procedures for permits that would
address excess emissions during periods of maintenance, startup or
shutdown, because those provisions were not severable from section
101.222(h). For more detail, see 75 FR 26896-26897 of the May 13, 2010
proposal.
    We proposed to approve section 101.1 (Definitions) because it
provides for consistency among Subchapters A and F, thereby
facilitating implementation of the rule and other legislative changes.
We proposed to approve section 101.201 (Emissions Event Reporting and
Recordkeeping Requirements), because it establishes new requirements
that local air pollution authorities be informed of excess emissions.
We proposed to approve section 101.211 (Scheduled Maintenance, Startup,
and Shutdown Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements), because it
provides for reporting and recordkeeping of the initial notification
and final report of the scheduled maintenance, startup, and shutdown
activities. We proposed to approve section 101.221 (Operational
Requirements) because it provides the requirement that air pollution
abatement equipment must be maintained and be in good working order. We
proposed to approve section 101.222(a)-(g) (Demonstrations) because it
provides an affirmative defense for certain emission events that is
consistent with the interpretation of the Act as set forth in our
guidance documents. We also proposed to approve section 101.223
(Actions to Reduce Excessive Emissions) because it provides for a
corrective action plan and written notification for facilities
determined to have excessive emission events to take necessary actions
to reduce the future occurrence of such events.

II. When did the public comment period end?

    EPA's proposed action of May 13, 2010 (75 FR 26892) provided a 30-
day public comment period. During this 30-day period we received 7
letters requesting EPA extend the public comment period. In response,
we extended the public comment period by two weeks, such that it closed
on June 28, 2010, rather than June 14, 2010. See 75 FR 33220 (June 11,
2010).

III. Who submitted comments to us?

    During the public comment period, we received written comments on
our May 13, 2010 proposal (75 FR 26892) from the Lower Colorado River
Authority; Texas Municipal Power Agency; National Environmental
Development Association's Clean Air Project; Texas Industry Project;
American Electric Power; Luminant; Utility Air Regulatory Group; Texas
Oil and Gas Association; Texas Association of Business; Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality; Texas Mining and Reclamation
Association; Gulf Coast Lignite Coalition; San Miguel

Electric Cooperative; Association of Electric Companies of Texas; and
Environmental Clinic--University of Texas School of Law on behalf of
Citizens for Environmental Justice, Lone Star Chapter Sierra Club,
Public Citizen's Texas Office, Air Alliance Houston, Environmental
Integrity Project, and Environmental Defense Fund.

IV. What is our final action?

    Except for two provisions that were withdrawn by the State by
letter dated August 5, 2010, as described below, we are finalizing our
proposal to approve revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 101, Subchapter A
General Rules; and Subchapter F Emissions Events and Scheduled
Maintenance, Startup, and Shutdown Activities of the January 23, 2006
SIP submittal as revisions to the federally-approved Texas SIP.
    Subsequent to the publication of the proposed rule, in a letter
dated August 5, 2010, TCEQ notified EPA of its withdrawal from EPA
review of sections 101.201(h) (concerning annual emissions event
reporting) and 101.211(f) (concerning annual scheduled maintenance,
startup, and shutdown activity reporting), as adopted by the TCEQ on
December 14, 2005. The withdrawal of these two pieces of the submission
does not affect our ability to take final action approving the
remaining pieces we proposed to approve. As an initial matter, the
withdrawn portions are independent provisions that are severable from
the remaining regulations pending before EPA. In addition, the
withdrawal of these provisions does not create a defect in the
remaining portions of the rule for which we proposed approval.
Paragraphs (a) through (g) of section 101.201 and paragraphs (a)
through (e) of section 101.211 acted upon today contain all of the
necessary requirements for how and when to report excess emissions
events. TCEQ only withdrew the annual reporting requirement in the two
paragraphs, and an annual reporting requirement is not a criterion for
an approvable excess emissions SIP revision. Furthermore, TCEQ already
has the ability to collect emissions information under the Texas SIP at
the Emission Inventory Requirements in 30 TAC sections 101.10 (b) and
(f), which require an owner or operator to submit emission inventories
and/or related data, including excess emissions occurring during
maintenance activities, startup and shutdowns, and upset conditions, to
the state.\3\ Section 101.10 was approved into Texas SIP on January 26,
1999 at 64 FR 3847.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Furthermore, although not included as part of the approved
SIP, the title V deviation reporting requirements provide
significant information to the State (which is also available to EPA
and the public) regarding emission event violations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the submitted rule and the Texas SIP already contain
adequate reporting requirements for excess emissions during planned and
unplanned startup, shutdown, maintenance and malfunction events, TCEQ's
withdrawal of the sections referenced above does not affect our partial
approval of the remaining portions of the rule which were proposed for
approval. Thus, as described below, we are taking final action to
approve all of the provisions for which we proposed approval, with the
exception of withdrawn sections 101.201(h) and 101.211(f) of the
January 23, 2006 SIP submittal. We have made TCEQ's August 5, 2010
withdrawal letter available for public inspection in the docket
associated with this action, identified as EPA-R06-OAR-2006-0132.
    In summary, we are finalizing our May 13, 2010 proposal to approve
Subchapter A, section 101.1 (Definitions); and Subchapter F, sections
101.201 (Emissions Event Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements)
(except for 101.201(h)), 101.211 (Scheduled Maintenance, Startup, and
Shutdown Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements) (except for
101.211(f)), 101.221 (Operational Requirements), 101.222(a) through (g)
(Demonstrations), and 101.223 (Actions to Reduce Excessive Emissions)
into the Texas SIP. We are approving these provisions for the reasons
provided in our proposed approval: They clarify existing reporting
requirements; they clarify that the rule does not allow exemptions from
compliance with federal requirements, including any requirements in the
federally-approved SIP; they provide for an affirmative defense \4\
from unplanned startup, shutdown, or maintenance (i.e., malfunctions),
consistent with the CAA as interpreted by EPA; and they provide for a
corrective action plan and written notification concerning excessive
emission events. See section D of our May 13, 2010 proposal (75 FR at
26894).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ An affirmative defense is defined, in the context of an
enforcement proceeding, as a response or defense put forward by a
defendant, regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof,
and the merits of which are independently and objectively evaluated
in a judicial or administrative proceeding. By demonstrating that
the elements of an affirmative defense have been met, a source may
avoid a civil penalty, but not injunctive relief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are also finalizing our May 13, 2010 proposal to disapprove
sections 101.222(h) (Planned Maintenance, Startup, or Shutdown
Activity), 101.222(i) (concerning effective date of permit
applications), and 101.222(j) (concerning processing of permit
applications) of the January 23, 2006 submittal. As we explain more
fully below, we are disapproving section 101.222(h) because it provides
an affirmative defense against penalties for excess emissions during
planned maintenance activities. Because the portions of section
101.222(h) that provide an affirmative defense for excess emissions
during planned startup and shutdown are not severable from the
provision for maintenance, those provisions are also disapproved.\5\
Section 101.222(i) concerns the scheduling and applicable effective
dates for permit applications submitted to TCEQ for sources that
request unauthorized emissions associated with the planned maintenance,
startup, or shutdown activities be permitted. Since section 101.222(i)
is not severable from section 101.222(h), which we are disapproving, we
are disapproving section 101.222(i). Section 101.222(j) concerns the
processing of permit applications referenced in 101.222(h), and
provides the Executive Director with the authority to process, review,
and permit unauthorized emissions from planned maintenance, startup, or
shutdown activities. We explained our reasons for proposing to
disapprove section 101.222(h) above. Since section 101.222(j) is not
severable from section 101.222(h), which we are disapproving, we are
disapproving section 101.222(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Although we interpret the Act to allow for an affirmative
defense for excess emissions during startup and shutdown, we note
that the current Texas rule includes a defect which could prevent
our approval of this provision in the future if submitted in the
same form. Specifically, instead of identifying the criteria a
source must meet to assert an affirmative defense for planned
activities, the Texas rule cross-references the criteria that apply
for unplanned events. Thus, sources might argue that many of the
criteria would not apply and would not need to be proved when
asserting an affirmative defense. The criteria that a source must
prove in asserting a defense are critical for ensuring that the
defense will not be abused. Thus, any future rule submitted by the
State must be clear about the applicable criteria that apply and
those criteria must ensure that, among other things, excess
emissions were not due to inadequate design, that the facility was
operated consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions and
the frequency and duration of operation in startup or shutdown mode
was minimized. See the 1999 Policy at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the comments received on this action, we provide in
more detail here our rationale for our final action

