[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 106 (Thursday, June 3, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29793-29796]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-13800]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[TX83-1-7340a; FRL-6349-9]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are approving two revised Commission Orders modifying the 
sulfur dioxide (SO2) allowable emissions at two stationary 
sources in Harris County, Texas. The Orders are separate, enforceable 
agreements between Simpson Pasadena Paper Company, Lyondel-Citgo 
Refining Company, and the Texas Natural Resource Conservation 
Commission (TNRCC). This action will incorporate these two Orders into 
the federally approved State Implementation Plan (SIP). The intention 
of this action is to regulate SO2 emissions in accordance 
with the requirements of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (the 
Act).

DATES: This action is effective on August 2, 1999 without further 
notice, unless EPA receives relevant adverse comments by July 6, 1999. 
If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal 
of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public 
that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments must be submitted to Mr. Thomas Diggs, 
Chief of Air Planning Section, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 
1200 (6PD-L), Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Copies of the technical support 
document are available for public review at the EPA Region 6 office 
during normal business hours. Copies of documents relative 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 24 hours before the visiting day.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Planning Section, 1445 
Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, 6PD-L, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone 
(214) 665-7214.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, 12100 Park 35 Circle, 
Austin, Texas 78753, telephone (512) 239-1461.

    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, S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Petra Sanchez, Air Planning 
Section, (6PD-L), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 
1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone: (214) 665-6686.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background Information
    A. What Action is EPA Taking in This Rulemaking?
    B. Why Were Changes In Emission Rates Necessary?
    C. What Is A SIP?
    D. What Are the Procedural Requirements Texas Must Follow for 
EPA Approval?
    E. What Are the Health Effects Associated With This Criteria 
Pollutant?
    F. What Are the NAAQS for SO2?
II. Final Action
III. Administrative Requirements

I. Background Information

A. What Action Is EPA Taking in This Rulemaking?

    The EPA is adopting two Agreed Commission Orders containing new 
emission limits at two facilities into the Harris County SIP for 
SO2. The facilities are Simpson Pasadena Paper Company 
located at North Shaver Street at

[[Page 29794]]

Washburn Tunnel in Houston, Texas, and Lyondel-Citgo Refining Company, 
located at 12000 Lawndale, also in Houston, Texas. Changes to the 
emission limits were approved by the TNRCC through ``Agreed Commission 
Orders.'' This action adopts these Orders into the SIP and makes them 
federally enforceable. In the original SIP for Harris County, emission 
limits were developed for thirteen non-permitted sources, including 
Simpson and Lyondel. The EPA approved the Harris County SIP on March 6, 
1995 (60 FR 12125), and the contents in the unrevised portions of the 
SIP remain the same. The reader is referred to this Federal Register 
document for additional background.

