[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 12, 2014)]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05384]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0332; FRL-9907-74-Region 6]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas;
Reasonably Available Control Technology for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve rule revisions to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) for
the Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG)
category for Offset Lithographic Printing, including the Reasonably
Available Control Technologies (RACT) requirements for this CTG
category for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) and the Dallas-Fort-
Worth (DFW) 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas. This rulemaking
addresses the 2006 CTG entitled, ``Lithographic Printing Materials and
Letterpress Printing Materials,'' as well as the corresponding RACT
analysis for both the HGB and DFW 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment
areas. This action is in accordance with sections 110, 172(c) and 182
of the federal Clean Air Act (the Act, CAA).
DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 11, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. [EPA-R06-OAR-
2010-0332], by one of the following methods:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions.
Email: Mr. Guy Donaldson at [email protected]. Please
also send a copy by email to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section below.
Mail or delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning
Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. [EPA-R06-OAR-
2010-0332]. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
through http://www.regulations.gov or email, if you believe that it is
CBI or otherwise protected from disclosure. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means that EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment along with any disk or CD-ROM
submitted. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters and any form of encryption and should be free of any
defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 6,
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI).
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment with
the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph
below or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-7253.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Ellen Belk, Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-2164, fax
(214) 665-6762, email address [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.
A. What actions are we proposing?
B. What is RACT?
A. Which CTG source category is addressed in this action, and
how do Texas' Rule Revisions compare to the CTG?
B. What is Texas' approach and analysis for RACT for HGB and DFW
for this CTG source category, and do the Revisions meet RACT
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. What actions are we proposing?
The three submittals sent to the EPA from the TCEQ which are
addressed in this action are: (a) VOC CTG Update: CTG Category Offset
Lithographic Rulemaking, submitted April 5, 2010, (b) the 2010 HGB
Attainment Demonstration SIP Revision for the 1997 8-hour Ozone
Nonattainment Area, RACT Analysis for this CTG Category, submitted
April 6, 2010, and (c) the 2010 DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP
Revision for the 1997
8-hour Ozone Nonattainment Area, RACT Analysis for this CTG Category,
submitted April 6, 2010.
The April 5, 2010 rulemaking submittal provides revisions to 30
TAC, Chapter 115 Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic
Compounds, Subchapter E, Division 4, ``Offset Lithographic Printing.''
In this action, we are proposing to approve Texas' 2010 rule revisions
for Offset Lithographic Printing. These rules apply to the HGB area
(Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery
and Waller counties) and DFW area (Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis,
Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, and Tarrant counties).
In addition, we are proposing to approve the portions of two
separate submittals that contain Texas' RACT assessment for the Offset
Lithographic Printing source category for the HGB and DFW 8-hour ozone
nonattainment areas. These two submittals are: The 2010 HGB Attainment
Demonstration SIP Revision, and the 2010 DFW RACT, Rule, and
Contingency SIP Revision, each dated April 6, 2010. Based on our review
and evaluation of Texas' assessment in the HGB AD SIP Revision,
including Appendix D ``Reasonably Available Control Technology
Analysis'' containing a RACT assessment for Offset Lithographic
Printing for the HGB area, we are proposing to find that Texas has met
the RACT requirements for Offset Lithographic Printing for the HGB 8-
hour ozone nonattainment area under section 182(b). Also, based on our
review and evaluation of Texas' assessment in the DFW RACT, Rule, and
Contingency SIP Revision, including Section 4 and Appendix A containing
a RACT assessment for Offset Lithographic Printing for the DFW area, we
are proposing to find that Texas has met the RACT requirements for
Offset Lithographic Printing for the DFW 1997 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area under section 182(b).
