TITLE 30. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
PART 1. TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
CHAPTER 116. CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION BY PERMITS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION OR MODIFICATION
SUBCHAPTER
F.
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ, agency, or commission) adopts amendment to 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) §116.605.
Amended 30 TAC §116.605 is adopted without change to the proposed text as published in the October 24, 2025, issue of the Texas Register (50 TexReg 6986). The rule will not be republished.
These amended rules will be submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a revision to the state implementation plan (SIP).
Background and Summary of the Factual Basis for the Adopted Rules
Senate Bill (SB) 763 amends Texas Health and Safety Code (THSC), §382.05195, Standard Permit. The bill adds Subsection (e-1) requiring TCEQ to conduct a protectiveness review at least once every eight years for a standard permit issued under this section that authorizes the operation of a permanent concrete batch plant (CBP) that performs wet batching, dry batching, or central mixing (Air Quality Standard Permit for Concrete Batch Plants (CBP SP)). If the standard permit is amended after a protectiveness review is conducted, TCEQ shall allow facilities authorized to operate under the standard permit as it read before being amended to continue to operate until a date provided by the commission that provides facility operators a reasonable amount of time to comply with the amended standard permit. The bill requires TCEQ to adopt rules necessary to implement these changes no later than March 1, 2026. SB 763 was signed by the Governor on June 20, 2025, and became effective on September 1, 2025.
SB 2351 amends THSC, §382.05195, Standard Permit, by adding Subsection (f-1) that will apply only to a standard permit issued under this section that authorizes the operation of a permanent concrete batch plant that performs wet batching, dry batching, or central mixing (CBP SP). SB 2351 also amends THSC, §382.05198, Standard Permit for Certain Concrete Plants, by adding Subsection (d) that will apply only to a standard permit issued under that section (Air Quality Standard Permit for Concrete Batch Plants with Enhanced Controls (CBPEC SP)). New THSC, §382.05195, Subsection (f-1) and THSC, §382.05198, Subsection (d) establish that upon TCEQ amending these standard permits, TCEQ may require each facility operator authorized to begin construction of a facility under the former standard permit to update the facility's plans for the new construction in accordance with the amended standard permit if the facility operator did not begin construction before the adoption of the amended standard permit, and if the facility operator filed a request under commission rules for an extension to begin construction. SB 2351 was signed by the Governor on May 24, 2025, and became effective on May 24, 2025, after receiving a vote of two-thirds of all the members of each house.
Section by Section Discussion
To implement the requirements of SB 763 and SB 2351, 89th Regular Texas Legislature, 2025, the commission amends 30 TAC Chapter 116, Subchapter F (Standard Permits).
The rulemaking adoption adds 30 TAC §116.605(d)(4) requiring a protectiveness review to be conducted for the CBP SP at least once every eight years. The rulemaking adoption also adds 30 TAC §116.605(f)(1) and (2) that will be applicable only when an amendment to the CBP SP or the CBPEC SP is issued by the commission. New 30 TAC §116.605(f)(1) and (2) outlines criteria of how the commission may require an operator of a permanent facility that is authorized to begin new construction under the former standard permit to update the permanent facility's plans for the new construction to comply with the amended standard permit if the facility operator did not begin the construction before the adoption of the amended standard permit and the operator filed a request for an extension to begin construction. These adopted requirements are not applicable to temporary or specialty plants authorized under the CBP SP.
Final Regulatory Impact Determination
The commission reviewed the rulemaking adoption considering the regulatory impact analysis requirements of Texas Government Code (TGC), §2001.0225, and determined that the rulemaking adoption does not meet the definition of a "Major environmental rule" as defined in that statute, and in addition, if it did meet the definition, would not be subject to the requirement to prepare a regulatory impact analysis. A "Major environmental rule" means a rule, the specific intent of which is to protect the environment or reduce risks to human health from environmental exposure, and that may adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, or the public health and safety of the state or a sector of the state. Additionally, the rulemaking adoption does not meet any of the four applicability criteria for requiring a regulatory impact analysis for a major environmental rule, which are listed in TGC, §2001.0225(a). TGC, §2001.0225 applies only to a major environmental rule, the result of which is to: 1) exceed a standard set by federal law, unless the rule is specifically required by state law; 2) exceed an express requirement of state law, unless the rule is specifically required by federal law; 3) exceed a requirement of a delegation agreement or contract between the state and an agency or representative of the federal government to implement a state and federal program; or 4) adopt a rule solely under the general powers of the agency instead of under a specific state law.
The adopted rulemaking's purpose is to amend 30 TAC §116.605(d)(4) requiring a protectiveness review to be conducted for the concrete batch plant standard permit at least once every eight years. The rulemaking adoption will also add 30 TAC §116.605(f)(1) and (2) that will outline criteria of how the commission may require an operator of a permanent facility that is authorized to begin new construction under the former standard permit to update the permanent facility's plans for the new construction to comply with the amended standard permit. The new requirements are required under statutory amendments to THSC, §382.05195.
