Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; Reasonably Available Control Technology for Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[TX86-1-7351a; FRL-6207-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;

Texas; Reasonably Available Control Technology for Emissions of

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this action, EPA is approving demonstrations submitted by

Texas on January 10, 1996, that Reasonably Available Control Technology

(RACT) is in place on sources in the following source categories:

Plastic Parts Coating in the Dallas/Fort Worth area, Volatile Organic

Liquid (VOL) Storage and Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing

Industry (SOCMI) Reactor and Distillation Processes. Also, EPA is

approving revisions to the Texas Rules for the control of VOC emissions

that the State submitted between 1995 and 1997. Finally, for most of

the measures given limited approval in the May 22, 1997 Federal

Register (62 FR 27964),

[[Page 3842]]

this approval action converts the limited approval to a full approval.

The implementation of these measures will help ensure the attainment of

the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone as required

by the Clean Air Act (Act) as amended in 1990.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on March 29, 1999 unless EPA

receives adverse comments by February 25, 1999. If EPA receives such

comments, 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 on this action should be addressed to Mr.

Thomas Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), at the EPA Region 6

Office listed below.

Copies of the documents relevant to this 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 two working

days in advance.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Planning Section (6PD-

L), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, Dallas, 1445 Ross

Avenue, Texas 75202-2733, telephone: (214) 665-7214.

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, 12100 Park 35 Circle,

Austin, Texas 78711-3087.

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: Mr. Guy R. Donaldson, Air Planning

Section (6PD-L), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division,

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,

Texas 75202-2733, telephone: (214) 665-7242.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Background of VOC RACT Requirements

Section 172(c) of the Act, entitled Nonattainment Plan Provisions,

requires that States implement RACT rules for stationary sources of VOC

in ozone nonattainment areas. Reasonably Available Control Technology

is defined 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 economic

feasibility as defined in 44 Federal Register (FR) 53761 (September 17,

1979). In accordance with section 108 of the Act, EPA publishes Control

Technique Guideline (CTG) documents to help the States develop RACT

rules for source categories. The CTGs provide information on available

air pollution control techniques and provide recommendations on what

EPA considers the ``presumptive norm'' for RACT.

Section 182(b)(2) of the Act requires States to adopt RACT rules

for three general groups of stationary sources of VOCs in ozone

nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above. The first group

consists of sources covered by a CTG issued after the enactment of the

amended Act of 1990. These CTGs are referred to as ``post-enactment''

CTGs. The second group consists of sources covered by an existing CTG,

i.e., a CTG issued before the enactment of the amended Act of 1990. The

third group consists of major sources not covered by a CTG. These

sources are referred to as ``non-CTG'' sources.

In areas with a moderate classification, Section 302(j) defines a

major source as one emitting or having the potential to emit 100 tons/

year or more. For serious areas, major sources are defined in section

182(c) as those that emit or have the potential to emit at least 50

tons/year and in severe areas major sources are defined in section

182(d) as those that emit or have the potential to emit 25 tons/year or

more. Texas currently has four ozone nonattainment areas; Beaumont/Port

Arthur (moderate), Dallas/Fort Worth (serious 1), El Paso

(serious), and Houston (severe).

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

\1\ Dallas/Fort Worth was reclassified to serious on February

18, 1998(63 FR 8128). Texas will have to affirm in a future SIP

revision that RACT is being implemented on sources that emit or have

a potential to emit 50 tons/year or more.

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

Under section 183, Federal Ozone Measures, the Act requires EPA to

issue CTGs for 13 source categories by November 15, 1993. Section 183

lists two specific source categories, Aerospace coatings and solvents,

and Shipbuilding operations. The other 11 categories are listed in 57

FR 18077 (April 28, 1992), and are as follows:

1. SOCMI distillation

2. SOCMI Reactors

3. wood Furniture

4. plastic parts business machines

5. plastic parts coating (other)

6. offset lithography

7. industrial wastewater

8. auto refinishing

9. SOCMI batch processing

10. VOL storage tanks

11. clean up solvents

To date, EPA has published CTGs for five of the 13 source

categories: SOCMI distillation, SOCMI reactors, wood furniture,

aerospace coatings and solvents, and shipbuilding. As described in a

January 20, 1994, memorandum from John Seitz, Director of Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards, EPA made available Alternative Control

Technology (ACT) documents for the CTG source categories for which CTG

documents have not yet been published. These ACT documents provide much

of the same information as the CTG documents, however, instead of

establishing a presumptive norm for RACT rule, these documents provide

options for control. For the major sources in categories where EPA

issued an ACT instead of CTG, the ACT provides information to determine

if RACT is being implemented as required for ``non-CTG'' sources.

For post-enactment CTGs, the Act requires States to submit RACT

rules according to the schedule specified in the corresponding CTG

document. In Appendix E of the ``General Preamble for the

Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,''

published on April 28, 1992, in 57 FR 18077, EPA interpreted the Act to

allow a State to submit a non-CTG rule by November 15, 1992, or to

defer submittal of a RACT rule for sources that the State anticipated

would be covered by a post-enactment CTG based on the list of expected

CTGs in Appendix E. Pursuant to Appendix E of the General Preamble, if

EPA fails to issue a CTG by November 15, 1993 (which it did for 11

source categories), the responsibility shifts to the State to submit a

non-CTG RACT rule for those sources by November 15, 1994.