B. What is RACT?
Clean Air Act (CAA) section 172(c)(1) provides that SIPs for
nonattainment areas must include reasonably available control measures
including RACT for sources of emissions. The EPA has defined RACT as
the lowest emissions limitation that a particular source is capable of
meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably
available, considering technological and economic feasibility. See 44
FR 53761, September 17, 1979. Section 172(c)(1) of the Act requires
that SIPs for nonattainment areas ``provide for the implementation of
all reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as
practicable (including such reductions in emissions from existing
sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a
minimum, of reasonably available control technology) and shall provide
for attainment of the primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Section 182(b)(2) of the Act requires states to submit a SIP
revision and implement RACT for moderate and above ozone nonattainment
areas. For a Moderate, Serious, or Severe Area, a major stationary
source is one which emits, or has the potential to emit, 100, 50, or 25
tons per year (tpy) or more of VOCs or nitrogen oxides
(NOX), respectively. See CAA sections 182(b), 182(c), and
182(d). The EPA provides states with guidance concerning what types of
controls could constitute RACT for a given source category through the
issuance of CTG and Alternative Control Techniques (ACT) documents. See
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/ctg_act/index.htm (URL dating May
23, 2012) for a listing of EPA-issued CTGs and ACTs for VOC.
Under CAA section 183(b), EPA is required to periodically review
and, as necessary, update CTGs. For the offset lithographic printing
source category, on November 8, 1993, EPA published a draft CTG for
offset lithographic printing (58 FR 59261). After reviewing comments on
the draft CTG and soliciting additional information to help clarify
those comments, EPA published an ACT document in June 1994 that
provided supplemental information for states to use in developing rules
based on RACT for offset lithographic printing. In 2006, 2007 and 2008,
EPA issued a number of CTGs, including one for Offset Lithographic
Printing and Letterpress Printing which provided recommendations for
RACT for these sources.
In accordance with the 2006, 2007 and 2008 CTGs, Texas revised its
Chapter 115 regulations to address these VOC RACT control measures. The
revisions to Chapter 115 regulations that correspond to the 2006 EPA-
issued CTG for Offset Lithographic Printing and the related RACT
analysis for both HGB and DFW are the subject of this rulemaking
action. In this action, we consider that consistency with the CTG
represents RACT. See the Technical Support Document (TSD) for further
discussion of CTGs and RACT.
The HGB Area was designated as Severe for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. See 73 FR 56983, October 1, 2008. Thus, per section 182(d) of
the CAA, a major stationary source in the HGB Area is one which emits,
or has the potential to emit, 25 tpy or more of VOCs or NOX.
On April 30, 2004, the EPA designated the DFW area as a moderate
nonattainment area under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, with an
attainment date of June 15, 2010 (see 69 FR 23858). However, the DFW
area failed to attain the 1997 ozone standard by June 15, 2010, and was
therefore reclassified as a serious ozone nonattainment area (see 75 FR
79302, December 20, 2010).\1\ Thus, per section 182(d) of the CAA, a
major stationary source in the DFW Area is one which emits, or has the
potential to emit, 50 tpy or more of VOCs or NOX.
\1\ On April 30, 2012, the EPA promulgated designations under
the 2008 ozone standard (see 77 FR 30088, published May 21, 2012).
In that action, the EPA designated Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis,
Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, Tarrant and Wise counties as a
moderate ozone nonattainment area. This action does not address the
nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone standard.
A. Which CTG source category is addressed in this action, and how do
Texas' Rule Revisions compare to the CTG?
Table 1 below shows the VOC CTG source category and the
corresponding sections of 30 TAC Chapter 115 which fulfill the
applicable RACT requirements under section 182(b) of the Clean Air Act.
Table 1--CTG Source Category and Corresponding Texas VOC RACT Rules
Source category in HGB Area CTG reference document fulfilling RACT
Offset Lithographic Printing.. Control Techniques Sec. Sec.
Guidelines for Offset 115.440-449.
This action addresses changes to Texas' VOC rules affecting offset
lithographic printing sources in the DFW and Houston Galveston Brazoria
HGB 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas. These rule revisions reduce
the VOC content limits on fountain solutions used by sources that were
subject to the previous Chapter 115 rules. These rules also limit the
VOC content of fountain and cleaning solutions used by certain sources
that were exempt from the previous Chapter 115 rules.