As defined in the Texas Government Code, TGC, §2001.0225 only applies to a major environmental rule, the result of which is to: exceed a standard set by federal law, unless the rule is specifically required by state law; exceed an express requirement of state law, unless the rule is specifically required by federal law; exceed a requirement of a delegation agreement or contract between the state and an agency or representative of the federal government to implement a state and federal program; or adopt a rule solely under the general authority of the commission. The adopted amendments to 30 TAC §116.605 do not exceed an express requirement of state law or a requirement of a delegation agreement and were not developed solely under the general powers of the agency but are authorized by specific sections of the Texas Government Code and the Texas Water Code that are cited in the Statutory Authority section of this preamble. The adopted rule implements Senate Bills 763 and 2351, 89th Regular Legislature, 2025, which require changes relating to how the agency evaluates standard permits and thus is a specific requirement under state statute. Therefore, this rulemaking is not subject to the regulatory analysis provisions of TGC, §2001.0225(b).
The commission invited public comment regarding the draft regulatory impact analysis determination during the public comment period. No comments were received on the regulatory impact analysis determination.
Takings Impact Assessment
Under TGC, §2007.002(5), taking means a governmental action that affects private real property, in whole or in part or temporarily or permanently, in a manner that requires the governmental entity to compensate the private real property owner as provided by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution or §17 or §19, Article I, Texas Constitution; or a governmental action that (i) affects an owner's private real property that is the subject of the governmental action, in whole or in part or temporarily or permanently, in a manner that restricts or limits the owner's right to the property that would otherwise exist in the absence of the governmental action; and (ii) is the producing cause of a reduction of at least 25% in the market value of the affected private real property, determined by comparing the market value of the property as if the governmental action is not in effect and the market value of the property determined as if the governmental action is in effect.
The adopted amendments are procedural in nature and will not burden private real property. The adopted amendments do not affect private property in a manner that restricts or limits an owner's right to the property that would otherwise exist in the absence of a governmental action. Consequently, this rulemaking action does not meet the definition of a taking under TGC, §2007.002(5). The adopted amendments do not directly prevent a nuisance or prevent an immediate threat to life or property. Therefore, this rulemaking action will not constitute a taking under TGC, Chapter 2007.
Consistency with the Coastal Management Program
The commission reviewed the rulemaking adoption and found that the adoption is subject to the Texas Coastal Management Program (CMP) in accordance with the Coastal Coordination Act, Texas Natural Resources Code, §§33.201 et seq., and therefore must be consistent with all applicable CMP goals and policies. The commission conducted a consistency determination for the adopted rules in accordance with Coastal Coordination Act implementation rules, 31 TAC §29.22, and found the rulemaking adoption is consistent with the applicable CMP goals and policies.
The CMP goal applicable to this rulemaking adoption is the goal to protect, preserve, restore, and enhance the diversity, quality, quantity, functions, and values of coastal natural resource areas (31 TAC §26.12(l)). The adopted amendments to Chapter 116 will update TCEQ rules to implement the requirement that a protectiveness review be conducted for the CBP SP at least once every eight years and incorporate requirements for when an operator of a facility authorized under the CBP SP or CBPEC SP must comply with the amended standard permit. The CMP policy applicable to the rulemaking adoption is that commission rules comply with federal regulations in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR) to protect and enhance air quality in the coastal areas (31 TAC §26.32). This rulemaking complies with 40 CFR Part 51, Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans. Therefore, in accordance with 31 TAC §29.22(e), the commission affirms that this rulemaking is consistent with CMP goals and policies.
Promulgation and enforcement of these rules will not violate or exceed any standards identified in the applicable CMP goals and policies because the adopted rules are consistent with these CMP goals and policies and because these rules do not create or have a direct or significant adverse effect on any coastal natural resource areas.
The commission invited public comment regarding the consistency with the coastal management program during the public comment period. No comments were received on related to the CMP.
Effect on Sites Subject to the Federal Operating Permits Program
The adopted amendments are not expected to have a significant impact on sites subject to the Federal Operating Permits Program. Facilities that operate under a registered standard permit and have a Site Operating Permit (SOP) should evaluate the revised applicable requirements of 30 TAC §116.615 to determine if an update to their SOP is necessary.
Public Comment
The commission held a public hearing on November 20, 2025. The comment period closed on November 25, 2025. The commission received comments from Senator Carol Alvarado (Texas Senate District 6), Representative Armando Walle (Texas House District 140), Bill Alsup on behalf of the City of Richardson, Sydney Beckner on behalf of Texans for Responsible Aggregate Mining (TRAM), Karina Yonekawa Blest, Lisa Brenskille, Theresa Q. Tran Carapucci on behalf of the City of Houston Health Department (HHD), Harris County Attorney's Office (HCAO), Alexandra Cormier, Esteban De La Rosa, Amy Dinn of Lone Star Legal Aid (LSLA) on behalf of Super Neighborhood 48 Trinity/Houston Gardens, Lucia Garcia, Genesis Granados, Kathryn Guerra on behalf of Public Citizen, Leticia Gutierrez of Air Alliance Houston, Jennifer Hadayia of Air Alliance Houston, Julian Hernandez, Omar Hernandez, Rich Herweck, Rosa Hines, Iris King, Gavin Linley-Elwell, Mike Renna, Sarah Sam, Adrian Shelly on behalf of Public Citizen, Reem Tariq, Tatum Ownes, Carmela Walker, Ebee Ward of Rigby Slack on behalf of the Texas Aggregate and Concrete Association, and Indira Zaldivar.
