[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