[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 43 (Monday, March 6, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12125-12128]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5352]



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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52

[TX-47-1-6705a; FRL-5161-5]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Texas; Revision to the State Implementation Plan Addressing Sulfur 
Dioxide in Harris County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action approves a revision to the Texas State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) to include Agreed Orders limiting sulfur 
dioxide (SO2) allowable emissions at certain nonpermitted 
facilities in Harris County, Texas. By approving these Agreed Orders 
into the Texas SIP, along with approving a modeling demonstration 
showing attainment for the SO2 National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS) in Harris County, and acknowledging that Harris 
County has more than two years of quality assured SO2 monitoring 
data showing no violations of the SO2 NAAQS, the EPA will not, at 
this time, designate Harris County, Texas nonattainment for the 
SO2 NAAQS.
DATES: This final rule is effective on May 5, 1995 unless adverse or 
critical comments are received by April 5, 1995. If the effective date 
is delayed, timely notice will be published in the Federal Register 
(FR).

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to Mr. 
Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Planning Section, at the EPA Regional Office 
listed below. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are 
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the 
following locations. The interested persons wanting to examine these 
documents should make an appointment with the appropriate office at 
least twenty-four hours before the visiting day.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Programs Branch 
(6T-A), 1445 Ross Avenue, suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and 
Information Center, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460
    Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, 12124 Park 35 
Circle, Austin, Texas 78753.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mark Sather, Planning Section (6T-
AP), Air Programs Branch (6T-A), USEPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-7258.

 [[Page 12126]] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Four violations of the primary 24-hour SO2 NAAQS of 365 ug/
m3 (0.14 parts per million) were recorded at a single monitoring 
site (Houston Regional Monitoring Network (HRM) monitoring site #3) 
located near the Houston Ship Channel in Harris County, Texas, during 
1986, 1988, and 1990. The 24-hour SO2 NAAQS only allows one 
exceedance of the 365 ug/m3 standard per calendar year. Each 
additional exceedance is considered a violation of the NAAQS. Due to 
the monitoring violations and a modeling study conducted in 1987 by 
Science Applications International Corporation, under contract with the 
EPA Region 6, which predicted SO2 NAAQS exceedances in a portion 
of Harris County, the EPA declared, in an FR document dated April 22, 
1991 (56 FR 16274), that Harris County was under consideration as a 
potential new SO2 nonattainment area.
    In response to the recommended redesignation, Radian Corporation, 
which represented the HRM, worked with the Texas Natural Resource 
Conservation Commission (TNRCC) to obtain reductions in SO2 
allowable emissions from certain Houston industries. Radian then 
modeled the revised allowable SO2 emission inventory to determine 
if the area would attain the SO2 NAAQS. By achieving these 
emission reductions, making them federally enforceable, and executing 
an in-depth modeling study, HRM sought to demonstrate that Harris 
County was in attainment for SO2, and could thus avoid being 
redesignated to nonattainment. The EPA agreed to defer its final 
decision regarding nonattainment for Harris County, and granted the 
TNRCC, HRM, and the involved Harris County industries time to complete 
the modeling analysis, and also allowed the TNRCC to put in place 
enforceable restrictions on the new SO2 emission rates (i.e. 
through Agreed Orders).

Analysis of State Submission

A. Procedural Background

    The Clean Air Act (the Act) requires states to observe certain 
procedural requirements in developing implementation plans for 
submission to the EPA. Section 110(a)(2) of the Act provides that each 
implementation plan submitted by a state must be adopted after 
reasonable notice and public hearing. Section 110(l) of the Act 
similarly provides that each revision to an implementation plan 
submitted by a state under the Act must be adopted by such state after 
reasonable notice and public hearing. The EPA also must determine 
whether a submittal is complete and therefore warrants further EPA 
review and action (see section 110(k)(1) and 57 FR 13565). The EPA's 
completeness criteria for SIP submittals are set out at 40 Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) part 51, appendix V. The EPA attempts to make 
completeness determinations within 60 days of receiving a submission. 
However, a submittal is deemed complete by operation of law if a 
completeness determination is not made by the EPA six months after 
receipt of the submission.
    The State of Texas held a public hearing on March 31, 1994, to 
entertain public comment on a proposed Texas SIP revision containing 
the following elements: (1) An example Agreed Order limiting SO2 
allowable emissions; (2) a modeling demonstration showing SO2 
NAAQS attainment for Harris County; and (3) supporting narrative 
information. Subsequent to the public hearing and consideration of 
hearing comments, the SIP revision, containing 13 Agreed Orders, was 
adopted by the State on June 29, 1994. The SIP revision was submitted 
by the Governor to the EPA by cover letter dated August 3, 1994.
    The SIP revision package was reviewed by the EPA to determine 
completeness shortly after its submittal, in accordance with the 
completeness criteria set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. A letter 
dated September 20, 1994, was forwarded to the Governor finding the 
submittal complete and indicating the next steps to be taken in the 
review process.

