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

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