[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 27 (Tuesday, February 10, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6659-6664]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-3319]



40 CFR Part 52

[TX82-1-7336b; FRL-5962-5]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan, Texas: 
15% Rate-of-Progress Plan, 1990 Emission Inventory, Motor Vehicle 
Emission Budget, and Contingency Plan for the Beaumont/Port Arthur 
Ozone Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.


SUMMARY: In this action, EPA is approving a revision to the Texas State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Beaumont/Port Arthur ozone 
nonattainment area for the purpose of satisfying the 15% rate-of-
progress requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act) as amended in 1990, 
which will aid in ensuring the attainment of the National Ambient Air 
Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. The EPA is also approving the 
area's associated Motor Vehicle Emission Budget (MVEB).
    In addition, EPA is approving revisions to the 1990 base year 
emissions inventory and the contingency plan for this area.
    This action also replaces the proposed limited approval/limited 
disapproval of the Beaumont/Port Arthur 15% Plan and Contingency Plan 
published on January 29, 1996. The May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27964), limited 
approval of the Volotile Organic Compound (VOC) control measures 
continues in effect.

DATES: This direct final rule document is effective April 13, 1998, 
unless adverse comments are received by March 12, 1998. If the 
effective date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the 
Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to Mr. Thomas H. Diggs, 
Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), at the EPA Regional Office listed 
below. Copies of the documents relevant to this final action are 
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the 
following locations. Interested persons wanting to examine these 
documents should make an appointment with the appropriate office at 
least 24 hours before the visiting day.
    Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Multimedia Planning and 
Permitting Division, 1445 Ross Avenue, suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-
    Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC), 12100 Park 
35 Circle, Building F, Austin, Texas 78753.
    Documents which are incorporated by reference are available for 
public inspection at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information 
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, 
DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Eaton R. Weiler, of the EPA Region 
6 Air Planning Section at the above address, telephone (214) 665-7242.


I. Background

A. Clean Air Act Requirements

    Section 182(b)(1) of the Act as amended in 1990 requires all ozone 
nonattainment areas classified as moderate and above to submit a SIP 
revision by November 15, 1993, which describes, in part, how these 
areas will achieve an actual reduction in VOC emissions of at least 15 
percent, from a 1990 baseline, during the first six years after 
enactment of the Act (November 15, 1996). The Act also sets limitations 
on the creditability of certain types of reductions. Specifically, 
states cannot take credit for reductions achieved by Federal Motor 
Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) measures (new car emissions standards) 
promulgated prior to 1990, or for reductions resulting from 
requirements to lower the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) of gasoline 
promulgated prior to 1990. Furthermore, the Act does not allow credit 
for corrections to Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs (I/M), 
or corrections to Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) rules 
as these programs were required prior to 1990. Emissions and emissions 
reductions shall be calculated on a typical weekday basis for the 
``peak'' 3-month ozone period (generally June through August).
    In addition, section 172(c)(9) of the Act requires that contingency 
measures be included in the plan revision to be implemented if 
reasonable further progress is not achieved, or if the standard is not 
    In Texas, the Beaumont/Port Arthur ozone nonattainment area is 
classified as ``moderate'' and is subject to the

[[Page 6660]]

section 182(b)(1) 15% rate-of-progress requirements. The Beaumont/Port 
Arthur ozone nonattainment area is comprised of the following counties: 
Orange, Jefferson, and Hardin. The 15 percent VOC emissions reduction 
required by November 15, 1996, is defined within this document as 
``rate-of-progress'' (ROP). The SIP revision which delineates the plan 
for achieving the emissions reductions is defined in this document as 
the ``15% ROP Plan.''

B. Previous 15 Percent Rate of Progress SIP revisions

    Texas first adopted measures for the 15% ROP Plans and the required 
contingency measures for the four nonattainment areas of Dallas/Fort 
Worth, Houston/Galveston, El Paso, and Beaumont/Port Arthur in two 
phases. Phase I was submitted to EPA on November 13, 1993, and 
contained measures achieving the bulk of the required reductions in 
each of the nonattainment areas. Phase II was submitted May 9, 1994. 
The Phase II submittal was to make up the shortfall in reductions not 
achieved by the Phase I measures. The combination of the Phase I and 
Phase II measures was ruled administratively complete by EPA on May 12, 
    The EPA analyzed the November 13, 1993, and May 9, 1994, submittals 
and determined that the measures included in the plan did not achieve 
the required amount of reductions. Among other reasons, there was a 
shortfall because the I/M program relied on reductions in the plans 
which had subsequently been repealed by the State. On January 29, 1996 
(61 FR 2751), EPA published a proposed limited approval/limited 
disapproval of the 15% Plans included in the November 13, 1993, and May 
9, 1994, submittal.
    The EPA also proposed a limited approval of the measures that were 
included with the plans because they resulted in a strengthening of the 
SIP. For a complete discussion of the deficiencies in the State's 
plans, please see the January 29, 1996, Federal Register document.