All comments received were in general support of the rule.
Response to Comments
COMMENT 1
Senator Alvarado commented that "nder prior agency rules, TCEQ possessed broad discretion to require a permit holder seeking a construction extension to update their permit based on the best available control technology and the lowest achievable emission rate. However, that discretion stemmed solely from agency rules, not statute, and was rarely exercised. Senate Bill (SB) 2351 codifies this authority in state law and provides clear legislative direction by authorizing TCEQ to require a permit holder requesting an extension to comply with the most recent version or amendment of the standard air permit. With this discretionary authority, I urge TCEQ to amend the proposed rules to state that the TCEQ must require facilities to meet new permit conditions if there are delays in construction.
Specifically, proposed rule 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) §116.605(f) should read as follows:
(f) When standard permits issued under THSC, §§382.05195 and 382.05198 are amended, the commission shall require each facility operator authorized to begin new construction of permanent concrete batch plants that perform wet batching, dry batching or central mixing under the former standard permit to update the facility's plan for the new construction in accordance with the amended standard permit if the facility operator:
Requiring each facility to operate under updated standard permit requirements after a delay in construction is fully compliant with the legislature's intent as passed in SB 2351."
AND
Representative Walle commented that House Bill 2351 addressed a gap in the permitting process "…by clarifying that when an operator requests an extension and TCEQ has since updated the applicable standard permit, TCEQ has clear authority to require compliance with the most recent permit conditions." And the "…legislative intent was to encourage TCEQ to make this requirement mandatory rather than permissive. We strongly believe that requiring permit holders who delay construction to comply with the most up-to-date standards would better protect the health, safety, and property of Texas communities. We respectfully urge TCEQ to incorporate this requirement into its rulemaking."
RESPONSE 1
Consistent with the bill, the proposed rulemaking would allow the commission to require facility operators authorized to begin new construction of permanent concrete batch plants to update the facility's plan for the new construction in accordance with an amended standard permit if construction had not begun before the adoption of the amended standard permit.
The commission appreciates the legislative intent to provide a strong statutory foundation for the agency. TCEQ strives to ensure any rulemaking actions align as closely as possible with statutory language set by the legislature. The proposed rulemaking gives TCEQ the ability to require operators authorized under a concrete batch plant standard permit to update plans to comply with an amended standard permit but also allows the agency some discretion when amendments to the standard permit do not warrant an operator submitting updated facility plans.
No changes were made in response to this comment.
COMMENT 2
The City of Richardson supports TCEQ for advancing the rulemaking under Project 2025-032-116-AI and supports its adoption. The city supports the changes mandated by SB 763 and SB 2351 because regular updates to the protectiveness review will keep residents protected from emerging risks, and gives municipalities, cities, and communities greater transparency and confidence with TCEQ permitting and industrial operations.
RESPONSE 2
The commission appreciates the support. No changes were made in response to this comment.
COMMENT 3
HCAO proposed that protectiveness review for each standard permit be updated at least every eight years.
RESPONSE 3
The commission appreciates the comment, but this is outside the scope of the proposed rulemaking. The proposal follows the specific direction of the legislature in SB 763 for the timing of required protectiveness reviews for permanent concrete batch plants.
No changes were made in response to this comment.
COMMENT 4
HCAO commented that the commission should expedite an updated protectiveness review if there are changes to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
RESPONSE 4
The commission appreciates the comment, but this is outside the scope of the proposed rulemaking. The proposal follows the specific direction of the legislature in SB 763 for the timing of required protectiveness reviews. SB 763 does not include any guidance on additional triggers for the initiation of a protectiveness review, nor does it limit the commission's ability to initiate a protectiveness review. The commission does consider multiple factors in determining the necessity of completing a protectiveness review inside the proposed 8-year cycle.
No changes were made in response to this comment.
COMMENT 5
HCAO commented that the commission should allow the public to comment on protectiveness reviews.
RESPONSE 5
The commission appreciates the comment, but this is outside the scope of the proposed rulemaking. The proposal follows the specific direction of the legislature in SB 763 for the timing of required protectiveness reviews. SB 763 does not add any process requirements for the protectiveness reviews and does not give guidance on public participation.
No changes were made in response to this comment.
COMMENT 6
LSLA on behalf of Super Neighborhood 48 Trinity/Houston Gardens comments that "…new Rule 116.605(d)(4) should not be read on its own but in the context of existing TCEQ rules related to the amendment of the CBP SP. TCEQ needs to follow the rules already in place, notably in the same subsection (d) of Rule 116.605, and not defer any future protectiveness reviews until 2030 because it has not yet been 8 years from the last Air Quality Assessment. If there are conditions that should trigger an earlier amendment of the permit, such as the new NAAQS for PM2.5 adopted in 2024, then TCEQ should conduct an updated protectiveness review and move forward with an amendment of the standard permit."
RESPONSE 6
The commission appreciates the comment and recognizes the alignment and codependency of the rules. SB 763 establishes a maximum time boundary for updating the protectiveness review without limiting the commission's ability to update the protectiveness review earlier if warranted.
No changes were made in response to this comment.