B. Review of State SIP Revision

    The Texas SIP Revision for Harris County contained, as outlined 
above, modeling analyses demonstrating SO2 NAAQS attainment for 
Harris County (3-hour, 24-hour, and annual), Agreed Orders limiting 
SO2 allowable emissions at 13 nonpermitted companies in Harris 
County, and supporting narrative information. The modeling analyses 
used a revised allowable emission inventory obtained through an 
SO2 emissions reduction plan involving many Houston industries. As 
a result of the reduction plan, about 94,000 tons per year of 
federally-enforceable SO2 allowable emissions reductions were 
obtained in Harris County, thereby decreasing the original areawide 
SO2 allowable emissions inventory from about 287,000 tons per year 
to about 193,000 tons per year.
    A review of the worst case scenario modeling presented in the SIP 
showed no exceedances of the SO2 NAAQS (i.e. no exceedances at any 
of the receptors in the modeling grid). The modeling protocol and 
procedures, approved by the EPA and consistent with the EPA's 
``Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised)'' (July, 1986), used the 
EPA's Industrial Source Complex Short Term 2 model (most current 
version at the time of modeling) and five years of meteorological data 
(1981-1985) from the Houston International Airport with Lake Charles, 
Louisiana upper air data. A value of 3.5 ug/m3 was used as the 24-
hour background value, based on an evaluation of background monitored 
values and the area source contribution to the total emission 
inventory. Further, no violations of the SO2 NAAQS have occurred 
at any Harris County area monitoring site since calendar year 1990. It 
is important to note that an SO2 violation is defined as more than 
one exceedance of the 3-hour or 24-hour SO2 NAAQS, or an 
exceedance of the annual SO2 NAAQS. Only one exceedance of the 24-
hour SO2 NAAQS, in 1991, has been recorded in Harris County since 
calendar year 1990. For SO2 NAAQS attainment, at least 8 calendar 
quarters (2 years) of data with no violations of the NAAQS is required. 
For further details on the modeling analyses and monitoring data, 
please reference the Technical Support Document (TSD) and the State 
submittal located at the EPA Region 6 office listed above.
    The Agreed Orders were reviewed for consistency with the EPA 
enforceability guidance (i.e., the September 23, 1987, memorandum from 
J. Craig Potter regarding SIP enforceability), and with40 CFR part 60. 
The provisions of the Agreed Orders clearly identify each subject 
company, which all contain unpermitted SO2 sources. Each Order, 
effective June 29, 1994, also sets SO2 maximum allowable emissions 
limits, and recordkeeping, reporting and compliance monitoring 
requirements, including continuous emission monitoring requirements. 
Six facilities requested approval of an equivalent method of monitoring 
SO2 emissions: Crown Central Petroleum Corporation, Exxon Company 
USA, Lyondell Citgo Refining Company, LTD., Mobil Mining and Minerals 
Company (Mobil), Phibro Energy USA, Inc., and Shell Chemical/Oil. On 
June 28, 1994, the Executive Director of the TNRCC approved the 
alternate method requests. The EPA is also granting in this FR document 
approval for each of the alternative monitoring proposals. The 
equivalent monitoring method proposed by all of [[Page 12127]] the 
companies, except Mobil, was to use a continuous emission monitor (CEM) 
to measure the concentration of hydrogen sulfide in the fuel gas that 
is fed to the combustion units listed in Attachment A of the respective 
Orders. In addition, it was also proposed by all companies, except 
Mobil, to use the maximum fuel capacity of the combustion units listed 
in Attachment A of the respective Orders as part of the calculations to 
demonstrate compliance with the maximum allowable emission rates in the 
event there is no fuel feed meter on a combustion unit or in the event 
the fuel feed meter is out of operation or malfunctioning. Mobil 
requested approval of an alternative CEM quality assurance program, and 
an alternative monitoring method for a small emission point. For 
further details on the Agreed Orders, please reference the TSD and the 
State submittal located at the EPA Region 6 office listed above.

Final Action

    The EPA is approving a revision to the Texas SIP submitted by the 
Governor of Texas by cover letter dated August 3, 1994, in order to 
make federally enforceable Agreed Orders to limit SO2 allowable 
emissions at 13 nonpermitted facilities in Harris County. By approving 
these Agreed Orders into the Texas SIP, along with approving the 
modeling demonstration showing attainment for the SO2 NAAQS in 
Harris County, and acknowledging that Harris County has more than 2 
years of quality assured SO2 data showing no violations, EPA will 
not undertake the process to designate Harris County, Texas as 
nonattainment for the SO2 NAAQS at this time.
    The EPA has reviewed this revision to the Texas SIP and is 
approving the revision as submitted. The EPA is publishing this action 
without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a 
noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. 
However, in a separate document in this Federal Register publication, 
the EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision should adverse or 
critical comments be filed. Thus, this action will be effective May 5, 
1995 unless, by April 5, 1995, notice is received that adverse or 
critical comments will be submitted.
    If such notice is received, this action will be withdrawn before 
the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will 
withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be 
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this action serving as a 
proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on 
this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should 
do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is 
advised that this action will be effective May 5, 1995.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be 
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and 
environmental factors, and in relation to relevant statutory and 
regulatory requirements.