C. Current 15 Percent SIP Revision

    The Governor of Texas submitted revisions to the 15% ROP Plans for 
Beaumont/Port Arthur, Dallas/Fort Worth, El Paso and Houston/Galveston 
areas in a letter dated August 9, 1996. The SIP submittal also included 
revisions to the 1990 Base Year Inventory, El Paso section 818 
analysis, the Post 96 ROP Plan for Houston, and the Employee Commute 
Options. In this Federal Register, EPA is taking action on only the 
Emission Inventory, 15% ROP Plan, Contingency measures, and MVEB for 
the Beaumont/Port Arthur area. The EPA is taking no action on the other 
portions of the August 23, 1996, submittal in this Federal Register, 
nor on any plans for the Dallas/Fort Worth, El Paso and Houston areas. 
The other portions of the Governor's SIP submittal will be finalized in 
separate Federal Register actions.

II. Analysis of the Submittal

A. General

    Texas has made the following changes to address the shortfalls that 
were identified in the January 29, 1996, limited approval/limited 
disapproval proposed action. First, Texas made several revisions to its 
emissions estimates. These revisions were based on more recent 
information or source surveys. From these studies, Texas concluded 
that, in some instances, better estimates of emissions were available 
based on locally derived emission factors rather than defaults based on 
national data. Second, these same studies resulted, in some instances, 
in lower projections of emissions in 1996 resulting in less growth to 
be offset. Finally, by better segregating the emission points that were 
subject to specific rules, Texas identified additional emission 
reductions from measures in the original 15% Plan. The EPA believes 
that the revisions to the Emission Inventory and Growth Projections 
eliminate the shortfall identified in the January 29, 1996, limited 
disapproval/limited approval proposed action.

B. Emission Inventory Revisions

    The EPA approved the Texas 1990 base year inventory on November 8, 
1994 (59 FR 55586). In the August 23, 1996 SIP submittal, Texas 
included revisions to the approved VOC inventory. The revisions have 
been made based on more recently available information from source 
surveys and other methods. Much of the information was developed as 
part of bottom-up surveys of area source categories performed as part 
of the 1993 intensive ozone study in the Houston and Beaumont. This 
study, called the Coastal Oxidant Assessment for Southeast Texas 
(COAST), included a study of area source emissions. Traditional area 
source emission inventory techniques use national or state level 
statistics for the level of activity of a source category. For example, 
gallons of gasoline sold statewide might be used to determine emissions 
from gasoline stations. These emissions would be apportioned 
geographically using a surrogate such as population. In the bottom-up 
approach, surveys of actual facilities were used to determine emission 
levels. In addition to the data collected from bottom-up surveys, other 
improvements were made to the 1990 inventory. A brief discussion of the 
changes made to the inventory follows.
1. Other Product Coatings, High Performance Maintenance and Other 
Special Purpose Coatings
    These categories are all surface coating categories that were 
estimated for the 1990 inventory using per capita emission factors 
provided by EPA. The per capita factors were developed from national 
level estimates of usage of a product divided by the 1989 population. 
The documentation of the coatings and emissions covered by these 
categories was not initially available. The TNRCC, with EPA approval, 
removed these categories from the 1993 periodic emissions inventory. 
After further study, documentation of the specific categories and 
coatings was identified and the 1990 inventory has been adjusted 
appropriately. Once the categories had been accurately identified, 
overlap with the point source inventory could be accounted for and an 
improved area source estimate was obtained.
2. Marine Vessel Loading Losses
    Area source emissions in this category were based on estimates of 
the total amount of VOCs loaded at Texas ports. Texas determined that 
individual point sources had under reported emissions from this 
category. When the revised point source emissions are considered, it 
was determined that the bulk of the emissions in the Beaumont area were 
covered in the point source emission inventory. Therefore, the area 
source estimate could be reduced.
3. Surface Cleaning
    A contractor performed a bottom-up survey of this category. This 
survey was later expanded by TNRCC staff. The results of the survey 
indicated that the national default estimate of emissions for this 
category should be revised for the nonattainment areas in Texas.
4. Architectural Coatings
    Texas revised emissions estimate by using more recent information 
from the National Paint and Coatings Association combined with data 
from surveys on thinner usage.
5. Automobile Refinishing
    Texas used more recent information from the National Paint and 