COMMENT 7
LSLA on behalf of Super Neighborhood 48 Trinity/Houston Gardens commented that the current concrete batch plant standard permit is not protective under the 2012 or 2023 NAAQS for PM2.5 and that the protectiveness review completed in 2023 does not support the commission's ability to establish that the current concrete batch plant standard permit is protective for residents of Harris County.
RESPONSE 7
The commission appreciates the comment, but this is outside the scope of the proposed rulemaking. The proposal follows the specific direction of the legislature in SB 2351 and SB 763 for the timing of required protectiveness reviews. SB 763 does not include any guidance on additional triggers for the initiation of a protectiveness review, nor does it limit the commission's ability to initiate a protectiveness review.
No changes were made in response to this comment.
COMMENT 8
Public Citizen noted a discrepancy between the language in the proposed rule and the
statute. The proposed rule refers to a facility operator who, "filed a request under §116.120 of this title, (relating to Voiding of Permits) for an extension…" Whereas SB 2351 states, "the facility operator filed a request under commission rules for an extension…" meaning that SB 2351 is technically broader than the proposed rule, as it would cover any extension granted under any rules, not just under 30 TAC §116.120.
RESPONSE 8
The commission appreciates the comment. The commission's proposal follows the specific direction of the legislature in SB 2351, to require compliance with the most recent permit conditions.
No changes were made in response to this comment.
COMMENT 9
Public Citizen commented that the proposal does not include guidance on when the commission would require compliance with the terms in an updated standard permit. Public Citizen strongly supports adopting a mandatory requirement for compliance with revised standards.
RESPONSE 9
The commission appreciates the comment. The commission's proposal follows the specific direction of the legislature in SB 2351. The proposed rulemaking would allow the commission to require facility operators authorized to begin new construction of permanent concrete batch plants to update the facility's plan for the new construction in accordance with an amended standard permit if construction had not begun before the adoption of the amended standard permit.
The proposed rulemaking gives TCEQ the ability to require operators authorized under a concrete batch plant standard permit to update plans to comply with an amended standard permit but also allows the agency some discretion when amendments to the standard permit do not warrant an operator submitting updated facility plans.
No changes were made in response to this comment.
COMMENT 10
Public Citizen commented that the proposed 8-year cycle is an improvement over past practices but that the commission has the discretion to complete a protectiveness review more frequently. They suggested including this discretion in the rule language.
RESPONSE 10
The commission appreciates the comment. The proposal follows the specific direction of the legislature in SB 763 for the timing of required protectiveness reviews. SB 763 does not limit the commission's ability to initiate a protectiveness review within the 8-year cycle. The commission does consider multiple factors in determining the necessity of completing a protectiveness review inside the proposed 8-year cycle.
No changes were made in response to this comment.
COMMENT 11
Commentors encouraged the commission to consider cumulative impacts of multiple facilities (including concrete batch plants and other industries) in common geographic areas when evaluating permit applications and the protectiveness of the standard permit.
RESPONSE 11
The commission appreciates the comment, but this is outside the scope of the proposed rulemaking. The proposal follows the specific direction of the legislature in SB 2351 to require compliance with the most recent permit conditions and SB 763 for the timing of required protectiveness reviews. SB 763 and SB 2351 do not add any requirements for the protectiveness reviews.
No changes were made in response to this comment.
COMMENT 12
Multiple commentors encouraged the commission to require that the 440-yard set-back distance be measured from the facility fence-line, not the baghouse exhaust.
RESPONSE 12
The commission appreciates the comment, but this is outside the scope of the proposed rulemaking. The proposal follows the specific direction of the legislature in SB 2351 to require compliance with the most recent permit conditions and SB 763 for the timing of required protectiveness reviews. SB 763 and SB 2351 do not include guidance for set-back distances.
No changes were made in response to this comment.
COMMENT 13
Commentors expressed concern about pollution from temporary concrete batch suggesting that the commission establish a defined time limit for temporary facilities.
RESPONSE 13
The commission appreciates the comment, but this is outside the scope of the proposed rulemaking. The proposal follows the specific direction of the legislature in SB 2351 to require compliance with the most recent permit conditions and SB 763 for the timing of required protectiveness reviews. SB 763 and SB 2351 do not include any guidance addressing temporary facilities.
No changes were made in response to this comment.
COMMENT 14
Commentors expressed concern about the health effects of emissions from concrete batch plants and encouraged the commission to prioritize public health in all permitting decisions.
RESPONSE 14
The commission appreciates the comments, but this is outside the scope of the proposed rulemaking. The proposal follows the specific direction of the legislature in SB 763 and SB 2351. The bills do not address specific permitting decisions.
No changes were made in response to this comment.
COMMENT 15
Commentors expressed concern that the commission relies on facility self-reporting over direct monitoring and recommended that the commission require fenceline monitoring for permanent concrete batch plants.
RESPONSE 15
The commission appreciates the comment, but this is outside the scope of the proposed rulemaking. The proposal follows the specific direction of the legislature in SB 2351 to require compliance with the most recent permit conditions and SB 763 for the timing of required protectiveness reviews. SB 763 does not include guidance for monitoring of concrete batch plants.
No changes were made in response to this comment.
COMMENT 16
All Commentors expressed strong support for the proposed revisions.
RESPONSE 16
The commission appreciates the support.