In general, these rule revisions require the owner or operator of
an affected offset lithographic printing line to reduce the VOC content
of the fountain solution and the cleaning solution used in the printing
process. For reducing the VOC content of the fountain solution, these
rule revisions provide several compliance options including: Reducing
the alcohol content of the refrigerated solution; further reducing the
alcohol content of the unrefrigerated solution; or using reformulated
materials to eliminate alcohol in the solution. For reducing the VOC
content of the cleaning solution, these rule revisions also provide
several options, including using low-VOC cleaning solutions; using low-
VOC cleaning solution in conjunction with work practice standards; or
using low vapor pressure cleaning solutions in conjunction with work
Letterpresses. The 2006 CTG recommends controlling VOC emissions
from letterpress printing. This SIP revision does not include rule
changes for letterpress printing sources because review of the point
source emissions inventory, Title V Permits and central registry
databases did not identify any letterpresses that would be subject to
the CTG recommended controls.
Heatset Offset Lithographic Presses. The 2006 CTG recommends
requiring an add-on air pollution control device on each individual
heatset web offset-lithographic press with the uncontrolled potential
to emit at least 25 tpy from ink oils volatilized in the dryer. In
addition, the CTG recommends increasing the control efficiency
requirement from 90% to 95% for control devices installed after the
rule effective date. This SIP revision does not include new rule
changes for heatset presses because the State found that the existing
rules are at least as effective or more effective than the 2006 CTG
recommendations. For control devices installed before the effective
date of the rule, in the HGB area, the existing Chapter 115 rules
either meet or exceed EPA's recommendations for control devices
installed before the effective date of the rule. In the DFW area, the
existing level of control on heatset presses identified in the area
either meets or exceeds the CTG recommendation for control devices. For
control devices installed after the effective date of the rule, the
2006 CTG recommendation to require a 95% control efficiency was
determined by the State to be no more stringent than the existing rules
which require control devices with an efficiency of at least 90% to be
installed on all heatset offset lithographic presses located on a
property with combined VOC emissions (when uncontrolled) of at least 50
tpy in the DFW area and at least 25 tpy in the HGB area. The State
found that the existing rule ``is effectively more stringent than the
CTG recommended threshold for installation of control devices based on
25 tpy of VOC from the dryer because the majority of emissions
(approximately 75%) come from sources other than the dryer.''
Additionally, the 2006 CTG recommends setting the control efficiency
requirement of the control equipment based on the first installation
date of the equipment, regardless of the location. The State
intentionally did not revise its SIP to incorporate this recommendation
due to a concern that ``such a policy may encourage the installation of
older less efficient equipment and could also create significant
practical enforceability issues for commission investigators with
regard to verifying the first installation date of the control
equipment.'' Based upon our review, we agree with the State's
determination for this source category.
Fountain Solution. The 2006 CTG recommends limiting the fountain
solution content to 5.0% alcohol substitutes or less by weight and no
alcohol in the fountain solution. Prior to these revisions, for major
sources, the previous Chapter 115 rules contained an option limiting
the fountain solution content to 3.0% alcohol substitutes or less by
weight and no alcohol in the fountain solution for printing operations
located on a property in the DFW area with combined VOC emissions of at
least 50 tpy when uncontrolled and in the HGB area with combined VOC
emissions of at least 25 tpy when uncontrolled. For these major
printing sources that were previously subject to this more stringent
limit, these revisions retain a limit of 3.0% alcohol substitutes or
less by weight and no alcohol in the fountain solution to avoid
backsliding. Small businesses were not previously subject to these
rules. However, in this action, small businesses are now included, and
this SIP revision offers several options which are as stringent as the
2006 CTG to help mitigate the financial impact of these regulations.
These options for smaller sources include the 2006 CTG recommendation
to limit the fountain solution content to 5% alcohol substitutes or
less by weight and no alcohol in the fountain solution. Additionally,
the compliance date for smaller sources was extended to March 1, 2012
to provide additional time for these facilities to determine the most
cost-effective compliance strategies and to implement any necessary
Cleaning Solution. The 2006 CTG recommends limiting the VOC content
of cleaning solutions used in offset lithographic printing operations
to 70.0% VOC by weight in conjunction with work practice standards. The
Texas rule revisions require the owner or operator of an affected
offset lithographic printing line to reduce the VOC content of the
cleaning solutions used in the printing process and provide several
options for complying, including the following: Using low-VOC cleaning
solutions; using low-VOC cleaning solution in conjunction with work
practice standards; or using low vapor pressure cleaning solutions in
conjunction with work practice standards. These revisions retain the
existing Chapter 115 rule requiring a cleaning solution content limit
of 70% by volume in conjunction with work practice standards as an
option. Also, these revisions retain the previously existing Chapter
115 option to limit the cleaning solution content to 50% VOC by volume.