[[Page 6661]]

Association and source surveys to revise the emission estimates for 
this category. In addition, using data from the Department of Commerce 
on paint shipments, Texas projected a substantial decrease in emissions 
between 1990 and 1994.
6. Sheet, Strip and Coil
    This category was estimated for the 1990 emission factor of 1.5 
tons/employee. The number of employees related to this industry was 
obtained from the County Business Patterns for Standard Industrial 
Classification (SIC) code 3479. This SIC code includes many businesses 
not engaged in coil coating operations. A list of companies involved in 
coil coating operations was obtained from the national coil coaters 
association. It was determined that all of the companies involved in 
these operations were outside the nonattainment area or were reporting 
their emissions in the point source inventory. Therefore, including 
their emissions in the area source emissions would be double counting. 
Therefore, the area source emissions were removed from the inventory.
7. Vessels With Outboards
    A telephone survey of pleasure craft owners in the Beaumont/Port 
Arthur area was conducted. The survey showed that 62 percent of boat 
usage occurs on weekends rather than on weekdays. Previous emission 
estimates had allocated pleasure craft emissions equally to each day of 
the week. It is important to know when emissions occur in developing 
control strategies. In this case, according to the EPA guidance, 
emissions are to be reduced from their 1990 summer time weekday levels. 
Therefore, Texas reduced the expected weekday emissions based on the 
results of the survey. A similar adjustment had previously been made to 
the Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston/Galveston inventories.
8. Generators <50 Horsepower
    As part of the COAST project, local area-specific construction and 
recreational area information and more current information about 
horsepower distributions and equipment/populations were utilized to 
obtain a more refined estimate of emissions in this category.
9. Residential Lawnmowers
    Similar to the survey performed of recreational boat users, a 
survey of homeowners was performed to determine when they actually cut 
their lawns. Fifty-nine percent of the surveyed respondents reported 
that they cut their lawns on the weekends. Texas reallocated the 
emissions based on the results of the survey.
10. 1994 Quality Assurance Efforts
    During 1994, the TNRCC completed a thorough evaluation of the 1990 
point source inventory and discovered that emissions from facilities in 
several SIC codes were misplaced under the wrong emissions category. 
This effort resulted in significant changes to some emissions 
categories. The realignment of emissions did not affect the total 
    The realignment of emissions did have the effect of increasing the 
amount of reductions that were expected for certain control measures 
and decreasing the amount of emission reductions expected from other 
control measures.
    The EPA is proposing to approve these revisions to the 1990 Base 
Year VOC inventory for the Beaumont/Port Arthur area. The original 
biogenic emissions are unchanged. A summary of the Revised 1990 
emissions inventory for the Beaumont/Port Arthur area is included in 
Table 1.

              Table 1.--1990 Base Year Emissions Inventory              
                         Beaumont / Port Arthur                         
    Point           Area         On-Road        Non-Road        Total   
245.35.......       30.63          19.11          18.44         313.53  

C. Calculation of the 1996 Target Level of Emissions

    Texas subtracted the noncreditable reductions from the FMVCP and 
RVP program from the 1990 emissions inventory. This subtraction results 
in the 1990 adjusted inventory. The total required emission reduction 
required to meet the 15% ROP Plan requirement equals the sum of 15 
percent of the adjusted inventory, plus reductions to offset any growth 
that takes place between 1990 and 1996, plus any reductions that result 
from corrections to the I/M or VOC RACT rules. Table 2 summarizes the 
calculations for the Beaumont/Port Arthur area.

         Table 2: Calculation of Required Reductions (Tons/Day)         
                    Beaumont / Port Arthur                              
1990 Emission Inventory.......................................    323.77
1990 Adjusted Emission Inventory..............................    313.53
15% of Adjusted...............................................     47.03
RACT and I/M Correction.......................................      4.28
1996 Target...................................................    262.22
1996 Projection \1\...........................................    320.01
Required Reduction............................................     57.79
\1\ 1996 forecasted emissions with growth and pre-1990 controls.        