B. Why Were Changes in Emission Rates Necessary?

Lyondel-Citgo Refining Company (LCR)
    The LCR revision corrects a minor technical problem found with the 
calculation for the SO2 emission rate. In the original 1994, 
SIP submittal, hourly LCR allowable emission rates used for dispersion 
modeling calculated the annual average fuel gas rates instead of the 
LCR grandfathered firing rates, resulting in a maximum fuel gas 
hydrogen sulfide concentration of 160 parts per million (ppm) by 
volume. The annual average fuel gas emission rates were incorrectly 
converted to an hourly rate without taking into consideration 
grandfathered maximum hourly limits for the emission source. Adjusting 
the emission rates, however, would cause the combined emissions to rise 
from 199.42 to 263.39 pounds per hour (lbs/hr). Lyondel-Citgo Refining 
Company, therefore, submitted a request to modify their Agreed 
Commission Order to reflect their corrected emission rates. The 
request, with the supporting documentation and a revised dispersion 
modeling analysis to increase the SO2 emission rates, was 
further evaluated by the TNRCC and then by EPA. The analysis 
demonstrates that the new emission rates from LCR will not cause a 
violation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for 
SO2.
    The modeling results predict worst-case concentrations for the 3-
hour, 24-hour, and annual averaging periods of 908 ug/m3, 
(for the secondary 3-hour), 336 ug/m3, (for the primary 24-
hour standard) and 78 ug/m3, (for the primary annual 
standard) respectively. All concentrations are below the applicable 
NAAQS of 1300 ug/m3, 365 ug/m3, and 80 ug/
m3 respectively.
    The Industrial Source Complex Short-Term 3 model, and 5 years of 
meteorological data (i.e., 1981 through 1985) from the Houston 
Intercontinental surface station and the Lake Charles upper-air station 
were used for the analysis. Two emission inventories were used in the 
modeling, based on the original inventory provided by HRM and its 
contractor, Radian Incorporated. The second scenario used the updated 
inventory submitted by LCR. The differences from the first and second 
scenarios were observed, with respect to the 3-hour, 24-hour and annual 
SO2 NAAQS. In addition, the differences from the first and 
second scenarios were added as an increment to the original Radian 
model results. The results predicted concentrations below the 
SO2 NAAQS.
Simpson Pasadena Paper Company
    Of the seven emission points identified in the original Commission 
Order for Simpson Pasadena, the largest is the No.6 Kraft Recovery 
Boiler (SN15, 400 pounds of SO2 per hour). Simpson Pasadena 
submitted a request to modify their order by raising the emission limit 
on the No. 6 Kraft Recovery Boiler from 400 pounds/hour (lbs/hr) to 600 
lbs/hr, when Boiler No. 7 is not operating. As a result, the maximum 
allowable SO2 emissions from the two furnaces would decrease 
from 650 lbs/hr (400 and 250 lbs/hr, for No. 6 and No. 7, respectively) 
to 600 lbs/hr for one furnace. The revised order allows for this 
averaging on a permanent basis, whenever maintenance or malfunctions 
occur. Simpson Pasadena, however, is still responsible for notifying 
the TNRCC office whenever these temporary changes in emissions will 
occur, and provide an approximate duration time.
    The air quality impact analysis submitted with the SIP revision 
request demonstrated that the net change in emissions from 650 lbs/hr 
to 600 lbs/hr would not cause or contribute to a violation of the 
SO2 NAAQS.
    The modeling approach was conducted in two phases. The first phase 
compared the predicted concentrations from the net change in emissions 
to the applicable SO2 significance levels to determine if 
the modification was significant. The impacts were above the 
significance levels for the 3-hour and 24-hour averaging periods. Thus 
the second phase, a full analysis, was conducted using the complete 
emission inventory from the original attainment demonstration.
    The modeling results predict worst-case concentrations for the 3-
hour and 24-hour averaging periods of 691 micrograms/cubic meter (ug/
m3) and 227 ug/m3, respectively. These 
concentrations demonstrated they were below the applicable NAAQS.

C. What Is a SIP?

    Section 110 of the Act requires states to develop air pollution 
regulations and control strategies to ensure that State air quality 
meets the NAAQS established by the EPA. These ambient standards are 
established under section 109 of the Act and they address six criteria 
pollutants: carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate 
matter and sulfur dioxide.
    Each State must submit these regulations and control strategies to 
us for approval and incorporation into the federally enforceable SIP. 
Each State has a SIP designed to protect its air quality. These SIPs 
can be extensive, containing regulations, enforceable emission limits, 
emission inventories, monitoring networks, and modeling demonstrations. 
The Texas SIP contains various ``Agreed Commission Orders'' (Orders) to 
meet the SIP requirements and other State statutory requirements. The 
Orders are developed to contain specific conditions for a particular 
source and can provide specific conditions such as, emission limits, 
hours of operation, record keeping requirements, production rates, 
compliance demonstration requirements, etc., for a particular source. 
Once the Orders are adopted into the SIP, they become federally 
enforceable.

D. What Are the Procedural Requirements Texas Must Follow for EPA 
Approval?

    The Act requires States to observe certain procedural requirements 
while developing SIPs for submission to the EPA. Section 110(l) of the 
Act requires that a revision to a SIP must be adopted by such State 
after reasonable notice and public hearing. The EPA must also determine 
whether a submittal is complete and warrants further action (see 
section 110(k)(1) and 57 FR 13565). The EPA's completeness criteria for 
SIP submittals are found at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 
51, appendix V. The submittal was determined to be administratively 
complete by EPA through a cover letter to the Governor of Texas on 
April 18, 1997.
    The State of Texas held a public hearing on March 31, 1997, for 
public comment on these rule revisions. The SIP revision was then 
submitted by the Governor of Texas to the EPA by cover letter dated May 
29, 1997. While there are no SO2 nonattainment areas in 
Texas, the SIP must demonstrate

[[Page 29795]]

attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
    All State regulations and supporting information approved by the 
EPA under section 110 of the Act are incorporated into the federally 
approved SIP. Records of such SIP actions are maintained in the 40 CFR 
part 52. The actual State regulations which were approved are not 
reproduced in their entirety in the CFR but are ``incorporated by 
reference,'' which means that the EPA has approved a given State 
regulation with a specific effective date.