Statutory Authority
The amendments are adopted under Texas Water Code (TWC), §5.013, concerning General Jurisdiction of Commission, which establishes the general jurisdiction of the commission; TWC, §5.102, concerning General Powers, which provides the commission with the general powers to carry out its duties under the TWC; TWC, §5.103, concerning Rules, which authorizes the commission to adopt rules necessary to carry out its powers and duties under the TWC; and TWC, §5.105, concerning General Policy, which authorizes the commission by rule to establish and approve all general policy of the commission. The amendments are also adopted under Texas Health and Safety Code (THSC), §382.002, concerning Policy and Purpose, which establishes the commission's purpose to safeguard the state's air resources, consistent with the protection of public health, general welfare, and physical property; THSC, §382.011, concerning General Powers and Duties, which authorizes the commission to control the quality of the state's air; THSC, §382.012, concerning State Air Control Plan, which authorizes the commission to prepare and develop a general, comprehensive plan for the proper control of the state's air; THSC, §382.017, concerning Rules, which authorizes the commission to adopt rules consistent with the policy and purposes of the Texas Clean Air Act; THSC §382.05195, concerning standard permits; and §382.05198, concerning standard permits for certain concrete plants.
In addition, the amendments are adopted under Texas Government Code (TGC), §2001.004, concerning Requirement to Adopt Rules of Practice and Index Rules, Orders, and Decisions, which requires state agencies to adopt procedural rules; TGC, §2001.006, concerning Actions Preparatory to Implementation of Statute or Rule, which authorizes state agencies to adopt rules or take other administrative action that the agency deems necessary to implement legislation; TGC, §2001.142, concerning Notification of Decisions and Orders, which provides a time period for presumed notification by a state agency; and the Federal Clean Air Act, 42 United States Code (USC), §§7401, et seq., which requires states to submit state implementation plan revisions that specify the manner in which the national ambient air quality standards will be achieved and maintained within each air quality control region of the state. The adopted amendments implement Senate Bills 763 and 2351, 89th Regular Legislature, 2025, which require changes relating to how the agency evaluates standard permits.
The adopted amendments implement changes to THSC, §382.05195.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on February 27, 2026.
TRD-202601008
Amy L. Browning
Acting Deputy Director, Environmental Law Division
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Effective date: March 19, 2026
Proposal publication date: October 24, 2025
For further information, please call: (512) 239-0682
CHAPTER 331. UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ, agency, or commission) adopts amendments to §§331.19, 331.107, and 331.108.
Amended §331.19 and §331.107 are adopted without changes to the proposed text and, therefore, will not be republished. Amended §331.108 is adopted with changes to the proposed text as published in the November 7, 2025, issue of the Texas Register (50 TexReg 7224) and, therefore, will be republished.
Background and Summary of the Factual Basis for the Adopted Rules
This rulemaking implements Senate Bill (SB) 616 and SB 1061, 89th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2025, which amended Texas Water Code (TWC), §§27.051 and 27.0513, relating to certain injection wells transecting the Edwards Aquifer used for an aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) project, and Class III production area authorizations (PAA) respectively. SB 616 allows for additional exceptions to prohibitions on drilling into or through the Edwards Aquifer. SB 1061 allows for an application for an amendment to a Class III PAA to be an uncontested matter if certain conditions are met and requires the commission to prioritize conservation of regional groundwater supplies when considering amendment to restoration table values.
The adopted rulemaking implements SB 616 by amending the commission's underground injection control rules to allow authorization of certain types of injection wells that transect or terminate in the Edwards Aquifer, either by permit or by rule, and to allow for authorization of an ASR injection well that transects the Edwards Aquifer as long as the geologic formation used for injection underlies the Edwards Aquifer and the injection well will be located in either the area of Williamson County east of Interstate Highway 35 or in Medina County. The adopted rulemaking implements SB 1061 by amending the commission's underground injection control rules to allow for amendment to an in-situ uranium mining PAA to be an uncontested matter if certain conditions are met and requiring the commission to prioritize the conservation of regional groundwater water supplies when reviewing an application to amend a restoration table value.
A PAA is an authorization, issued under the terms of a Class III injection well area permit for uranium mining, that approves the initiation of mining activities in a specified production area within a permit area, and sets specific conditions for production and restoration in each production area within a permit area. Because the SB 1061 amendments of TWC, §27.0513(d) now include an amendment application for a PAA and all of the applicability provisions applying under paragraphs (d)(1)-(4), all applications for a PAA will be uncontested matters and not subject to an opportunity for a contested case hearing. An application for a PAA is still subject to public notice requirements and an opportunity to submit public comment.
Section by Section Discussion
The commission adopts amendments to 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) §331.19 to implement SB 616 and TWC, §27.051(i). The adopted amendment revises the prohibition against certain injection wells in the Edwards Aquifer to allow authorization of certain aquifer storage and recovery projects. The commission adopts the amendment to §331.19 by adding new §331.19(a)(5) which states "wells that transect the Edwards Aquifer and that inject water into a geologic formation that underlies the Edwards Aquifer as part of an aquifer storage and recovery project in the area of Williamson County east of Interstate Highway 35 or in Medina County." An injection well subject to this allowance will still be required to comply with other applicable requirements in Chapter 331 for ASR projects.