D. Projections of Growth

    As can be seen from the calculations in Table 2, an important 
component of calculating the required emission reductions is to project 
the amount of growth in emissions that is expected between 1990 and 
1996. Since the 1996 emissions are related to the 1990 emissions, the 
changes in the 1990 emission inventory resulted in changes to the 1996 
projections. In addition, as discussed previously, Texas has projected 
reductions in the emissions from surface cleaning and auto refinishing 
emissions from 1990 levels.

E. Deficiencies Identified in the January 29, 1996 Federal Register

    In the January 29, 1996 Federal Register, EPA identified several 
areas where it was believed that Texas had projected too much emissions 
reduction for particular control measures. The EPA has reviewed the 
August 9, 1996, SIP revision and believes that it addresses the 
previously identified concerns. A brief discussion of the previously 
identified concerns follows below.
1. Architectural Coatings
    Texas projected emission reductions for this category based on past 
EPA guidance. The guidance, however, was changed in a memorandum dated 
March 22, 1995 (Credit for the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans for 
Reductions from the Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) 
Coating Rule). The

[[Page 6662]]

August, 1996 SIP revision revises the projected emissions reduction 
estimate based on the more recent guidance.
    Projected emissions reductions from the AIM rule are based on the 
AIM rule proposed by EPA on June 25, 1995 which expected compliance by 
April, 1997. Subsequently, EPA was sued over this proposed national 
rule and has negotiated a compliance date of no earlier than January 1, 
1998. The previous guidance allowed States to take emission reduction 
credit for the AIM rule even though the reductions were not expected to 
occur until April 1997. The EPA believes that even though the 
compliance date has been pushed back, the projected emissions reduction 
from the national AIM rule are creditable in State 15% Plans.
2. Acetone Substitution
    Texas had projected emissions reductions for the rules to regulate 
the cultured (synthetic) marble and fiber reinforced plastic 
operations. The EPA, however, has added acetone to the list of non-
reactive substances. Texas, in the August, 1996 submittal, removed 
emissions reduction credit for these rules.
3. Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M)
    Under the Federal I/M Flexibility Amendments promulgated September 
18, 1995, urbanized areas with a population of less than 200,000 for 
1990 are not mandated to participate in the Vehicle I/M program. The 
State of Texas has elected not to implement a Vehicle I/M program in 
the Beaumont/Port Arthur nonattainment area.
    For a complete discussion of the control measures considered please 
see the Technical Support Document for this action.
    Table 3 summarizes the control measures and their projected 
emissions reductions used to achieve the 15 percent target.

     Table 3.--Summary Emission Reductions for Beaumont/Port Arthur     
Required reduction (Tons/Day).................................     57.79
  RACT Catchup................................................      9.88
  TSDF........................................................      0.01
  Vehicle Refueling (Stage II)................................      1.96
  General Vent Gas............................................     11.75
  Benzene NESHAPS.............................................      0.28
  FMVCP Tier I................................................      0.21
  Vessel Cleaning.............................................      0.02
  Fugitives...................................................     17.46
  RE Floating Roof Tank.......................................     25.62
  RE Improvements (excluding floating roof tank)..............      5.04
  Gas Utility Engines.........................................      0.95
  Stage I.....................................................      1.49
  Architectural Coatings......................................      0.45
  Consumer/Commercial Products................................      0.38
  Traffic Markings............................................      0.05
  High Performance Maintenance................................      0.05
  Other Special Purpose.......................................      0.12
      Total Estimated Reductions..............................     75.71

F. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

    The Clean Air Act, section 176(c), and the transportation 
conformity rule require the states to establish MVEBs in any control 
strategy SIP that is submitted for attainment and maintenance of the 
NAAQS. The State of Texas has established a MVEB for VOC for the 
Beaumont/Port Arthur area. The EPA is proposing to approve the 
following MVEB in Table 4:

            Table 4.--1996 VOC Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget           
                             Area                                (tons/ 
Beaumont/Port Arthur..........................................     21.66