disapproving that provision. EPA's interpretation of the CAA is that it
is not appropriate for SIPs to exempt periods of startup, shutdown,
maintenance or malfunction from compliance with applicable emission
limits. This is supported by the definition of ``emission limitation''
in section 302(k) of the Act, which requires emissions be limited on a
``continuous'' basis. In addition, we have noted that because SIPs are
used to demonstrate how an area will attain and maintain health-based
standards, it is not appropriate to exempt any periods of operation
from compliance with the limits relied on to demonstrate that public
health will be protected. We recognize that courts have disagreed
whether it may be appropriate to provide for certain exceptions from
compliance with emission limits when setting technology based
standards. Mossville Environmental Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232,
1242 (DC Cir. 2004) (upholding, as reasonable, standards that had
factored in variability of emissions under all operating conditions).
See, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In
the nature of things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any
upset provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain
point, the transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable
acts of third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage, operator
intoxication or insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be
a matter for the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement
discretion, not for specification in advance by regulation.'').
Although one might argue that it is appropriate to account for such
variability in technology-based standards, EPA's longstanding position
has been that it is not appropriate to provide exemptions from
compliance with emission limits in SIPs that are developed for the
purpose of demonstrating how to attain and maintain the public health-
based NAAQS. For purposes of demonstrating attainment and maintenance,
States assume source compliance with emission limitations at all times.
Thus, broad provisions that would exempt compliance during periods of
startup, shutdown, malfunction and/or maintenance would undermine the
integrity of the SIP. Recently, in the context of the CAA section 112
program regulating emissions of hazardous air pollutants, the court in
Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 130 S.
Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2010), held that the CAA section 302(k) definition of
emission standard or emission limitation in conjunction with the
provisions of section 112 require continuous compliance with section
112-compliant standards. We believe that this case supports EPA's long-
standing interpretation in the SIP context that it is inappropriate to
exempt periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction and/or maintenance
from compliance with emission limitations.
    Although EPA has long interpreted the CAA to bar States from
including exemptions from compliance with applicable emission
limitations during periods of startup, shutdown, maintenance and
malfunction, we have also recognized that sources may, despite good
practices, be unable to meet emission limitations during periods of
startup and shutdown and, that despite good operating practices,
sources may suffer a malfunction due to events beyond the control of
the owner or operator. EPA's early policies provided that these events
should be addressed through enforcement discretion. See the memorandum
dated September 28, 1982, from Kathleen M. Bennett, Assistant
Administrator for Air, Noise, and Radiation entitled ``Policy on Excess
Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and Malfunctions''
(1982 Policy); and EPA's clarification to the above policy memorandum
dated February 15, 1983, from Kathleen M. Bennett, Assistant
Administrator for Air, Noise, and Radiation (1983 Policy). Later, in
practice, and then as reflected in a 1999 Policy memorandum, EPA
adopted an interpretation of the Act that would allow sources to assert
an affirmative defense to periods of excess emissions during startup,
shutdown and malfunction in an enforcement action for penalties, though
not in an action for injunctive relief. As explained in the 1999
Policy, in the course of an enforcement action for penalties, a source
could assert the affirmative defense and the burden would be on the
source to prove enumerated factors, including that the period of excess
emissions was minimized to the extent practicable and that the
emissions were not due to faulty operations or disrepair of
equipment.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ More recently, and consistent with an additional approach
discussed in the 1999 Policy (at 4-5), with respect to planned
startup and shutdown events, EPA has encouraged States to address
planned startup and shutdown in their SIPs. For those sources and
source categories where compliance with the applicable limit is not
possible during startup and/or shutdown, the State should develop
alternative, applicable emission limits for such events, which they
can consider in SIPs demonstrating attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS. As part of its justification of the SIP revision and in order
to address potential impacts on attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS, the State should analyze the impact of the potential worst-
case emissions that could be anticipated to occur during startup and
shutdown.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The criteria a source must prove when asserting an affirmative
defense, as provided in the 1999 Policy, are consistent with the
criteria identified in section 113(e) of the CAA that the courts and
EPA may consider in determining whether to assess a penalty (and, if
so, what amount) in the context of an enforcement action. Our goal in
developing the criteria recommended in the 1999 Policy was to provide
an avenue for relief from penalties for actions that are outside the
control of an owner or operator who is making best efforts to operate
consistent with applicable requirements. In other words, we believe it
is important to tailor the factors so that they encourage sources to
make best efforts to comply with emission limits that are intended to
bring an area into attainment with and to maintain health-based air
quality standards. We believe, however, that maintenance activities can
and should be scheduled during process shutdowns. To the extent they
are not, the source should ensure that control equipment can be
consistently effective during maintenance activities. Thus, we do not
believe that an affirmative defense for excess emissions during planned
maintenance is appropriate since there should not be circumstances
during which a source should exceed emission limits during
maintenance.\7\ Although we do not believe it is appropriate to approve
an affirmative defense for excess emissions during maintenance into the
SIP, section 113(e) of the Act still provides that a source may raise
factors in an enforcement action that the Administrator or a court may
consider in determining an appropriate penalty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ We note that if excess emissions occur during maintenance
and because of a malfunction, the affirmative defense for
malfunctions might be available to the source for such maintenance
activity as part of the broader malfunction event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that States are not required to provide an affirmative
defense approach, but, if they choose to do so, EPA will evaluate the
State's submitted rules to ensure they meet the requirements of the Act
as interpreted by EPA through the policy and guidance documents listed
in Section B of the May 13, 2010 proposal, including EPA's 1999 Policy.
In order to be consistent with the Act, an affirmative defense must be
narrowly-tailored in order not to undermine the enforceability of the
SIP. An effective enforcement program must be able to collect penalties
to deter avoidable violations. Thus, the SIP

should only provide the defense for circumstances where it is
infeasible to meet the applicable limit and the criteria that the
source must prove should ensure that the source has made all reasonable
efforts to comply. Otherwise, such an approach could undermine the
enforceability and attainment demonstration requirements of the Act.
Because, as discussed above, we do not believe that it is infeasible
for sources to meet applicable limits during planned maintenance, we
are disapproving section 101.222(h).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ To the extent there may be a unique situation where
maintenance cannot be performed at a time and in a manner that would
ensure compliance with an applicable emission limitation, the State
can consider establishing alternative limits that would apply during
such events. However, such a situation does not support the creation
of an affirmative defense that would apply more broadly to a variety
of maintenance activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We further note, as provided in more detail in our proposed rule,
that severing the unapprovable provisions (Sections 101.222(h), (i),
and (j)) of the rule does not affect the effectiveness or the
enforceability of the remaining portions of the rule that we are
approving in this final action. Section D of our May 13, 2010 (75 FR
26894) proposal stated the reasons for approving portions of the
submittal, and Section E (75 FR 26896) explained why we proposed
disapproval of sections 101.222(h), (i), and (j). As explained in the
proposed rule at 75 FR 26893, we believe sections 101.222(h),
101.222(i), and 101.222(j) are severable from, and independent of, the
remainder of the January 26, 2006 SIP submittal. Disapproving these
provisions does not make the portions of the submission that we are
proposing to approve more stringent than the State intended. The
provisions being disapproved address completely separate activities
when excess emissions occur (planned activities) from those addressed
by the provisions being approved (unplanned activities). The approved
provisions will provide the exact limited relief intended by the State
for sources covered by those provisions: A source may assert an
affirmative defense in an action seeking penalties for a violation of
an applicable emission limit during unplanned startup, shutdown,
malfunction or maintenance activity. In asserting the affirmative
defense, the source has the burden to prove certain criteria have been
met. EPA's action disapproving similar relief for excess emissions
during planned activities does not affect the stringency of the defense
being approved for periods of excess emissions during unplanned
activities.

V. What are the public comments and EPA's responses to them?

    We have evaluated the comments received on the proposed rule and,
as provided above, have determined to take final action consistent with
our proposal, with the exception that we are not taking final action on
two provisions withdrawn by the State. A summary of the comments and
our responses are provided below.

