[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 211 (Wednesday, October 30, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55894-55897]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-27604]


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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52

[LA-37-1-7320, TX-75-1-73199; FRL-5629-7]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Plans, Texas and 
Louisiana; Revision to the Texas and Louisiana State Implementation 
Plans Regarding Negative Declarations for Source Categories Subject to 
Reasonably Available Control Technology

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Section 172(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act (the Act) requires 
nonattainment areas to reduce emissions from existing sources by 
adopting, at a minimum, reasonably available control technology (RACT). 
The EPA has established 13 source categories for which RACT must be 
implemented and issued associated Control Technique Guidelines (CTGs) 
or Alternate Control Techniques (ACTs) documents. If no major sources 
of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions in a particular source 
category exist in a nonattainment area, a State may submit a negative 
declaration for that category. Louisiana has submitted negative 
declarations for certain source categories in the Baton Rouge ozone 
nonattainment area. Texas has submitted negative declarations for 
certain source categories in the Beaumont/Port Arthur, Dallas/Fort 
Worth, El Paso, and Houston/Galveston ozone nonattainment areas. The 
EPA is approving these negative declarations for Louisiana and Texas.

DATES: This action is effective on December 30, 1996, unless notice is 
postmarked by November 29, 1996, that someone wishes to submit adverse 
or critical comments. If the effective date is delayed, timely notice 
will be published in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be mailed to Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Air 
Planning Section (6PD-L), EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 
75202-2733. Copies of the States' submittals and other information 
relevant to this action are available for inspection during normal 
hours at the following locations:

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Air Quality, 
7290 Bluebonnet Blvd., Baton Rouge, LA 70810
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC), Office of Air 
Quality, 12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin, TX 78753.

    Anyone wishing to review this submittal at the EPA office is asked 
to contact the person below to schedule an appointment 24 hours in 
advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lt. Mick Cote, Air Planning Section 
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-7219.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 172(c)(1) of the Act requires nonattainment area State 
Implementation Plans (SIPs) to provide, at a minimum, for such 
reductions in emissions from existing sources in the areas as may be 
obtained through the adoption of reasonably available control measures 
including RACT. In the notice at 44 FR 53761 (September 17, 1979) the 
EPA defines RACT as: ``The lowest emission limitation that a particular 
source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology 
that is reasonably available considering technological and economical 
feasibility.''
    Furthermore, section 182(b)(2)(A) of the Act requires that States 
shall submit a revision to the applicable implementation plan to 
include provisions to require RACT implementation for each category of 
VOC sources in the area covered by a CTG document issued by the 
Administrator after November 15, 1990. This section applies to sources 
only in moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas. In addition, 
section 182(b)(2)(C) requires that States adopt RACT for all other 
major sources, i.e. non-CTG major sources, in the ozone nonattainment 
areas by November 15, 1992. In appendix E of the General Preamble to 
title I (57 FR 13948), the EPA identified 11 CTGs that it intended to 
issue. The EPA is also specifically required to issue CTGs for 
aerospace coatings and shipbuilding and repair for a total of 13 CTGs. 
The 11 additional CTGs are listed below:

1. Synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry (SOCMI) 
distillation
2. SOCMI reactors
3. Wood furniture
4. Plastic parts coating (business machines)

[[Page 55895]]

5. Plastic parts coating (other)
6. Offset lithography
7. Industrial wastewater
8. Autobody refinishing
9. SOCMI batch processing
10. Volatile organic liquid storage tanks
11. Clean up solvents

Appendix E explained that States could delay adoption of measures for 
major sources in those 13 categories until the EPA has provided the 
CTG. Appendix E also explained that if the EPA failed to issue the CTG 
by November 15, 1993, then the required RACT submittal for major 
sources in the 13 categories under 182(b)(2)(C) was due November 15, 
1994. The EPA issued CTGs for two source categories: SOCMI reactors and 
SOCMI distillation. For the other eleven categories, the EPA issued ACT 
guidelines for States to use in developing the required measures. ACT 
documents contain information on emissions, controls, control options, 
and costs that States can use in developing rules based on RACT. ACT 
documents present options only, and do not contain a recommendation on 
RACT.
    As stated previously, where there are no major sources of VOC 
emissions in a CTG or ACT source category in a nonattainment area, the 
States can provide the EPA with a negative declaration instead of 
developing control measures. Louisiana and Texas have submitted their 
negative declarations for the categories where no sources were 
identified. Texas and Louisiana made determinations that no major 
sources existed in certain categories by researching the State 
databases. The EPA verified the States' assertions by researching its 
Aerometric Information Retrieval System database.
    It should be noted that, subsequent to the States' submittals, the 
EPA issued the wood furniture CTG in May 1996 pursuant to section 
182(b)(2)(A) of the Act. Unlike section 182(b)(2)(C) of the Act, which 
only calls for controlling major sources, a CTG issued under section 
182(b)(2)(A) can call for controlling both major and minor sources if 
it proves to be reasonable. Therefore, Texas and Louisiana will now 
have to reevaluate the previously submitted negative declarations for 
wood furniture to determine if any of these smaller sources are located 
in the nonattainment areas.