The commission adopts amendments to 30 TAC §§331.107 and 331.108 to implement SB 1061 and TWC, §27.0513. The commission adopts the amendment to §331.107 by adding "The commission shall prioritize the conservation of regional water supplies when considering an application to amend a restoration table value or range table" to §331.107(g)(1). The adopted amendment to §331.107 implements TWC, §27.0513(c-1) as amended by SB 1061. Accordingly, the commission will give priority to the conservation of regional water supplies over the other factors listed in §331.107(g)(1)(A)-(I). The commission specifically solicited comments on the amendment to paragraph 331.107(g)(1) to apply the prioritization of regional groundwater supplies when considering an application for amendment of a permit range table but received no comments about this provision. Because the same considerations are given to the amendment of a restoration table and amendment of a permit range table under §331.107(g), the commission adopts this amendment to give priority to the conservation of regional water supplies over the other factors when considering an amendment of a permit range table.
The commission's rule in §331.108 establishes that an application for a PAA is not subject to an opportunity for a contested case hearing if the conditions established in TWC, §27.0513(d) are met. The commission adopts the amendment of §331.108 by adding the phrase "or an amendment to production area authorization" in §331.108(a). The commission amends §331.108(a)(1)-(3) to implement the amendments to TWC, §27.0513(d)(1)-(3) as established by SB 1061. The commission adopts the amendment to §331.108 by adding new §331.108(a)(4), which establishes that an application for a PAA is not subject to an opportunity for a contested case hearing if the Notice of Receipt of Application and Intent to Obtain Permit is provided to the individual land owners, mineral rights owners and an applicable Groundwater Conservation District not later than 30 days after the date the executive director commission determines the new or amended PAA application to be administratively complete. Adopted new §331.108(a)(4) implements TWC, §27.0513(d) as amended by SB 1061. The public notice requirements for an application for a PAA has not changed and the amendments in §331.108(a)(4) are consistent with the existing public notice requirements in 30 TAC §§39.418 and 39.653. Under existing §39.653, the chief clerk is required to mail the Notice of Receipt of Application and Intent to Obtain Permit not later than 30 days after the executive director declares an application to be administratively complete. The commission amends §331.108(b) because the adopted revision of subsection (a) applies to an amendment application and to specify that a restoration table value in a PAA may not be amended to exceed the respective maximum value of the permit range table and is consistent with the existing requirement in §331.107(a)(1). In response to comment, the word "maximum" is added to the provision in §331.108(b). The commission adopts the removal of §331.108(c) because all Class III injection well permits for in situ uranium mining include a permit range table as required by TWC, §27.0513(a). Because the revisions to §331.108 now include amendment applications as specified by SB 1061, all applications for PAAs will be expected to fall within the conditions in §331.108(a)(1)-(4) that render the applications as uncontested matters and not subject to an opportunity for a contested case hearing. Applications for PAAs are still subject to public notice requirements and an opportunity to submit public comment.
Final Regulatory Impact Analysis
The commission reviewed the rulemaking adoption action in light of the regulatory analysis requirements of Texas Government Code, §2001.0225, and determined that the action is not subject to Texas Government Code, §2001.0225 because it does not meet the definition of a "Major environmental rule" as defined in that statute. A "Major environmental rule" is a rule the specific intent of which is to protect the environment or reduce risks to human health from environmental exposure, and that may adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, or the public health and safety of the state or a sector of the state. The adopted amendments implement SB 616 and SB 1061 from the 89th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2025. SB 616 provides additional exceptions to the prohibition of injection wells into or through the Edwards Aquifer to allow for certain ASR projects in Williamson or Medina Counties. SB 1061 is procedural in addressing application requirements for PAAs and revises the conditions for which applications for PAAs are uncontested matters and requires the commission to prioritize the conservation of regional groundwater supplies when considering an application for amendment to a restoration table value. The adopted rules revise the exceptions to the prohibition of injection wells that terminate in or transect the Edwards Aquifer to allow for certain ASR projects in Williamson or Medina Counties. The allowance for injection wells that transect the Edwards Aquifer for certain ASR projects in Williamson or Medina Counties does not alleviate or change existing requirements that will otherwise apply to ASR projects. The adopted rules also specify that the commission will prioritize the conservation of regional groundwater supplies when considering an application to revise a restoration table or permit range table. The adopted rules specify the conditions that render an application for a new or amended PAA an uncontested matter and not subject to an opportunity for a contested case hearing. The adopted rules do not change any existing requirements that protect the environment or reduce risks to human health from environmental exposure, nor do the adopted rules affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, or the public health and safety of the state or a sector of the state.
As defined in the Texas Government Code, §2001.0225 only applies to a major environmental rule, the result of which is to: exceed a standard set by federal law, unless the rule is specifically required by state law; exceed an express requirement of state law, unless the rule is specifically required by federal law; exceed a requirement of a delegation agreement or contract between the state and an agency or representative of the federal government to implement a state and federal program; or adopt a rule solely under the general authority of the commission. The adopted rules do not exceed a standard set by federal law. The adopted amendments do not exceed an express requirement of state law or a requirement of a delegation agreement. These rules were not developed solely under the general powers of the agency but are authorized by specific sections of the Texas Government Code and TWC, that are cited in the statutory authority section of this preamble. Therefore, this rulemaking is not subject to the regulatory analysis provisions of Texas Government Code, §2001.0225(b).