A. General Comments of Support

    Comments: Two commenters expressed support for EPA's proposed
approval of those sections of the January 23, 2006 SIP submittal,
identified with ``proposed approval'' in the above Table. Many other
commenters requested that EPA approve not only those sections
identified with ``proposed approval'' in the above Table but also the
entire January 23, 2006 SIP submittal. Another commenter expressed
support for EPA's proposal to disapprove certain sections of the
January 23, 2006 SIP submittal, and requested EPA disapprove the entire
January 23, 2010 SIP submittal as it relates to affirmative defenses.
    Response: EPA appreciates the support of the commenters who agree
with EPA's proposed action. We have also considered the concerns
expressed by the commenters who disagreed with all or a portion of
EPA's proposed action, as discussed below in response to the
commenters' more detailed comments.

B. Comments Related to the SIP Stringency and CAA Section 110(l)
Requirements

    Comments: Several commenters characterized the January 23, 2006 SIP
submittal as substituting a more stringent affirmative defense for a
pre-existing SIP-approved automatic exemption for excess emissions, or
that the submittal eliminates an exemption or affirmative defense.
Other commenters expressed concern that EPA's partial approval would
unlawfully increase the stringency of the Texas SIP. One commenter
asserted that partial disapproval would expose sources to civil
penalties. Another set of commenters stated that EPA's proposed
disapproval is contrary to section 110(l) of the Act and an unmerited
expansion of a solution to the problem of historically unauthorized
emissions. Two commenters stated that section 101.222(h) incorporates
by reference section 101.222(c)(9) which means that excess emissions
would not be eligible for an affirmative defense if such events
interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. They argue that
EPA has failed to show how the affirmative defense would interfere with
the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. One commenter noted
improvements to the air quality in Texas over the last 10 years despite
increases in population, and claims that the affirmative defense
provisions in the January 23, 2006 SIP submittal require a
demonstration that the covered emissions did not cause NAAQS
exceedances.
    Response: We disagree that our action increases the stringency of
the approved SIP. The federally-approved Texas SIP does not provide
either an exemption for or an affirmative defense to excess emissions
occurring during periods of planned or unplanned startup, shutdown,
maintenance, or malfunction activities. Previously approved provisions
that addressed excess emissions expired from the SIP on their own terms
as of July 1, 2006. Thus, under the federally-approved Texas SIP,
excess emissions are violations of the applicable emission limits, and
the SIP does not include any provision for asserting an affirmative
defense in response to an enforcement proceeding for excess emissions
during planned or unplanned maintenance, startup, shutdown or
malfunction. Thus, the action we are finalizing in this rulemaking--
approving an affirmative defense available in an enforcement action for
penalties for periods of excess emissions during unplanned maintenance,
startup, shutdown activities (including opacity events)--does not make
the approved SIP more stringent. Rather, it provides an avenue of
limited relief in an action for penalties for a source that violates an
applicable emission limit and can prove certain criteria have been met.
Thus, the comments asserting that the partial disapproval would expose
sources to penalties are incorrect, since excess emissions are
violations of the existing SIP and the existing SIP does not contain
affirmative defense provisions that provide relief in an action for
penalties for any period of excess emissions.
    In response to the commenter's concern that our disapproval would
increase the stringency of the Texas SIP, we note further that section
110(k)(3) of the CAA provides that the administrator can approve a plan
in part and disapprove a plan in part. A partial approval/partial
disapproval action is permissible when portions of the plan are
separable. ``Separable'' means the approved portions of the SIP
revision should not result in the approved portions of the SIP
submission being more stringent than the State would

have anticipated. The State's submitted provisions for an affirmative
defense for excess emissions from unplanned maintenance, startup, or
shutdown activities are separable from the provisions of the rule that
we are disapproving. Our action has no effect on the stringency of the
approved portions of the rule. The portions of the rule we are
approving today that provide for an affirmative defense for excess
emissions during unplanned maintenance, startup, or shutdown, and
malfunction activities (as identified with ``proposed approval'' in the
above Table) will operate exactly the same way under the federally
approved SIP as they do under state law.
    With respect to EPA's application of section 110(l) of the CAA in
this rulemaking action, we agree that section 110(l) provides that EPA
cannot approve a proposed SIP revision that would interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. In addition, it provides that
EPA cannot approve a SIP revision that would interfere with any other
applicable requirement of the Act. Section 110(l) applies to this
action, since the action is one that revises the existing SIP. We note
that the portions of the January 23, 2006 SIP submittal we are
approving do not modify any applicable emission limitation, nor do they
authorize violations of applicable emission limitations. All emissions
in excess of the applicable emission limits are considered violations.
The affirmative defense neither authorizes nor condones such events and
it is narrowly tailored consistent with our interpretation that such a
defense not undermine the enforcement or attainment provisions of the
Act. Thus, we have concluded that the affirmative defense provisions we
are approving into the SIP will not interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS and, as explained in more detail above, such
provisions are consistent with other applicable requirements of the
Act. We further note that the affirmative defense is limited to actions
for penalties and may not apply to actions for injunctive relief. Thus,
to the extent the State, EPA or a private citizen is concerned that
excess emissions might be causing or contributing to a violation of the
NAAQS, they can seek a court order to abate the activity. We disagree
with those commenters who suggest that in order for EPA to disapprove a
SIP revision, section 110(l) requires EPA to demonstrate that there
will be a violation of the NAAQS if EPA approves the SIP revision. As
an initial matter, we note that the language in section 110(l) provides
that EPA must disapprove a SIP revision if it ``would interfere with
any applicable requirement concerning attainment.'' This is quite
distinct from an obligation to prove that a violation will occur. We
believe that provisions that provide relief from penalties should be
limited to circumstances where sources are unable to comply despite
best efforts and, as explained above, we believe that maintenance
activities can be scheduled at times that would avoid the occurrence of
excess emissions. We further note that section 110(l) also provides
that EPA may not approve a SIP revision that interferes with any
applicable requirement of the Act. As explained more fully above,
because maintenance activities can be planned to occur during planned
outages, we do not believe that an affirmative defense for penalties is
appropriate for excess emissions occurring during such planned
maintenance activities. Allowing such a provision would undermine the
enforceability, as well as the attainment, requirements of the Act.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the New Mexico SIP provides for
an affirmative defense to maintenance-related activities.
    Response: Our review of a SIP revision submittal is governed by
section 110(l) of the Act. Assuming for the moment that the New Mexico
SIP contained a provision identical to that we are disapproving today
for Texas, section 110(l) would still bar our approval of the rule into
the Texas SIP for the reasons provided previously. The fact that we may
have erred in approving a SIP for one State does not support an
argument that we should make the same error with respect to a different
State. In any event, we note that the commenter does not point to a
specific provision in the New Mexico SIP to support its argument, and
we are unaware of any provision in the New Mexico SIP that provides an
affirmative defense for excess emissions during planned maintenance.
    Comment: Other commenters claim that EPA's disapproval would create
inequities between Texas sources and sources in other states whose
programs contain affirmative defenses for startup or shutdown
activities.
    Response: We disagree. The commenters are referring to perceived
inequities which are attributable to TCEQ's action combining a
``planned maintenance'' activity in section 101.222(h) with a
``startup'' or ``shutdown'' activity, leaving EPA no recourse but to
partially disapprove the January 23, 2006 SIP submittal.

C. Comments Related to Texas' Phase Out Approach and Disapproval
Effects

    Comments: Some commenters characterized the January 23, 2006 SIP
submittal as TCEQ's phase-out of a regulatory scheme in which excess
emissions during planned maintenance, startup, or shutdown (MSS)
activities were exempt from compliance to one where such emissions
would become authorized under a permit. Other commenters claimed that
EPA's disagreement with the Texas approach was not adequately
explained. These commenters stated that the point of difference between
EPA and TCEQ must have originated from the procedures and timing TCEQ
is providing to affect its phase-out. As a result, EPA's partial
disapproval would disrupt an orderly transition resulting in negative
impacts (including interstate inequities) at the expense of Texas
facilities and causing companies to forgo preventative maintenance.
TCEQ commented on the reasons supporting its phase-out approach (which
includes the categories of sources likely to report the majority of
excess emissions, the degree of complexity of processing of permit
applications for planned MSS activities for these categories, and
facilitating the orderly/temporary transition to appropriate permit
limits and requirements) and its plan to exercise enforcement
discretion when reviewing excess emissions from planned MSS activities
that fail to meet the schedule set forth in 30 TAC Sec.  101.222(h).
One commenter asserted that TCEQ's provision for an affirmative defense
to emissions from planned maintenance activities is a direct response
to EPA's comments to TCEQ.
    Response: As an initial matter, it is important to understand what
the commenters are referring to. The January 23, 2006 SIP submittal
submitted by the State relates to a broader process envisioned by the
State where it would have provisions in the Texas SIP that would
address excess emissions during unplanned and planned MSS and
malfunctions activities and also establish a process and schedule for
addressing emissions from planned MSS for sources through a New Source
Review (NSR) SIP permitting process. Pursuant to the January 23, 2006
SIP submittal, as sources apply for and receive NSR SIP permits that
authorize emission limitations for the emissions occurring during
planned MSS activities, then under the State's submitted transition
process, the affirmative defense provisions addressing excess emissions
during periods of planned MSS would