II. Analysis of the Submittals

Louisiana

    On December 15, 1995, Louisiana submitted a SIP revision to address 
all of the CTG/ACT source categories for the Baton Rouge serious ozone 
nonattainment area and the Calcasieu Parish marginal ozone 
nonattainment area. The plan includes regulations for six of the 
thirteen CTG/ACT categories and negative declarations for the remaining 
seven categories. The seven categories are offset lithography, plastic 
parts coatings-business machines, plastic part coatings-others, wood 
furniture, aerospace coatings, autobody refinishing, and shipbuilding 
and repair.
    In this action, the EPA is approving only the Baton Rouge Parish 
negative declarations as revisions to the SIP. As stated earlier, 
section 182(b)(2) applies to moderate and above ozone nonattainment 
areas. Since Calcasieu Parish is classified as marginal, the EPA is not 
acting upon the negative declarations for that parish at this time. In 
addition, the regulations included in the plan will be acted upon in a 
future rulemaking.

Texas

    On January 10, 1996, Texas submitted a SIP revision intended in 
part to address RACT requirements for the 13 source categories. This 
submittal included the negative declarations for some categories and 
demonstrations that existing rules constitute RACT for other 
categories. In this action, the EPA is approving only the negative 
declarations contained in the submittal.
    For the Beaumont/Port Arthur region, negative declarations were 
submitted for the following categories: clean-up solvents, aerospace 
coatings, shipbuilding and repair, wood furniture, plastic part 
coatings-business machines, plastic part coatings-others, autobody 
refinishing, and offset lithography.
    For Dallas/Fort Worth, negative declarations were submitted for six 
categories: industrial wastewater, clean-up solvents, shipbuilding and 
repair, autobody refinishing, plastic part coatings-business machines, 
and offset lithography.
    For the Houston/Galveston area, the State submitted negative 
declarations for the following 11 categories: clean-up solvents, 
aerospace coatings, wood furniture, plastic part coatings-business 
machines, plastic part coatings-others, autobody refinishing, and 
offset lithography.
    For El Paso, negative declarations were submitted for the following 
nine categories: industrial wastewater, clean-up solvents, aerospace 
coatings, shipbuilding and repair, wood furniture, plastic part 
coatings-business machines, plastic part coatings-others, autobody 
refinishing, and offset lithography.

III. Final Action

    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. This action will be 
effective December 30, 1996, unless, by November 29, 1996, adverse or 
critical comments are received.
    If the EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn 
before the effective date by publishing a subsequent action that will 
withdraw the final action. All public comments received will 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 December 30, 1996.
    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.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

    This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature 
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the 
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a 
July 10, 1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator 
for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has 
exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA 
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of 
any proposed or final rule on small entities. See 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 
Alternatively, 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.

[[Page 55896]]

    The 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 flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry 
into the economic reasonableness of State action. The Act forbids EPA 
to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. See Union Electric 
Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

C. Unfunded Mandates

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(Unfunded Mandates Act), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must 
prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final 
rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs 
to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to the 
private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must 
select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory 
requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for 
informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly 
or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    The EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does 
not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of 
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves 
preexisting requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new 
Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, 
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this 
action.

D. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

    Under 5 U.S.C. section 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report 
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, 
the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the 
General Accounting Office prior to publication of this rule in today's 
Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. section 804(2).