The commission invited public comment regarding the Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis Determination during the public comment period.
Takings Impact Assessment
The commission evaluated the rulemaking adoption and performed an analysis of whether Texas Government Code, Chapter 2007, is applicable. The adopted amendments implement SB 616 and SB 1061 from the 89th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2025. The adopted amendments in Chapter 331 do not affect private property in a manner that restricts or limits an owner's right to the property that would otherwise exist in the absence of the adopted rules. The adopted amendments to Chapter 331 amend the prohibition for injection wells that transect or terminate in the Edwards Aquifer to allow certain aquifer and storage and recovery projects in Williamson or Medina Counties and amend procedural requirements for the processing of applications for PAAs. Consequently, this rulemaking action does not meet the definition of a taking under Texas Government Code, §2007.002(5). Therefore, this rulemaking action will not constitute a taking under Texas Government Code, Chapter 2007.
Consistency with the Coastal Management Program
The commission reviewed the adopted rules and found they are neither identified in Coastal Coordination Act Implementation Rules, 31 TAC §29.11(b)(2) or (4), nor will they affect any action/authorization identified in Coastal Coordination Act Implementation Rules, 31 TAC §29.11(a)(6). Therefore, the adopted rules are not subject to the Texas Coastal Management Program (CMP).
The commission invited public comment regarding the consistency with the coastal management program during the public comment period.
Public Comment
The commission held a public hearing on December 8, 2025. The comment period closed on December 10, 2025. The commission received comments from Brazos River Authority, Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance (GEAA), Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services (Tejas), and The Owner/Operator Members of the Uranium Committee of the Texas Mining & Reclamation Association (TMRA-UC).
Brazos River Authority supported the rulemaking. TMRA-UC was generally supportive of the rulemaking, but requested the commission not adopt amendment of §331.108(b). GEAA and Tejas were generally against the rulemaking.
Response to Comments
Comment
Brazos River Authority commented that TCEQ's proposed amendment of §331.19(a)(5) is consistent with both the plain language and intent of SB 616 and that it supports its adoption by the commission.
Response
The commission acknowledges Brazos River Authority's comment. No changes were made in response to the comment.
Comment
Tejas commented that the amendment to §331.19 to implement SB 616 raises a risk of contamination of the Edwards Aquifer from failures in well casing, cement, sealing materials, construction flaws, geological movement or long-term degradation.
Response
The implementation of SB 616 to amend rules to allow for certain exceptions to injection wells that transect the Edwards Aquifer does not alter rule provisions that require injection wells to be sited, designed, constructed and operated to protect underground sources of drinking water from pollution. Current underground injection control rules under 30 TAC Chapter 331 Subchapters A, H and K do not allow for Class V injection well design/construction and operation associated with ASR systems to introduce contaminants from the injection source into a non-designated receiving aquifer. No changes were made in response to the comment.
Comment
Tejas commented that the amendment to §331.19 to implement SB 616 could introduce surface water, treated effluent or other contaminants from the injection source into the Edwards Aquifer.
Response
The commission does not agree that amendment of §331.19 could introduce contaminants into the Edwards Aquifer. Any injection wells subject to this allowance in SB 616 will still be required to comply with other applicable requirements in Chapter 331 for ASR projects. Under existing rule 30 TAC §331.5(a), "No permit or authorization by rule shall be allowed where an injection well causes or allows the movement of fluid that would result in the pollution of an underground source of drinking water. A permit or authorization by rule shall include terms and conditions reasonably necessary to protect fresh water from pollution." No changes were made in response to the comment.
Comment
Tejas commented that any damage to the Edwards Aquifer would be irreversible given the high-flow nature of a karst aquifer.
Response
The commission does not agree that amendment of §331.19 imposes greater risk to the Edwards Aquifer due to the permeability of the aquifer or karst conditions. Any injection wells subject to §331.19 must still comply with the other applicable requirements of 30 TAC Chapter 331. No changes were made in response to the comment.
Comment
GEAA urged the TCEQ to reconsider and reject the provisions of SB 616 and SB 1061 asserting that this will endanger the Edwards Aquifer and eliminate public recourse. GEAA also urged TCEQ to reject provisions of SB 1061 that would reduce or eliminate public involvement.
Response
The commission is implementing law enacted by the legislature. The commission does not have the authority to reconsider SB 616 and SB 1061. No changes were made in response to the comment.
Comment
GEAA commented that removing the opportunity to challenge PAA amendments through contested case hearings eliminates the ability to scrutinize restoration plans and mining activities and thus opposes efforts to rollback opportunities for contested case hearing on PAA applications.
Response
The commission's amendments to §331.108 that establish when an application for a PAA is not subject to an opportunity for a contested case hearing implement SB 1061. By enacting the statutory amendments, the legislature established the requirements for a PAA application and when an application can or cannot be contested. The commission's rule amendments are consistent with SB 1061. No changes were made in response to the comment.
Comment
The Owner/Operator Members of the Uranium Committee of the Texas Mining & Reclamation Association (TMRA-UC) commented in support of the overall effort to align the TCEQ rules with SB 1061.