no longer apply upon the issuance of the NSR SIP permit. Instead, the
terms and conditions, including the newly imposed emission limitations
for the planned MSS emissions, of the NSR SIP permit would apply.
    EPA's role in evaluating a proposed SIP revision is to make sure
that the revision would not potentially interfere with attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the
Act. Thus, we must determine whether the State's regulatory choices are
consistent with the federal Clean Air Act, including the obligation to
attain and maintain the NAAQS and the ability to adequately enforce the
obligations in the approved SIP. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR
52.02(a). We explain our reasons for proposing disapproval of sections
101.222(h), (i), and (j) in section E of the May 13, 2009 proposal (75
FR 26892) and provide more detail above.
    The commenters are incorrect that our disapproval of the three
provisions is based on a ``difference'' with Texas over their approach
to address periods of excess emissions as part of a broader permitting
effort. The basis for our disapproval is explained above and is
separate from any concern that we may have with Texas' overall approach
to addressing excess emissions through permitting. The State's choice
to create a permitting process to address excess emissions during
planned maintenance, startup, or shutdown activities does not justify
an approval into the SIP--even for a temporary period of time--a
provision that we believe is inconsistent with the Act. We agree with
the State that it is appropriate to consider appropriate emission
limits that would apply during periods of planned startup and shutdown
and to incorporate them into NSR SIP permits. As provided in the 1999
Policy, where it is not possible for sources to comply with applicable
emission limits during periods of startup and shutdown, it is
appropriate for the State to develop alternative emission limits that
would apply during such periods. This can include the State using its
EPA-approved NSR SIP requirements. However, we note that the State
cannot issue any NSR SIP permit that has a less stringent emission
limit than already is contained in the approved SIP. For example, the
State cannot issue a NSR SIP permit that has less stringent Volatile
Organic Compounds limits than those in Chapter 115 as approved into the
Texas SIP, or less stringent Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) limits
in Chapter 117 as approved into the Texas SIP. The State must issue a
NSR SIP permit that meets all applicable requirements of the Texas SIP.
If the State wishes to issue a NSR SIP permit that does not meet the
applicable requirements of the Texas SIP, then any such alternative
limits would need to be submitted to EPA for approval as a source-
specific revision to the SIP, before they would modify the federally
applicable emission limits in the approved SIP.
    We disagree with the commenters who suggest that the partial
disapproval will disrupt the orderly transition contemplated by Texas
in which sources will address excess emissions in permits. As we have
noted before, the current SIP does not provide an affirmative defense
for any period of excess emissions. Thus, our disapproval of the
provisions providing an affirmative defense for excess emissions during
periods of planned maintenance, startup, or shutdown activities does
not affect the status quo.
    The commenters also appear to be asserting that EPA's disapproval
of the submitted affirmative defense provision for excess emissions
during planned maintenance, startup, and shutdown activities (which
would apply in the period before a specific source applies for and
receives a NSR SIP permit) would unfairly disadvantage sources. To the
extent that the commenters are concerned that an inequity is created by
Texas' phased-out approach for addressing periods of excess emissions
through the permitting process, that inequity is created by the system
developed by the State, not by EPA's partial disapproval of the SIP.
These commenters appear to assume that EPA's approval of the submitted
affirmative defense provision for excess emissions during planned MSS
activities is needed only as a ``temporary'' measure until the State
finishes issuing all affected sources their NSR SIP permits containing
emissions limitations for these types of emissions. However, the State-
issued NSR SIP permits must meet all applicable requirements under the
EPA-approved Texas SIP. Should the State wish to issue a NSR SIP permit
addressing periods of excess emissions during planned MSS activities
that will not meet all of the requirements in the Texas SIP, then that
particular NSR SIP permit must be submitted by the State to EPA for
approval as a source-specific SIP revision.
    The comment claiming that TCEQ added an affirmative defense for
planned maintenance based on a comment from EPA provides no detail. We
are unaware of any statement that we made that would have encouraged
the State to add such a provision and the commenter does not reference
any specific comment from EPA. Regardless of whether any statements
were made, an affirmative defense for planned maintenance is not
appropriate under the Act. Because the affirmative defense for planned
maintenance is not severable from that for planned startup or shutdown,
we are disapproving in whole the provision (section 101.222(h)) that
establishes the affirmative defense for planned maintenance, startup,
or shutdown activities.

D. Comments Related to NAAQS, Air Quality, and State Control Options

    Comments: Some commenters contend that EPA's proposed disapproval
is contrary to the cooperative federalism principles in the Act,
referencing CleanCOALition v. TXU Power, 536 F.3d 469, 471 (5th Cir.
2008) and Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Costle, 650 F.2d 579, 581 (5th Cir.
1981), and amounts to second guessing Texas' reasonable choices for how
to achieve the NAAQS, including opacity limits in 30 TAC Chapter 111.
These commenters continue by stating that EPA's disapproval would lead
to interstate inequities and remove permitting incentives.
    Response: Under the NAAQS provisions of the CAA, air pollution
control at its source is the primary responsibility of States and local
governments. EPA is respectful of the Act and cognizant of the
cooperative federalism principle contained therein. However, while the
Act does give States a fair degree of latitude in choosing the mix of
controls necessary to meet and maintain the NAAQS, it also places some
limits on the choices States can make. EPA's role is to ensure that the
SIP submittal is consistent with the CAA. Any SIP submittal, including
revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 101, must adhere to applicable requirements
of the federal CAA, including the obligation to provide for attainment
and maintenance of the NAAQS and to ensure that the SIP may be
adequately enforced. EPA's statutory responsibilities in reviewing a
SIP is to ensure it meets the requirements of the Act, including those
in section 110(a)(2) and section 172(c). As explained in the May 13,
2010 proposal and above, as part of EPA's review, we determined that
the provision providing for an affirmative defense for excess emissions
during planned maintenance is inconsistent with the CAA.
    With respect to the comments that suggest that our proposed
disapproval will lead to removal of permitting incentives, we disagree.
The submitted transition permitting process is the State's choice for
how to handle excess

