Approval and Promulgation of Sulfur Dioxide State Implementation Plan, North Carolina: Approval of Texasgulf, Incorporated, Air Permit No. 2331R10

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[NC-44-1-6641a; FRL-5081-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Sulfur Dioxide State Implementation

Plan, North Carolina: Approval of Texasgulf, Incorporated, Air Permit

No. 2331R10

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On October 13, 1989, the State of North Carolina issued to

Texasgulf, Incorporated (TG), located in Aurora, Beaufort County, North

Carolina, air permit number 2331R10, which set the sulfur dioxide

emission limit at 2.3 pounds per million British Thermal Units (BTU).

The State then submitted this permit to EPA on November 2, 1989, for

approval as a revision to the State implementation plan (SIP). Upon

review of the permit, EPA finds that the designated limit for Texasgulf

is adequate to protect the ambient standard and approves this permit.

DATES: This final rule will be effective December 19, 1994 unless

notice is received by November 17, 1994 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: Written comments on this action should be addressed to Mr.

Randy Terry at the EPA Regional Office listed.

Copies of the 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.

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (Air Docket 6102),

US Environmental Protection Agency, 443, 401 M Street, SW., Washington

DC 20460.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV Air Programs Branch, 345

Courtland Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30365.

North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural

Resources, Division of Environmental Management, P.O. Box 29535,

Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Randy Terry, Regulatory Planning

and Development Section, Air Programs Branch, Air, Pesticides & Toxics

Management Division, Region IV Environmental Protection Agency, 345

Courtland Street NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30365. The telephone number is

404/347-3555, ext. 4212.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 7, 1982 (47 FR 54934), EPA

announced approval of a revised sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission

limit for most fuel- burning sources in North Carolina. This revision

raised the emission limit of SO2 from 1.6 pounds per million BTU

to 2.3 pounds per million BTU. Texasgulf, Incorporated, located in

Aurora, Beaufort County, North Carolina, was included in this

rulemaking, but was not allowed to increase it's emission level until

such time that appropriate conditions could be applied to ensure that

the ambient standard was not violated. These conditions included the

issuance of an air permit. On October 13, 1989, North Carolina

Environmental Management Commission issued air permit no. 2331R10 to

Texasgulf, Incorporated. On November 2, 1989, the State of North

Carolina, through the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health

and Natural Resources submitted this permit to EPA for approval as a

revision to the North Carolina SIP regarding the SO2 emissions

limitation for Texasgulf, Incorporated. In a letter dated November 25,

1991, EPA responded to the Texasgulf, Incorporated submittal with

several comments concerning the enforceability of the permit. EPA

questioned North Carolina's ability to enforce the condition of

reporting any 4-hour exceedances of SO2, opacity and particulate

standards without requiring the installation of SO2 and opacity

monitors. EPA also stated that the permit should be revised to

incorporate the emission limits for the F.W. and B.W. boilers because

alternative operating procedures are allowable if one or more of the

acid plants are inoperable. EPA directed North Carolina to address

these sections before the permit could be approved. On April 29, 1994,

North Carolina submitted a letter to EPA which effectively responded to

all of EPA's concerns and demonstrated that the permit contains

adequate recordkeeping and testing requirements.

Final Action

EPA is approving Texasgulf, Inc's Air Permit No. 2331R10 submitted

on November 2, 1989, for incorporation into the North Carolina SIP. The

EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the EPA

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 19, 1994 unless, by November 17, 1994, 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 document that will

withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then 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 19, 1994.

The EPA has reviewed this request for revision of the federally-

approved SIP for conformance with the provisions of the 1990 Amendments

enacted on November 15, 1990. The EPA has determined that this action

conforms with those requirements irrespective of the fact that the

submittal preceded the date of enactment.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C.

7607(b)(1), petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed

in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by

December 19, 1994. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the

Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this

rule for 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 CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(2)).

This action has been classified as a Table 3 action by the Regional

Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on

January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by an October 4, 1993,

memorandum from Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air

and Radiation. A future document will inform the general public of

these tables. On January 6, 1989, the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) waived Table 2 and 3 SIP revisions (54 FR 2222) from the

requirements of section 3 of Executive Order 12291 for two years. EPA

has submitted a request for a permanent waiver for Table 2 and Table 3

SIP revisions. The OMB has agreed to continue the temporary waiver

until such time as it rules on EPA's request. This request continues in

effect under Executive Order 12866 which superseded Executive Order

12291 on September 30, 1993.

Nothing in this action shall be construed as permitting or allowing

or establishing a precedent for any future request for a 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.

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. 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.

SIP approvals under 110 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA 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 CAA, preparation of

a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into

the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA forbids EPA to

base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v.

U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

Dated: September 22, 1994.

Patrick M. Tobin,

Acting Regional Administrator.

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, is

amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart II--North Carolina

2. Section 52.1770 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(76) to read

as follows:

Sec. 52.1770 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(76) The North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and

Natural Resources submitted revisions to the North Carolina State

Implementation Plan on November 2, 1989. These revisions incorporate

SO2 limits and permit conditions for Texasgulf, Incorporated.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Permit for Texasgulf, Incorporated (air permit no. 2331R10)

which was issued by the Environmental Management Commission on October

13, 1989.

(ii) Additional material-none.

[FR Doc. 94-25679 Filed 10-17-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-F