G. Contingency Measures

    Ozone areas classified as moderate or above must include in their 
submittals, under section 172(c)(9) of the Act, contingency measures to 
be implemented if Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) is not achieved or 
if the standard is not attained by the applicable date. The General 
Preamble to Title I (57 FR 13498) states that the contingency measures 
should, at a minimum, ensure that an appropriate level of emissions 
reduction progress continues to be made if attainment or RFP is not 
achieved and additional planning by the State is needed. Therefore, the 
EPA interprets the Act to require States with moderate and above ozone 
nonattainment areas to include sufficient contingency measures in the 
November 1993 submittal, so that upon implementation of such measures, 
additional emissions reductions of up to three percent of the adjusted 
base year inventory (or a lesser percentage that will make up the 
identified shortfall) would be achieved in the year after the failure 
has been identified. States must show that their contingency measures 
can be implemented with minimal further action on their part and with 
no additional rulemaking actions such as public hearings or legislative 
review .

III. Analysis of Specific Contingency Measures

    The following is a discussion of each of the contingency measures 
that have been included in the SIP submittals and an analysis of their 

A. Gas Utility Engines

    Texas has projected emission reductions that will occur from the 
small engine rule in the year following the required milestone 
demonstration or 1997. The EPA believes that these reductions have been 
quantified appropriately.

B. Tier I

    Additional reductions are projected for Tier I. The EPA agrees with 
these reduction estimates.

C. Excess Reductions

    Excess reductions from measures in place are sufficient to ensure 
that the contingency measure target of three percent is met. These 
emission reductions are in excess of what is required for the area to 
achieve by November 15, 1996. If Texas has to rely on these measures 
for contingency measures or for future plans then the State will have 
one year to backfill the contingency plan.

 Table 7.--Summary of Contingency Measures: Beaumont/Port Arthur (tons/ 
Required Contingency..........................................      9.41
Creditable Contingency Reductions:                                      
  Gas Utility Engines.........................................      0.08
  Tier I......................................................      0.69
  Excess from existing measures...............................     17.92
      Total...................................................     18.69

IV. Final Action

    The EPA has evaluated the Emissions Inventory, 15% Plans and 
contingency measures submitted as part of the August 9, 1996, SIP 
revision for Texas. The EPA is approving the revisions to the 1990 base 
year inventory, the 15% Plan, and Contingency Plan for the Beaumont/
Port Arthur Area 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, 
EPA is proposing to approve this action should adverse or critical 
comments be filed. This action will be effective April 13, 1998, unless 
by March 12, 1998, adverse comments are received.
    If EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn before 
the effective date by publishing a

[[Page 6663]]

subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public 
comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule 
based on proposed action. The EPA will not institute a second comment 
period. 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 April 13, 1998.
    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.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget 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 
    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, 
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 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 this approval action proposed 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 

D. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

    Under 5 U.S.C. 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. 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 April 13, 1998. 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) of the Act.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    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: January 22, 1998.
Lynda F. Carroll,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:


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

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart SS--Texas

    2. Section 52.2270 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(107) to read 
as follows:

Sec. 52.2270  Identification of Plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (107) A revision to the Texas State Implementation Plan addressing 
the 15% Rate-of-Progress Plan requirements for the Beaumont/Port Arthur 
ozone nonattainment area was submitted by a cover letter from Governor 
George Bush dated August 9, 1996. This revision will aid in ensuring 
that reasonable further progress is made towards attaining the National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone in the Beaumont/Port 
Arthur area. This submittal also contained revisions to the 1990 base 
year emissions inventory, Motor Vehicle Emission Budget, and 
contingency plan for the Beaumont/Port Arthur area.
    (i) Incorporation by reference. Texas Natural Resource Conservation 
Commission (TNRCC) order adopting amendments to the State 
Implementation Plan; Docket Number 96-0465-SIP, issued July 31, 1996.
    (ii) Additional material.
    (A) TNRCC certification letter dated July 24, 1996, and signed by 
Gloria Vasquez, Chief Clerk, TNRCC.
    (B) The SIP narrative plan and tables entitled, ``Revisions to the 
State Implementation Plan for the Control of Ozone Air Pollution,'' as 
it applies to the Beaumont/Port Arthur area dated July 24, 1996.
    3. Section 52.2309 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as 

Sec. 52.2309  Emissions inventories.

* * * * *
    (d) The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission submitted 
State Implementation Plan revisions to the 1990 base year emission 

[[Page 6664]]

for the Beaumont/Port Arthur area with a cover letter from the Governor 
of Texas dated August 9, 1996.
[FR Doc. 98-3319 Filed 2-9-98; 8:45 am]