emissions during planned maintenance, startup, or shutdown activities.
Under the State's chosen transition process, after a source receives a
NSR SIP permit that establishes emission limitations upon the planned
maintenance, startup, or shutdown emissions, then the source no longer
can assert an affirmative defense for excess emissions during planned
MSS activities. The source can choose between a potential enforcement
action (and whether it will prevail in its assertion of affirmative
defense) or obtaining a NSR SIP permit that sets limits on the excess
emissions during planned maintenance, startup, or shutdown activities.
Thus, we do not see how the presence or absence of an affirmative
defense for excess emissions during planned maintenance, startup, or
shutdown activities in the SIP will affect the choice a source might
make regarding permitting. Furthermore, we disagree with the comment
that our disapproval will create interstate inequities because other
SIPs contain affirmative defenses for excess emissions during planned
maintenance activities. The commenter references no specific SIPs that
contain provisions similar to what we are disapproving in this action.
As stated above, our review of a SIP revision submittal is governed by
section 110(l) of the Act; to the extent we may have erred in approving
an affirmative defense for excess emissions during planned maintenance
into a SIP for one State does not support an argument that we should
make the same error with respect to a different State. Within Texas,
however, we note that based upon our disapproval, an affirmative
defense for excess emissions during periods of planned MSS would be
equally unavailable to any source. For discussion concerning opacity
limits in 30 TAC Chapter 111, see section H of this document.
    Comment: One commenter notes the similarities between the proposed
SIP revisions and the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
requirements for SSM events.
    Response: As an initial matter, we note that there are several
differences between the proposed SIP revision and the NSPS
requirements. First, the NSPS provisions in 40 CFR 60.11 do not
establish an affirmative defense, but rather exempt periods of excess
emissions during startup, shutdown and malfunction from compliance with
underlying emissions limits, unless otherwise specified. The provision
does not establish an affirmative defense nor does it address periods
of maintenance. Even assuming the NSPS provisions were similar,
however, we note that the Agency has historically allowed more
flexibility in addressing emissions during startup, shutdown and
malfunction for technology-driven regulations, such as the NSPS. SIPs,
however, are designed for the purpose of attaining and maintaining the
health-protective NAAQS, and the Agency has consistently taken the
position that broad exemptions from compliance with applicable emission
limits during SSM are not appropriate because they cannot be adequately
accounted for in plans to demonstrate attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS. In addition to the difficulties States would encounter in
predicting how many sources may be exceeding underlying limits at any
one time, for how long, and by how much, such provisions undermine
incentives for sources to operate using sound practices. In order to
address the limits of technology for standards included in plans to
attain the health-based NAAQS, we have urged States to set alternative
emission limits that apply during periods of startup and shutdown where
compliance with the otherwise applicable emission limits is impossible;
to use enforcement discretion; or to establish an affirmative defense
that is limited to actions for penalties. As explained above, however,
we do not believe that it is appropriate to establish an affirmative
defense for excess emissions during planned maintenance activities
because we believe that these activities can be anticipated and
scheduled during planned outages.
    Comment: One comment suggests that providing affirmative defenses
for startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) could result in emissions
contributing to ozone NAAQS exceedances. The same commenter also states
that flaring and upsets could contribute to ozone nonattainment.
    Response: We agree with the comments that flaring and upset events
could contribute to ozone NAAQS nonattainment. Excess emissions related
to flaring events are unauthorized emissions and thus are considered a
violation of the applicable emission limit. TCEQ's ozone NAAQS control
strategies including controls of flares are addressed in the
substantive control requirement provisions of the SIPs as part of ozone
attainment demonstration plans and were not specifically addressed as
part of the emission event provisions in the 30 TAC Chapter 101 rules
of the Texas SIP, including the January 23, 2006 SIP submittal. The
rule on which we are taking action here does not excuse or authorize
flaring events due to startup, shutdown, malfunction or maintenance. To
the extent a flaring event causes excess emissions during a period of
unplanned startup, shutdown or maintenance, the rule would provide
limited relief to the source in an action for penalties, assuming the
source could prove certain factors had been met; however, it does not
authorize or excuse those excess emissions. Thus, our approval of the
affirmative defense in an action for penalties for excess emissions
during unplanned startup, shutdown or maintenance will not interfere
with attainment or maintenance of the ozone NAAQS. We note that to the
extent a violation of the NAAQS is caused by a violation of an emission
limit in a SIP, the most effective means to ensure limited harm to
ambient air quality from the exceedance would be an action for
injunctive relief. That remedy is unaffected by our approval of the
affirmative defense, which is limited to actions for penalties.

E. Comments Related to Technical Infeasibility and Disapproval Effects

    Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that it is not
technically feasible to meet certain emission limitations (including
opacity limits) at all times during planned maintenance, startup, or
shutdown activities, and that the proposed partial disapproval could
lead to less effective and less safe operation of environmental control
equipment, including sources that use Electrostatic Precipitators
(ESPs) and Selective Catalytic Reduction as emissions control devices.
For example, several commenters noted that during maintenance of a
boiler at a coal-fired power plant, fans must remain on and the ESPs
will not be energized, leading to excess emissions. These commenters
claim that EPA's partial disapproval will force facilities to forgo
preventative and proactive maintenance until permits can be issued for
these activities. Other commenters note that EPA's NSPS regulations at
40 CFR 60.11(c) for coal-fired power plants provide exceptions for
excess opacity emissions during planned startup, shutdown, and
malfunction activities and that opacity limits in the Texas SIP were
based on normal operations.
    Response: As noted earlier, since July 1, 2006, no affirmative
defense for excess emissions has been available in the federally-
approved Texas SIP. Thus, our disapproval of the affirmative defense
provision for periods of planned maintenance, startup, or shutdown
activities will not change the status quo that has applied for over
four years under the Texas SIP. We can understand that there may be
excess opacity emissions in certain situations from operation of power
generators equipped with ESPs. Under the current SIP these

excess opacity events would be violations, and yet power plants have
been able to maintain and generate reliable power to their customers
during this period. The commenters did not refute this. Thus, we do not
believe our action to disapprove the affirmative defense for planned
maintenance, startup, or shutdown activities where such defense has not
been available since 2006, should jeopardize the safe and effective
operation of the generators as several commenters claim. For this same
reason, we also believe that our actions will not lead to facilities
being forced to forego proactive maintenance when operated by trained
and knowledgeable personnel.
    The NSPS regulation at 40 CFR 60.11(c) does provide exceptions from
compliance with underlying opacity limits during startup, shutdown and
malfunction, but does not provide similar relief for periods of
maintenance, as suggested by the commenter. As provided above, we have
historically provided more leeway for compliance with technology-based
standards than for health-based programs such as the NAAQS. Thus, the
provisions adopted for purposes of the NSPS are not relevant to our
action disapproving an affirmative defense for excess emissions during
planned maintenance as part of a SIP.

F. Comments Related to EPA Guidance and Policies and Disapproval
Effects

    Comments: Some commenters state that the affirmative defense
provisions in the January 23, 2006 SIP submittal are consistent with
the EPA guidance documents referenced in the May 13, 2010 proposal, and
that EPA's distinction between unplanned and planned startup or
shutdown activity has no factual basis and is arbitrary and capricious.
    Response: We disagree. The January 23, 2006 SIP submittal contains
affirmative defense provisions for planned maintenance activities. As
discussed previously, EPA's interpretation of the Act is that it would
be inappropriate to provide an affirmative defense to an action for
penalties related to excess emissions occurring during planned
maintenance and that EPA's approval of such a defense into a SIP would
be inconsistent with the CAA and EPA guidance. With respect to the
comment concerning EPA's distinction between planned and unplanned
startup or shutdown activities, we note that unplanned startup or
shutdown activity is specifically defined in the Texas rules as
nonroutine, and unpredictable. As such it is functionally equivalent to
a malfunction. Therefore the distinction between planned and unplanned
startup and shutdown is not arbitrary. EPA would allow a State to
create a limited affirmative defense for excess emissions occurring
during planned and unplanned startup and shutdown activities. However,
with respect to the planned startup or shutdown provisions of section
101.222(h), the cross-reference of several criteria in section
101.222(c) apply only to unplanned activities which results in the
failure to include all the necessary criteria for planned startup or
shutdown activities, as discussed more fully below.
    Comment: One commenter asserts that the affirmative defense
provided in section 101.222(h) for excess emissions during planned
maintenance, startup or shutdown activities should be approved because
it incorporates by reference all the criteria set forth in section
101.222(c).
    Response: As provided above, EPA cannot approve the submitted
section 101.222(h) because it provides for an affirmative defense for
excess emissions during planned maintenance activities into the Texas
SIP since we believe such approval would be inconsistent with the CAA
and EPA guidance. Because the portions of section 101.222(h) that
provide an affirmative defense for excess emissions during planned
startup and shutdown are not severable from the provision for
maintenance, those provisions must also be disapproved.
    While the commenter is correct that the submitted section
101.222(h) incorporates by reference the affirmative defense criteria
set forth in the submitted section 101.222(c), such cross-referencing
is problematic. Many of the criteria listed in submitted section
101.222(c)--namely, (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), (c)(6), and (c)(8)--
specifically state that they apply to ``emissions from an unplanned
maintenance, startup, or shutdown activity (emphasis added).'' As
stated in footnote 5 above, a source claiming an affirmative defense in
an action for excess emissions during a planned startup or shutdown
activity could claim that the criteria listed in section 101.222(c)(2),
(c)(3), (c)(4), (c)(6), and (c)(8) do not apply. In the absence of the
appropriate criteria for planned startup or shutdown activities, EPA
cannot approve the submitted section 101.222(h) as part of the Texas
SIP.
    Comment: As noted by another commenter the proposed disapproval of
section 101.222(h) could be interpreted as EPA's belief that it cannot
approve any affirmative defense for excess emissions from planned
startup or shutdown activities.
    Response: As noted above and in footnote 5, we interpret the CAA to
allow EPA to approve a SIP revision submittal from a State that
provides an affirmative defense for excess emissions during planned
startup or shutdown activities, but the inclusion of planned
maintenance activities and the failure to include appropriate criteria
(due to improper cross-referencing) for planned startup and shutdown
activities renders the submitted section 101.222(h) unapprovable.
    Comments: One commenter states that EPA's May 13, 2010 notice
provides no basis for the proposed disapproval of an affirmative
defense for excess emissions during planned maintenance, where a source
can demonstrate that such emissions could not be avoided.
    Response: We disagree. The May 13, 2010 proposal to disapprove
section 101.222(h) specifically states that the source or operator
should be able to plan maintenance that might otherwise lead to excess
emissions to coincide with maintenance or production equipment or other
facility shutdowns. EPA has determined that it is inappropriate to
provide an affirmative defense for excess emissions resulting from
planned maintenance activities. With respect to other planned
activities, we noted that for those sources and source categories where
compliance is not possible, the State should develop alternative,
applicable emission limits for such events, which they can consider in
SIPs demonstrating attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, rather than
establishing an affirmative defense for such emission events. See 75 FR
26896-7.
    Comment: Other commenters claim that disapproving an affirmative
defense during the period of transition to permitting planned
maintenance, startup, or shutdown activities would create new
liabilities and encourage arbitrary enforcement.
    Response: We disagree. For the reasons provided above, EPA is
disapproving sections 101.222(h), (i) and (j) because they are not
consistent with the CAA, as interpreted by EPA through policy and
guidance. For the reasons provided in the other responses, we do not
believe that our action disapproving these three sections creates new
liabilities. The existing SIP has not included an affirmative defense
for excess emissions since June 30, 2006. Under the approved SIP, all
periods of excess emissions are violations and the submitted SIP
revisions that we are approving do not delineate when and how the
state, EPA or a citizen chooses which sources and events to enforce
against. We disagree