Response
The commission acknowledges TMRA-UC's comment. No changes were made in response to the comment.
Comment
TMRA-UC requested that the commission not adopt the proposed amendment to §331.108(b) and that the existing rule language in §331.108(b) be retained. TMRA-UC contends that the proposed amendment to §331.108(b) is not required by SB 1061 and conflicts with §331.107(g) and TWC, §27.0513(c). TMRA-UC states that if a restoration table value exceeds the upper limit of a permit range table, the statute allows a permittee to apply for a major amendment of the permit range table. TMRA-UC asserts that the rule should be revised to match the statutory language to retain the ability for applicants to apply for a major amendment of the permit.
Response
The commission does not agree that the amendment of §331.108(b) conflicts with §331.107(g) and TWC, §27.0513(c). However, for clarification, §331.108(b) has been revised since proposal to state "A restoration table may not be amended to exceed a respective maximum value of the permit range table." This provision is consistent with TWC, §27.0513(c) and 30 TAC §331.107(a)(1). A PAA restoration table value cannot exceed the range listed in the permit range table. If a proposed restoration table were to exceed the range listed in the permit table such that it falls above the upper limit of the range, the value from the permit range table must be used or the permittee must apply for an amendment of the permit range table. There is no authorization for a PAA restoration table to have a restoration value that exceeds the respective maximum value of a permit range table for a particular constituent in TWC, §27.0513(c) and 30 TAC §331.107.
SUBCHAPTER
A.
Statutory Authority
The amendments are adopted under Texas Water Code (TWC), §5.013, which establishes the general jurisdiction of the commission; TWC, §5.102, which provides the commission with the authority to carry out its duties and general powers under its jurisdictional authority as provided by TWC; TWC, §5.103, which requires the commission to adopt any rule necessary to carry out its powers and duties under the TWC and other laws of the state; TWC, §5.105, which authorizes the commission to establish and approve all general policy of the commission by rule; TWC, §5.120, which authorizes the commission to administer the law so as to promote the judicious use and maximum conservation and protection of the environment and natural resources of the state; TWC, §27.051 which establishes conditions for the issuance of a UIC permit; and TWC, §27.019, which authorizes the commission to adopt rules for the performance of its powers, duties, and functions under the Injection Well Act.
The adopted rules implement Senate Bill (SB) 616, 89th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2025; and TWC, § 27.051.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on February 27, 2026.
TRD-202601072
Amy L. Browning
Acting Deputy Director, Environmental Law Division
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Effective date: March 19, 2026
Proposal publication date: November 7, 2025
For further information, please call: (512) 239-6087
SUBCHAPTER
F.
Statutory Authority
The amendments are adopted under Texas Water Code (TWC), §5.013, which establishes the general jurisdiction of the commission; §5.102, which provides the commission with the authority to carry out its duties and general powers under its jurisdictional authority as provided by TWC; §5.103, which requires the commission to adopt any rule necessary to carry out its powers and duties under the TWC and other laws of the state; TWC, §5.105, which authorizes the commission to establish and approve all general policy of the commission by rule; TWC, §5.120, which authorizes the commission to administer the law so as to promote the judicious use and maximum conservation and protection of the environment and natural resources of the state; §27.019, which authorizes the commission to adopt rules for the performance of its powers, duties, and functions under the Injection Well Act; and §27.0513 which establishes conditions for area permits and production areas for uranium mining.
The adopted rules implement Senate Bill (SB) 1061, 89th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 2025; and TWC, §27.0513.
§331.108.
(a) An application for a new production area authorization or an amendment to a production area authorization is not subject to opportunity for a contested case hearing if:
(1) the authorization is for a production area within the boundary of the permit under which the authorization will be issued and the permit includes, for each production area addressed in the application, a range table with values established in accordance with the requirements in §305.49(a)(10) of this title (relating to Additional Contents of Application for an Injection Well Permit);
(2) the application includes, for each production area addressed in the application, a restoration table with restoration parameter values that do not exceed the high values for the respective parameters in the permit range table;
(3) the application is for a production area within the boundary of the permit under which the authorization will be issued, and the application meets the requirements at §331.104(a) - (d) of this title (relating to Establishment of Baseline and Control Parameters for Excursion Detection) regarding baseline wells; and
(4) not later than 30 days after the date the executive director determines the application to be administratively complete, the Notice of Receipt of Application and Intent to Obtain Permit is mailed to:
(A) the owners of the surface of:
(i) the tract of land on which the existing or proposed production area is or will be located; and
(ii) the tracts of land adjacent to the tract of land on which the existing or proposed production area is or will be located;
(B) the owners of mineral rights underlying:
(i) the tract of land on which the existing or proposed production area is or will be located; and
(ii) the tracts of land adjacent to the tract of land on which the existing or proposed production area is or will be located; and
(C) any groundwater conservation district established in the county in which the existing or proposed production area is or will be located.
(b) A restoration table may not be amended to exceed a respective maximum value of the permit range table.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on February 27, 2026.
TRD-202601006
Amy L. Browning
Acting Deputy Director, Environmental Law Division
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Effective date: March 19, 2026
Proposal publication date: November 7, 2025
For further information, please call: (512) 239-6087