Miscellaneous

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., the EPA 
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of 
any proposed or final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). 
Alternatively, the EPA may certify that the rule will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, 
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than 
50,000.
    SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D, of the 
Act do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements 
that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP-
approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does 
not have a significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover, 
due to the nature of the Federal-state relationship under the Act, 
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute 
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The 
Act forbids the EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds 
(Union Electric Co. vs. U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (1976); 42 
U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by May 5, 1995. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does 
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be 
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. 
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its 
requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

Executive Order

    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from 
review under Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

    Note: Incorporation by reference of the SIP for the State of 
Texas was approved by the Director of the Federal Register on July 
1, 1982.

    Dated: February 14, 1995.
William B. Hathaway,
Acting Regional Administrator.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart SS--Texas

    2. Section 52.2270 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(93) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.2270  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (93) A revision to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) to 
include agreed orders limiting sulfur dioxide (SO2) allowable 
emissions at certain nonpermitted facilities in Harris County, and to 
include a modeling demonstration showing attainment of the SO2 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards, was submitted by the Governor 
by cover letter dated August 3, 1994.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) Order 
No. 94-09, as adopted by the TNRCC on June 29, 1994.
    (B) TNRCC Order No. 94-10 for Anchor Glass Container, as adopted by 
the TNRCC on June 29, 1994.
    (C) TNRCC Order No. 94-11 for Crown Central Petroleum Corporation, 
as adopted by the TNRCC on June 29, 1994.
    (D) TNRCC Order No. 94-12 for Elf Atochem North America, Inc., as 
adopted by the TNRCC on June 29, 1994.
    (E) TNRCC Order No. 94-13 for Exxon Company USA, as adopted by the 
TNRCC on June 29, 1994.
    (F) TNRCC Order No. 94-14 for ISK Biosciences Corporation, as 
adopted by the TNRCC on June 29, 1994.
    (G) TNRCC Order No. 94-15 for Lyondell Citgo Refining Company, 
LTD., as adopted by the TNRCC on June 29, 1994.
    (H) TNRCC Order No. 94-16 for Lyondell Petrochemical Company, as 
adopted by the TNRCC on June 29, 1994. [[Page 12128]] 
    (I) TNRCC Order No. 94-17 for Merichem Company, as adopted by the 
TNRCC on June 29, 1994.
    (J) TNRCC Order No. 94-18 for Mobil Mining and Minerals Company, as 
adopted by the TNRCC on June 29, 1994.
    (K) TNRCC Order No. 94-19 for Phibro Energy USA, Inc., as adopted 
by the TNRCC on June 29, 1994.
    (L) TNRCC Order No. 94-20 for Shell Chemical and Shell Oil, as 
adopted by the TNRCC on June 29, 1994.
    (M) TNRCC Order No. 94-21 for Shell Oil Company, as adopted by the 
TNRCC on June 29, 1994.
    (N) TNRCC Order No. 94-22 for Simpson Pasadena Paper Company, as 
adopted by the TNRCC on June 29, 1994.
    (ii) Additional material.
    (A) May 27, 1994, letter from Mr. Norman D. Radford, Jr. to the 
TNRCC and the EPA Region 6 requesting approval of an equivalent method 
of monitoring sulfur in fuel and an equivalent method of determining 
compliance.
    (B) June 28, 1994, letter from Anthony C. Grigsby, Executive 
Director, TNRCC, to Crown Central Petroleum Corporation, approving an 
alternate monitoring and compliance demonstration method.
    (C) June 28, 1994, letter from Anthony C. Grigsby, Executive 
Director, TNRCC, to Exxon Company USA, approving an alternate 
monitoring and compliance demonstration method.
    (D) June 28, 1994, letter from Anthony C. Grigsby, Executive 
Director, TNRCC, to Lyondell Citgo Refining Co., LTD., approving an 
alternate monitoring and compliance demonstration method.
    (E) June 28, 1994, letter from Anthony C. Grigsby, Executive 
Director, TNRCC, to Phibro Energy, USA, Inc., approving an alternate 
monitoring and compliance demonstration method.
    (F) June 28, 1994, letter from Anthony C. Grigsby, Executive 
Director, TNRCC, to Shell Oil Company, approving an alternate 
monitoring and compliance demonstration method.
    (G) June 8, 1994, letter from Mr. S. E. Pierce, Mobil Mining and 
Minerals Company, to the TNRCC requesting approval of an alternative 
quality assurance program.
    (H) June 28, 1994, letter from Anthony C. Grigsby, Executive 
Director, TNRCC, to Mobil Mining and Minerals Company, approving an 
alternative quality assurance program.
    (I) August 3, 1994, narrative plan addressing the Harris County 
Agreed Orders for SO2, including emission inventories and modeling 
analyses (i.e. the April 16, 1993, report entitled ``Evaluation of 
Potential 24-hour SO2 Nonattainment Area in Harris County, Texas-
Phase II'' and the June, 1994, addendum).
    (J) TNRCC certification letter dated June 29, 1994, and signed by 
Gloria Vasquez, Chief Clerk, TNRCC.
[FR Doc. 95-5352 Filed 3-3-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F