that our disapproval of section 101.222(h) will encourage arbitrary
enforcement. Enforcement actions for excess emissions violations from
planned maintenance, startup or shutdown activities will be subject to
enforcement discretion. Enforcement discretion does not mean arbitrary
enforcement.
    Comment: Another commenter claims that a conditional approval would
be more appropriate to address EPA's concerns with the January 23, 2006
SIP submittal.
    Response: To propose conditional approval of a provision of a SIP
revision submittal, EPA would need a State's written commitment to
submit a SIP revision that corrects the deficiency no later than one
year after a conditional approval and that justifies the timeframe
needed to address the identified deficiencies in the SIP submittal;
Texas did not provide a commitment that would have supported a proposed
conditional approval.
    Comment: One commenter suggests that the requirements associated
with scheduled maintenance under section 101.211 are more stringent
than EPA's guidance on excess emissions because the Texas rule imposes
additional requirements, such as the reporting of maintenance, startup,
or shutdown activities that are expected to exceed a reportable
quantity (RQ) in advance of the activities.
    Response: Since EPA's position is that excess emissions during
planned maintenance activities cannot be afforded an affirmative
defense, it is not relevant whether the submitted 101.211 may or may
not be more stringent in terms of reporting requirements.

G. Comments Related to Procedural Aspects of the Rulemaking

    Comments: One commenter questions EPA's failure to justify its
delay in responding to the January 23, 2006 SIP submittal and the
limited amount of time to review the proposed disapproval in the May
13, 2010 notice. Another commenter asserts that EPA failed to comply
with its policy for Regional Consistency Review for SIP revisions and
also asserts that EPA's disapproval is procedurally flawed because the
May 13, 2010 proposal was signed by the Deputy Regional Administrator
and not the Regional Administrator.
    Response: Questions related to EPA's delay in acting on the January
23, 2006 SIP submittal were resolved by settlement agreement filed with
the court in BCCA Appeal Group et al. v. EPA (Case No. 3-08CV1491-G,
N.D. Tex.). Under the settlement agreement EPA agreed to take final
action on the January 23, 2006 SIP submission by October 31, 2010.
    We disagree with the comments suggesting that the comment period
was not sufficient. In the initial proposed rule, EPA provided a 30-day
comment period on the proposed action. This is consistent with the time
period that EPA typically provides for actions on SIPs. Furthermore,
EPA extended the comment period for an additional 14 days.
    We also disagree with the commenters that suggest that EPA did not
comply with internal procedures with respect to review of the SIP. The
proposed disapproval is consistent with EPA's longstanding
interpretation of the Act and does not deviate from EPA's existing
practices and policies. Therefore, there was no need to initiate a SIP
consistency process for this action, and the commenter's assertion for
a need to initiate a SIP consistency process is misplaced.
    Finally, the May 13, 2010 (75 FR 26892) proposal was signed by the
Acting Regional Administrator, as provided by the Region 6 Order R6-
1110.11, dated April 30, 2002. We have made this particular Order
available for public inspection in the docket identified as EPA-R06-
OAR-2006-0132.

H. Comments Related to Interpretation of 30 TAC 101.221(d)

    Comments: One commenter asserts that the exemption provision of
section 101.221(d) of the January 23, 2006 SIP submittal should be
interpreted to apply to the opacity requirements of 30 TAC section
111.111, while another commenter requests clarification that the
exemption provision in section 101.221(d) of the January 23, 2006 SIP
submittal be interpreted to exclude federally approved SIP
requirements. The commenter claims that TCEQ's and EPA's interpretation
of that section is incorrect.
    Response: 30 TAC section 111.111 entitled ``Requirements for
Specified Sources'' was adopted by TACB on June 18, 1993, and approved
by EPA as a revision to the Texas SIP on May 8, 1996 (61 FR 20734). At
that time, it became federally enforceable. Therefore, the requirements
in the SIP rule found at 30 TAC section 111.111 are ``federal
requirements.'' Section 101.221(d) plainly states that TCEQ will not
exempt sources from complying with any ``federal requirements.'' This
position is also consistent with the April 17, 2007 letter from John
Steib, Deputy Director, TCEQ Office of Compliance and Enforcement to
EPA Region 6, in which the State confirmed that the term ``federal
requirements'' in 30 TAC 101.221(d) includes any requirement in the
federally-approved SIP. In section D of our May 13, 2010 proposal, we
stated that new section 101.221 (Operational Requirements) requires
that no exemptions can be authorized by the TCEQ for any federal
requirements to maintain air pollution control equipment, including
requirements such as NSPS or National Emissions Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (NESHAP) or requirements approved into the SIP. Texas
confirmed this interpretation and, therefore, the State may not exempt
a source from complying with any requirement of the federally-approved
SIP. Any action to modify a state-adopted requirement of the SIP would
not modify the federally-enforceable obligation under the SIP unless
and until it is approved by EPA as a SIP revision. Moreover, to the
extent a State includes federally-promulgated requirements, such as
NSPS or NESHAP into the SIP, the State does not have authority to
modify such requirements. EPA's long-standing position has been that
States may not include in their SIPs provisions that allow a State
Director or Board to modify the federally-applicable terms of the SIP
without review and approval by EPA. This is because the emission
reduction requirements in the SIP are relied on to attain and maintain
the NAAQS, and exemptions or modifications to those requirements could
undermine this fundamental purpose of the SIP.

I. Comments Related to Potential Enforcement Actions

    Comments: Several commenters express a belief that EPA's proposed
disapproval of sections 101.222(h), (i), and (j) would expose sources
to enforcement uncertainty and the risk of citizen suits, and also
cause them to forego preventative maintenance.
    Response: EPA does not agree that disapproval of section
101.222(h), (i), and (j) would lead to the consequences asserted by the
commenters. As previously noted, since July 1, 2006, the federally-
approved Texas SIP has not included an affirmative defense for excess
emissions occurring during unplanned and planned maintenance, startup,
shutdown, or malfunction activities. Today's action approves into the
Texas SIP affirmative defense provisions for excess emissions related
to unplanned maintenance, startup, and shutdown activities (which are
considered malfunctions). A source asserting the affirmative defense in
an action for penalties could be relieved from paying such penalties if
it can