E. What Are the Health Effects Associated With This Criteria Pollutant?

    Sulfur dioxide belongs to the family of sulfur oxide gases. These 
gases are formed when fuel containing sulfur, such as coal and oil, is 
burned and during metal smelting, and other industrial process. Sulfur 
dioxide is a rapidly-diffusing reactive gas that is very soluble in 
water. Sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen are the major precursors 
to acidic deposition (acid rain), and are associated with the 
acidification of lakes and streams, corrosion of buildings and 
monuments. They are also associated with reduced visibility. Sulfur 
dioxide in the Houston area is emitted principally from combustion, or 
processing, of sulfur-containing fossil fuels and ores. At elevated 
concentrations, sulfur dioxide can adversely affect human health. The 
major health concerns associated with exposure to high concentrations 
of SO2 include effects on breathing, respiratory illness, 
alterations in the lungs' defenses, and aggravation of existing 
cardiovascular disease. Sulfur dioxide can also produce damage to the 
foliage of trees and agricultural crops.

F. What Are the NAAQS for SO2?

    The primary national ambient air quality standard for sulfur 
oxides, measured as SO2, is 0.14 ppm, or 365 ug/
m3, averaged over a period of 24 hours and not to be 
exceeded more than once per year, and an annual standard of 0.030 ppm, 
or 80 ug/m3, never to be exceeded. The secondary standard 
for SO2 is 0.50 ppm, or 1300 ug/m3 averaged over 
a three-hour period. The secondary standard may not be exceeded more 
than once per year.

II. Final Action

    The EPA has evaluated the submitted Agreed Orders and their 
provisions along with the modeling demonstration to support the revised 
emission limits and has determined that they are consistent with the 
Act, EPA regulations, and EPA policy. Therefore, the revised Agreed 
Order Nos. 94-15 for Lyondel-Citgo, Refining Company, Ltd., and 94-22 
for Simpson Pasadena Paper Company are being approved under section 
110(k)(3) of the Act as meeting the requirements of section 110(a) and 
are acceptable revisions to the SIP. 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 the proposed rules section of this Federal Register 
publication, the EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve 
as the proposal to approve the State Plan should relevant adverse 
comments be filed. This rule will be effective August 2, 1999 without 
further notice unless, by July 6, 1999, relevant adverse comments are 
received. If EPA receives such comments, 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 the 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 August 2, 1999.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future implementation 
plan. Each request for revision to the state implementation plan shall 
be considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and 
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and 
regulatory requirements.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from E.O. 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review.''

B. Executive Order 12875

    Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or 
tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by 
consulting, E.O. 12875 requires EPA must provide to the OMB a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected State, local and tribal governments, the 
nature of their concerns, copies of any written communications from the 
governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to develop an 
effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of State, local, and tribal governments ``to provide 
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals 
containing significant unfunded mandates.'' Today's rule does not 
create a mandate on State, local or tribal governments. The rule does 
not impose any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is 
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 
12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA 
has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. 
If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate 
the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on 
children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other 
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered 
by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not involve 
decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

    Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to 
provide to OMB in a separately identified section of the preamble to 
the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to develop an 
effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on

[[Page 29796]]

matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.'' 
Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities 
of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 
3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq. generally 
requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 
rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the 
agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities 
include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small 
governmental jurisdictions. This final rule will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities because 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 
create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the 
Act, preparation of 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. Union 
Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 
7410(a)(2).

F. 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 
annual 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 the approval action promulgated does 
not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual 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 pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and 
imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, 
local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from 
this action.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. The EPA will submit 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 United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a 
``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

H. 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 August 2, 1999.
    Filing a petition for reconsideration with 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).)

Lists of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: April 14, 1999.
Sammuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    40 CFR Part 52 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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 et seq.

Subpart SS--Texas

    2. Section 52.2270 is amended by adding paragraph (116) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 52.2270  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (116) A revision to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) to 
include two modified Agreed Orders limiting sulfur dioxide 
(SO2) allowable emissions at two facilities in Harris 
County, submitted by the Governor by cover letter dated May 29, 1997.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) TNRCC Docket No. 96-1188-AIR Order Modifying Commission Order 
No. 94-15 for Lyondel-Citgo Refining Company, LTD., as adopted by the 
TNRCC on June 29, 1994, and modified on July 31, 1996;
    (B) TNRCC Docket No. 96-1187-AIR, Order Modifying Commission Order 
No. 94-22 for Simpson Pasadena Paper Company, as adopted by the TNRCC 
on June 29, 1994, and modified on July 31, 1996.
    (ii) Additional material.
    TNRCC submittal to the EPA dated May 29, 1997, entitled, 
``Revisions to the SIP Concerning Sulfur Dioxide in Harris County.''

[FR Doc. 99-13800 Filed 6-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P