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

    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 December 30, 1996. 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).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental regulations, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping, and Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 30, 1996.
Jerry Clifford,
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 T--Louisiana

    2. Section 52.970 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(72) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 52.970  Identification of Plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (72) Revisions to the Louisiana SIP addressing VOC RACT Negative 
Declarations. The Governor of Louisiana submitted the negative 
declarations for reasonably available control technology (RACT) for the 
Baton Rouge ozone nonattainment area on December 15, 1996. Section 
172(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act requires nonattainment areas to adopt, 
at a minimum, RACT to reduce emissions from existing sources. Pursuant 
to section 182(b)(2) of the Act, for moderate and above ozone 
nonattainment areas, the EPA has identified 13 categories for such 
sources and developed the Control Technique Guidelines (CTGs) or 
Alternate Control Techniques (ACTs) documents to implement RACT at 
those sources. When no major volatile organic compound (VOC) sources 
for a CTG/ACT category exist in a nonattainment area, a State may 
submit a negative declaration for that category. Louisiana's submittal 
included two negative declaration letters from Mr. Gustave Von Bodungen 
to Ms. Karen Alvarez dated April 6, 1994, and June 20, 1994, for the 
following source categories: offset lithography, plastic parts-business 
machines, plastic parts-others, wood furniture, aerospace coatings, 
autobody refinishing, and shipbuilding coatings/repair. This submittal 
satisfies section 182(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 for 
these particular CTG/ACT source categories for the Baton Rouge ozone 
nonattainment area.
    (i) Incorporation by reference. The letter dated December 15, 1995, 
from the Governor of Louisiana to the Regional Administrator, 
submitting a revision to the Louisiana SIP for VOC RACT rules, which 
included VOC RACT negative declarations.
    (ii) Additional material. (A) The negative declaration letter dated 
April 16, 1994, from Mr. Gustave Von Bodungen to Ms. Karen Alvarez.
    (B) The negative declaration letter dated June 20, 1994, from Mr. 
Gustave Von Bodungen to Ms. Karen Alvarez.

Subpart SS--Texas

    3. Section 52.2270 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(103) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.2270  Identification of Plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (103) Revisions to the Texas SIP addressing VOC RACT Negative 
Declarations. A revision to the Texas SIP was submitted on January 10, 
1996, which included negative declarations for various categories. 
Section 172(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 requires 
nonattainment areas to adopt, at a minimum, the reasonably available 
control technology (RACT) to reduce emissions from existing sources. 
Pursuant to section 182(b)(2) of the Act, for moderate and above ozone 
nonattainment areas, the EPA has identified 13 categories for such 
sources and developed the Control Technique Guidelines (CTGs) or 
Alternate Control Techniques (ACTs) documents to implement RACT at 
those sources. When no major volatile organic compound (VOC) sources 
for a source category exist in a nonattainment area, a State may submit 
a negative declaration for that category. Texas submitted negative 
declarations for the areas and source categories listed in this 
paragraph (c) (103). For the Beaumont/

[[Page 55897]]

Port Arthur region, negative declarations were submitted for the 
following eight categories: clean-up solvents, aerospace coatings, 
shipbuilding and repair, wood furniture, plastic part coatings-business 
machines, plastic part coatings-others, autobody refinishing, and 
offset lithography. For Dallas/Fort Worth, negative declarations were 
submitted for six categories: industrial wastewater, clean-up solvents, 
shipbuilding and repair, autobody refinishing, plastic part coatings-
business machines, and offset lithography. For the Houston/Galveston 
area, negative declarations were submitted for seven categories: clean-
up solvents, aerospace coatings, wood furniture, plastic part coatings-
business machines, plastic part coatings-others, autobody refinishing, 
and offset lithography. For El Paso, negative declarations were 
submitted for nine categories: industrial wastewater, clean-up 
solvents, aerospace coatings, shipbuilding and repair, wood furniture, 
plastic part coatings-business machines, plastic part coatings-others, 
autobody refinishing, and offset lithography. This submittal satisfies 
section 182(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 for these 
particular CTG/ACT source categories for the Texas ozone nonattainment 
areas stated in this paragraph (c) (103).
    (i) Incorporation by reference. The letter dated January 10, 1996, 
from the Governor of Texas to the Regional Administrator, submitting 
the Post-1996 Rate of Progress Plan as a revision to the SIP, which 
included VOC RACT negative declarations.
    (ii) Additional material. Pages 53, 55 through 59, 61, 63, and 64 
of the Post-1996 Rate of Progress Plan, adopted by the Texas Natural 
Resource Conservation Commission on December 13, 1995.

[FR Doc. 96-27604 Filed 10-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P