prove that certain enumerated criteria are met. Therefore, contrary to
the commenters' assertions, we do not believe that our action will
increase the level of regulatory uncertainty for sources; rather, our
action may create more regulatory certainty. We further note that
because the affirmative defense would be raised in the context of an
enforcement action, its existence is unlikely to affect whether an
enforcement case is brought. As provided in more detail in a previous
response, we also do not believe that this action will result in
sources choosing to forego maintenance of an emissions unit.
    Comment: Several commenters assert that EPA's approval of sections
101.222(b), (c), (d), and (e) into the Texas SIP (providing an
affirmative defense to upset events and opacity events) would
impermissibly limit the penalty assessment criteria and citizen suit
provisions in the Act. This approval could alter the meaning of the
rule and make the ``defense'' applicable to citizens and EPA
enforcement actions in district court. Citing Weyerhaeuser v. Costle,
590 F.2d 1011 (DC Cir 1978), the commenter asserts that EPA's approval
would limit injunctive relief available under the Act and delay ``swift
and direct'' enforcement of excess emission violations.
    Response: We disagree. We believe that the affirmative defense
criteria set forth in those sections are consistent with the Clean Air
Act's penalty assessment provision, 42 U.S.C. 7413(e), which allows
some discretion in determining a penalty. Section 7413(e) of the Act
provides that, ``in determining the amount of any penalty to be
assessed under this section, or section 7604(a) of this title, the
Administrator or the court, as appropriate, shall take into
consideration (in addition to such other factors as justice may
require) the size of the business, the economic impact of the penalty
on the business, the violator's full compliance history and good faith
efforts to comply, the duration of the violation as established by any
credible evidence * * *, payment by the violator of penalties
previously assessed for the same violation, the economic benefit of
noncompliance, and the seriousness of the violation.'' (Emphasis
added.) The use of the phrases emphasized above makes clear that the
Administrator or the Court has broad discretion in the factors to
consider in determining whether to assess a penalty, and if so, how
much that penalty should be. The existence of an affirmative defense
does not automatically preclude the assessment of civil penalties. The
party raising the defense must prove that it is entitled to it, and if
the affirmative defense is rejected by the court, a judge is still
required to determine the appropriate penalties in a given case.
Furthermore, approval of the provisions in sections 101.222(b), (c),
(d), and (e) into the Texas SIP does not preclude citizen suits under
the Act. Rather, the affirmative defense may be raised in defense of a
claim brought by EPA, the State or a private citizen. As described
above, the CAA contemplates that a source may raise a variety of
factors in an attempt to mitigate or completely alleviate the
assessment of a penalty. While approval of sections 101.222(b), (c),
(d), and (e) into the Texas SIP would allow a source to assert
affirmative defense for certain excess emissions, we do not believe
that approval of those sections impermissibly limit the penalty
assessment criteria set forth in CAA section 113(e).
    We agree with the commenter that the State rulemaking cannot affect
the authorities provided by the CAA to EPA and citizens. However, on
December 15, 2005 TCEQ adopted revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 101, and
submitted them to EPA as a revision to the Texas SIP. EPA has evaluated
the January 23, 2006 SIP submittal and has determined that sections
101.222(b), (c), (d), and (e) of the submittal are consistent with the
Act as interpreted by our policy and guidance documents. Our approval
of sections 101.222(b), (c), (d), and (e) into the Texas SIP provides a
source the option to assert an affirmative defense for certain periods
of excess emissions in an enforcement action brought against it by EPA
or a citizen in federal court.
    Moreover, even where an affirmative defense is successfully raised
in defense to an action for penalties, it does not preclude other
judicial relief that may be available, such as injunctive relief or a
requirement to mitigate past harm or to correct the non-compliance at
issue. The commenters are incorrect that the affirmative defense limits
injunctive relief. The affirmative defense is only available in an
action for penalties and would not be available to a claim requesting
injunctive relief. Finally, EPA is cognizant of the Weyerhaeuser v.
Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1057-58 (DC Cir. 1978) decision, but EPA
disagrees that approval of sections 101.222(b)-(e) into the Texas SIP
would interfere with the legislative goal of ``swift and direct''
enforcement. We agree that the availability of civil penalties serves
as an incentive for companies to be more cautious, to take more
preventative actions, and to seek to develop technologies and
management practices to avoid excess emissions. However, we also
believe that the criteria a source would need to prove in order to
successfully assert an affirmative defense will encourage companies to
take such caution. For example, among the required criteria that the
source must prove are that the periods of unauthorized emissions could
not have been prevented through planning and design; were not part of a
recurring pattern indicative of inadequate design, operation, or
maintenance; and all emission monitoring system were kept in operation
if possible. See 101.222(c).

J. Comments Related to ``Administrative Necessity'' and ``One-Step-at-
a-Time'' Doctrines

    Comments: Several commenters assert that EPA's disapproval of
sections 101.222(h), (i), and (j) will result in a rushed transition of
TCEQ's scheduled phase-in approach for authorizing MSS activities and
that EPA's actions are inconsistent with the ``administrative
necessity'' and ``one-step-at-a-time'' doctrines used by EPA in
defending its recent greenhouse gas tailoring rule.
    Responses: We disagree. As an initial matter, and as we explain
further above, the State's submitted phased-in permitting process will
not serve to modify any applicable requirement under the Texas SIP.
Furthermore, our action disapproving the three provisions at issue, as
discussed previously, merely maintains the status quo and should have
no effect on that permitting process. Furthermore, we think this
situation is distinct from that addressed in the greenhouse gas
tailoring rule of June 30, 2010 (75 FR 31514) (Tailoring Rule). The
Tailoring Rule concerns the applicability criteria that determine which
stationary sources and modification projects become subject to
permitting requirements for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and title V programs of
the Act. EPA's issuance of the Tailoring Rule, which regulates GHGs
under the CAA as air pollutants, triggered a permitting obligation for
GHG emissions as of January 2, 2011. In the absence of the Tailoring
Rule, the permitting obligations would apply at the 100 or 250 tons per
year levels provided under the Act, greatly increasing the number of
required permits, imposing undue costs on small sources, overwhelming
the resources of permitting authorities, and severely impairing the
functioning of the programs. In that action, EPA was taking action to
relieve an imminent new burden that would have been imposed on sources
and permitting authorities.

    In contrast, our disapproval of certain provisions of the submitted
plan does not change the status quo that has applied under the Texas
SIP since July 1, 2006. Our disapproval action does not establish any
new, burdensome obligation for which relief is needed. Rather, sources
have been obligated to comply at all times with the applicable emission
limits with no enforcement discretion or affirmative defense provisions
since the previous Texas rules expired from the Texas SIP on June 30,
2006 by their own terms. Thus there is no administrative necessity or
``one step at a time'' argument applicable in this situation.

K. Comments Related to Weakening of the SIP

    Comments: One commenter asserts that EPA's approval of sections
101.222(b)-(e) would weaken the Texas SIP by: Failing to require a
``program to provide for the enforcement'' of emission limitations and
other control measures, citing CAA section 110(a)(2); changing the
Reportable Quantity (RQ) for NOx that could interfere with attainment
of the NAAQS; and allowing opacity as the only applicable RQ for
certain boilers and combustion turbines in section 101.201(d), by
adding the definitions for ``boiler'' and ``combustion turbine.''
    Response: As explained earlier in this notice, EPA's role in
evaluating a proposed revision to a SIP is to make sure that it
provides for attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS and that it
otherwise complies with applicable requirements of the Act. Texas has
chosen to establish an affirmative defense for certain type of excess
emissions, provided certain criteria are met, as set forth in sections
101.222(b), (c), (d), and (e). For the reasons provided above, we
believe that such an affirmative defense is consistent with the
requirements of the Act, including the requirement under section 110
that States must have adequate enforcement programs. The affirmative
defense provision only provides limited relief to sources in an action
for penalties. Although sources may avoid a penalty for certain excess
emissions where they can successfully prove all of the elements of the
affirmative defense, the excess emissions are still considered
violations and the administrative or judicial decision-maker in an
enforcement action may weigh all of the factors to determine if other
relief, such as injunctive relief, is appropriate.
    With respect to changes in the reporting requirements, the
commenter expresses concern that the RQ for NOX would be
increased from 100 pounds in the current SIP to 200 pounds in ozone
nonattainment, ozone maintenance, early action compact areas, Nueces
County, and San Patricio County and to 5,000 pounds in all other areas.
An examination of section 101.1(89) (Reportable Quantity) reveals that
there are many other substances, other than NOx, with an RQ of 5,000
pounds. Furthermore, it is important to remember that approving the
raising of the reportable quantity for NOx into the Texas SIP does not
change the fact that excess emissions below the reportable quantity are
violations. All excess emissions must be recorded by the sources. Title
V sources must report both reportable and recordable excess emissions
as part of their annual deviation reports. Therefore, EPA does not
believe that the change weakens the SIP; by adjusting the RQ, TCEQ is
able to better manage its program by focusing on significant releases,
and, as noted, the information for non-reportable quantities will
otherwise be available.
    The commenter notes that for certain boilers and combustion
turbines opacity is the only applicable RQ and asserts that this change
constitutes a weakening of the SIP. However, the language in the
submitted 30 TAC subsection 101.201(d) [which provides a limited
reporting exemption for certain boilers or combustion turbines equipped
with Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems (CEMS) capable of sampling,
analyzing, and recording data for each successive 15-minute interval]
was previously approved by EPA as a revision to the Texas SIP on March
30, 2005. See 70 FR 16129. See section 101.201(d). The SIP-approved
rule contained the same RQ reporting provision for opacity. Section
101.201 did not have an expiration date and it has been federally
enforceable since April 29, 2005. In summary, the SIP only has required
a RQ reporting provision for opacity; there is no change to this
reporting provision. The only change that EPA is approving into the SIP
affecting the existing SIP rule 101.201(d) is two new definitions in
section 101.1 for ``boiler'' and ``combustion turbine.'' These
definitions, however, were taken verbatim from the 30 TAC Chapter 117
rules. See 73 FR 73562 (December 3, 2008). Therefore, the addition of
these two definitions is non-substantive for the SIP's purposes. The
commenter's assertion that the Texas SIP has been weakened is
incorrect. As such, there is no substantive change to the existing SIP
and there is no weakening of the SIP.