Because the existing rules were determined by TCEQ to be at least as
stringent as the 2006 CTG recommendations, TCEQ included these options
to retain the flexibility afforded to owners and operators subject to
the previous rules. The 2006 CTG also recommends specific work
practices for cleaning solutions used by offset lithographic printing
lines with uncontrolled potential to emit at least 3.0 tpy of VOC.
These rule revisions include the CTG's recommended work practice
standards for cleaning solutions.
Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Testing Requirements. All affected
sources are required to comply with monitoring, recordkeeping, and
testing requirements to demonstrate continuous compliance with the
content limits in these rule revisions.
Non-Substantive Revisions. In addition to the revisions described
above to implement RACT for offset lithographic printing, these
revisions include approvable grammatical, stylistic, and various other
non-substantive changes to update the rule
in accordance with current requirements, to improve readability, to
establish consistency in the rules, and to conform to standards in the
``Texas Legislative Council Drafting Manual,'' dated September 2008.
B. What is Texas' approach and analysis for RACT for HGB and DFW for
this CTG source category, and do the revisions meet RACT requirements?
Under CAA sections 182(b)(2)(A) and (B), states must insure RACT is
in place for each source category for which EPA issued a CTG. As a part
of a June 13, 2007 submittal TCEQ conducted a RACT analysis to
demonstrate that the RACT requirements for CTG sources in the HGB 8-
hour ozone nonattainment Area have been fulfilled. The TCEQ conducted
its analyses by: (1) Identifying all categories of CTG and major non-
CTG sources of VOC and NOX emissions within the HGB Area;
(2) Listing the state regulation that implements or exceeds RACT
requirements for that CTG or non-CTG category; (3) Detailing the basis
for concluding that these regulations fulfill RACT through comparison
with established RACT requirements described in the CTG guidance
documents and rules developed by other state and local agencies; and
(4) Submitting negative declarations when there are no CTG or major
Non-CTG sources of VOC emissions within the HGB Area. The TCEQ revised
its rules for Offset lithographic printers and supplemented its 2007
analysis in its April 6, 2010 submittals in response, in part, to EPA's
issuance of the CTG for Offset Lithographic printing.
We have reviewed these revisions to Chapter 115 for Offset
Lithographic Printing and have determined that they are in are in
agreement with EPA's CTG documents listed in Table 1 above. See our TSD
prepared in conjunction with this document. Because these revisions are
in agreement with our CTG, we are proposing that they satisfy RACT
requirements, and by implementing these measures Texas is meeting the
VOC RACT requirements for this source category in the HGB and DFW 1997
8-hour ozone nonattainment Areas. In addition, in its April 6, 2010,
submittals to EPA for HGB and DFW, TCEQ states that it has reviewed the
HGB and DFW VOC rules for Offset Lithographic Printing and certifies
that they satisfy RACT requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard
by the application of control technology that is reasonably available
considering technological and economic feasibility. We are proposing to
approve these determinations that Texas VOC rules for Offset
Lithographic Printing sources are in agreement with the CAA's RACT
requirements and as a result the Texas SIP satisfies the RACT
requirements for this CTG source category in the HGB and DFW Areas
under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
III. Proposed Action
We are proposing to approve Texas' 2010 rule revisions for the VOC
CTG source category identified in Table 1, Offset Lithographic
Printing. In addition, we are proposing to find that for this CTG
category Texas has RACT-level controls in place for the HGB and DFW
Areas under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. If a portion of the plan revision meets
all the applicable requirements of this chapter and Federal
regulations, the Administrator may approve the plan revision in part.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA's role is to approve state choices that meet the criteria of the
Act, and to disapprove state choices that do not meet the criteria of
the Act. Accordingly, this proposed action approves state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act;
does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); and
this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: February 25, 2014.
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2014-05384 Filed 3-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P