L. Comments Related to Clarification Requests

    Comments: One commenter requests that EPA clarify that excess
emission reports must be submitted with the source's title V monitoring
and deviation reports.
    Response: The January 23, 2006 SIP submittal concerns the SIP not
the title V (operating permit) program, which is not a component of the
SIP. The title V program is a separate program from the SIP. However,
title V permits issued by Texas are required to contain all applicable
SIP requirements. Under the approved Texas SIP, all excess emissions
are violations, whether or not they meet the criteria for an
affirmative defense. Therefore, a source subject to the title V program
requirements is required as part of the title V permit program to
report all excess emissions, both reportable and nonreportable, as
deviations.
    Comment: One commenter noted that section 101.222 does not require
permitting of emissions from MSS activities.
    Response: The submitted Section 101.222(h) provides the opportunity
for a source to file an application with the State for a NSR SIP permit
to impose emission limitations on excess emissions (including opacity)
during periods of planned maintenance, startup, or shutdown. As noted
previously, the State cannot issue a NSR SIP permit that does not meet
all the requirements of the Texas SIP. If the State wishes to issue a
NSR permit that varies from the Texas SIP requirements, then it must
submit the permit to EPA for approval as a source-specific SIP
revision. The submitted provision establishes an overall 7-year time
period for sources to file such applications, allotting a specified,
shorter timeframe within that period for different categories of
sources to submit such applications. Submitted section 101.222(i)
concerns the processing of such applications. The provision in
submitted section 101.222(h), which provides for an affirmative defense
to excess emissions during planned maintenance, startup, or shutdown
activities, no longer applies for a specific source under the State
rules once the period for filing and processing such an application
expires for the source category. We agree with the State's
interpretation of its rule that sources are not required to submit such
applications. If sources choose not to seek a permit based on the
prescribed timeline, then those sources' excess emissions occurring
during these planned MSS activities would be

considered violations, for which an affirmative defense would not be
available under the State rules.
    Comment: One commenter wishes to point out that the provision of
the Michigan SIP that EPA disapproved contained an automatic
malfunction exemption and is not pertinent to this proceeding.
    Response: The provision of the Michigan SIP that EPA disapproved
and that was at issue in Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
v. Browner, 230 F.3d 181 (6th Cir. 2000) mainly concerned an automatic
exemption. Our listing of that case in section B of May 13, 2010
proposal was for informational purposes.

VI. Final Action

    Today, we are finalizing our May 13, 2010 (75 FR 26892) proposal to
approve into the Texas SIP the following provisions of 30 TAC General
Air Quality Rule 101 as submitted on January 23, 2006:

Subchapter A

    Revised section 101.1 (Definitions); and

Subchapter F

    Revised Section 101.201 (Emissions Event Reporting and
Recordkeeping Requirements), but for 30 TAC 101.201(h) which is no
longer before EPA for action,
    Revised Section 101.211 (Scheduled Maintenance, Startup, and
Shutdown Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements), but for 30 TAC
101.211(f) which is no longer before EPA for action,
    New Section 101.221 (Operational Requirements),
    New Section 101.222 (Demonstrations), except 101.222(h),
101.222(i), and 101.222(j)),
    New Section 101.223 (Actions to Reduce Excessive Emissions).
    We are finalizing our May 13, 2010 (75 FR 26892) proposal to
disapprove sections 101.222(h) (Planned Maintenance, Startup, or
Shutdown Activity), 101.222(i) (concerning effective date of permit
applications), and 101.222(j) (concerning processing of permit
applications) into the Texas SIP.

VII. 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. If a portion of the plan revision meets
all the applicable requirements of this chapter and Federal
regulations, the Administrator may approve the plan revision in part.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). If a portion of the plan revision
does not meet all the applicable requirements of this chapter and
Federal regulations, the Administrator may then disapprove portions of
the plan revision in part that does not meet 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, EPA's role is to approve state
choices that meet the criteria of the Act, and to disapprove state
choices that do not meet the criteria of the Act. Accordingly, this
final action, in part, approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and, in part, disapproves state law as not meeting Federal
requirements; and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this final action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act;
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994);
     Does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and
EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law; and
     Is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2)
under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. A major
rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the
Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule.''

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial
review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of
Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 10, 2011. 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) of the
Act.)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: October 29, 2010.
Al Armendariz,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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 entry for Chapter 101 in the table in paragraph
(c) is amended by:
0
a. Revising the entry for Section 101.1 under Subchapter A.
0
b. Revising the entry for Section 101.201 under Subchapter F Division
1.
0
c. Revising the entry for Section 101.211 under Subchapter F Division
2.
0
d. Revising the entries for Section 101.221, 101.222, and 101.223 under
Subchapter F Division 3.
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  52.2270  Identification of plan.

* * * * *

    (c) * * *

                                    EPA-Approved Regulations in the Texas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    State approval/
      State citation            Title/subject        submittal date     EPA approval date        Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Chapter 101--General Air Quality Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Subchapter A--General Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 101.1.............  Definitions..........           01/23/06  11/10/10 [Insert FR   ....................
                                                                       page number where
                                                                       document begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Subchapter F--Emissions Events and Scheduled Maintenance, Startup, and Shutdown Activities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Division 1--Emissions Events
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 101.201...........  Emissions Event                 01/23/06  11/10/10 [Insert FR   101.201(h) is not in
                             Reporting and                             page number where     the SIP.
                             Recordkeeping                             document begins].
                             Requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Division 2--Maintenance, Startup, and Shutdown Activities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 101.211...........  Scheduled                       01/23/06  11/10/10 [Insert FR   101.211(f) is not in
                             Maintenance,                              page number where     the SIP.
                             Startup, and                              document begins].
                             Shutdown Reporting
                             and Recordkeeping
                             Requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Division 3--Operational Requirements, Demonstrations, and Actions To Reduce Excessive Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 101.221...........  Operational                     01/23/06  11/10/10 [Insert FR   ....................
                             Requirements.                             page number where
                                                                       document begins].
Section 101.222...........  Demonstrations.......           01/23/06  11/10/10 [Insert FR   The SIP does not
                                                                       page number where     include 101.222(h),
                                                                       document begins].     101.222 (i), and
                                                                                101.222 (j). See
                                                                                section 52.2273(e).
Section 101.223...........  Actions to Reduce               01/23/06  11/10/10 [Insert FR   ....................
                             Excessive Emissions.                      page number where
                                                                       document begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
3. Section 52.2273 is amended by adding a new paragraph (e) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2273  Approval status.

* * * * *
    (e) EPA is disapproving the Texas SIP revision submittals under 30
TAC Chapter 101--General Air Quality Rules as follows:
    (1) Subchapter F--Emissions Events and Scheduled Maintenance,
Startup, and Shutdown Activities, Division 1--Section 101.222
(Demonstrations): Sections 101.222(h), 101.222(i), and 101.222(j),
adopted December 14, 2005, and submitted January 23, 2006.

[FR Doc. 2010-28135 Filed 11-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P