A March 2, 1995, policy memorandum from the Assistant Administrator

for Air, Mary Nichols, explained a policy to allow phased submittals of

attainment demonstration. Under this policy, States were to submit a

Phase I submittal by December 31, 1995, which would include RACT

requirements, Rate of Progress (ROP) reductions, and commitments to

complete the attainment demonstration by mid-1997.

II. State Submittal

On January 10, 1996, the State of Texas submitted to EPA a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision intended to meet the requirements

pertaining to RACT and commitments to complete the air quality plan as

necessary for a Phase I submittal under the March 2, 1995 policy. Texas

in separate submittals has provided SIP

[[Page 3843]]

revisions designed to meet the ROP requirements. In this action, EPA is

approving only the portions of the January 10, 1996, SIP revision

regarding RACT for SOCMI Reactor and Distillation Processes, VOL

Storage, and Plastic Parts coating for the Dallas/Fort Worth area. The

EPA is taking no action on whether RACT is being implemented on other

source categories included in the January 10, 1996, SIP revision,

including industrial wastewater, batch processing, wood furniture

coating, or shipbuilding operations. These categories will be addressed

in future Federal Register actions. The EPA is also taking no action on

other portions of the January 10, 1996, SIP revision submittal

regarding commitments to continue air quality planning.

Also, in this action, EPA is approving revisions to the Texas rules

for the control of VOCs submitted on January 11, 1995, July 12, 1995,

November 10, 1995, March 13, 1996, August 9, 1996, and May 21, 1997.

III. Analysis of State Submittal

A. Plastic Parts Coating

The January 10, 1996, SIP revision explained that there was only

one major source of VOC emissions in the plastic parts coating category

in a nonattainment area in Texas. The facility, Peterbilt Motors

Company is located in the Dallas/Fort Worth nonattainment area. The

facility, which manufactures custom, heavy duty trucks, uses a

catalytic oxidizer to control emissions from their painting operations.

The EPA is approving these controls which are required by TNRCC permit

as RACT.

B. SOCMI Reactor and Distillation Processes

In August 1993, EPA published the CTG document titled Control of

Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Reactor Processes and

Distillation Operations Processes in the Synthetic Organic Chemical

Manufacturing Industry. As well as providing considerable information

on emissions, controls, and costs, the CTG provided a model regulation

representing RACT.

Texas rules for control of SOCMI Reactor and distillation processes

are contained in its rules for general vent gas control. Texas Natural

Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) Chapter 115, Section 115.121-

129. Texas revised these rules in November 1993 to include the

requirements of the CTG. It should be noted that these changes were

based on the draft CTG. Then, in January 1995, the State submitted a

SIP revision that revised the language dealing with the ``once in

always in'' concept. Finally, on March 13, 1996, the State again

revised the vent gas rule to allow exemptions for sources covered by

other sections of TNRCC Chapter 115. Also, in the March 13, 1996

submittal, Texas revised the original rule to allow exemptions to be

based on the total resource effectiveness(TRE) as RACT.

The Texas rules generally follow the approach contained in the CTG

and the model rule. One difference between the Texas rule and the model

approach is that Texas allows an exemption for streams of 0.011

standard cubic meters/min versus 0.0085 standard cubic meters/min in

the model rule. This exemption is consistent with the New Source

Performance Standard (NSPS). Another difference is that the Texas rule

requires sources to use the equations contained in the NSPS for

determining exemptions based on TRE rather than the equations contained

in the CTG model rule. The NSPS equations set more stringent exemption

levels than the equations included in the CTG. In combination, the

Texas approach for determining exempt sources is more stringent than

the CTG, so the rules are acceptable as RACT. C: Volatile Organic

Liquid Storage: For this source category, EPA did not issue a CTG.

Instead, EPA issued an Alternate Control Technique Document. An ACT

does not identify a ``presumptive norm'' for RACT but instead provides

cost information about potential control options. For VOL storage, EPA

had previously published two CTGs for storage of petroleum liquids.

These CTGs were:

Storage of Petroleum Liquids in Fixed Roof Tanks (EPA-450/2-77-036),

December 1977.

Petroleum Liquid Storage in External Floating Roof Tanks (EPA-450/2-78-

051), December 1978.

The VOL ACT recommends controls for all volatile organic liquids not

just petroleum liquids. Texas has long regulated emissions from storage

of all volatile organic liquids not just petroleum liquids. To ensure

that the RACT is in place, EPA believes Texas must consider the new

information provided in the ACT to see if additional controls may be

technically or economically reasonable. Texas demonstrated that their

existing rules provide nearly equivalent control to that provided by

the most stringent control provided by the ACT.

Texas followed EPA's 5 percent policy that allows States to deviate

from CTG requirements if the State rule results in nearly the same

amount of control. This policy is articulated in a June 30, 1978,

memorandum from Richard Rhoads, Director Control Programs Development

Division, to Allyn Davis, Director Air and Hazardous Materials

Division, Region IX. Approving a State regulation that differs from the

CTG is possible, if the impact on emissions differs imperceptibly (less

than 5 percent) from that of the CTG.

Texas has included a detailed demonstration that their rules result

in less than a 5 percent difference in emissions from the most

stringent control options included in the ACT. The ACT suggests that

the following upgrades to the Texas rule would be reasonable.

(1) Lowering the vapor pressure exemption to 0.5 or 0.75 psi.

(2) upgrading of vapor mounted primary seals on internal floating

roof tanks.

(3) installation of secondary seals on external floating roof

tanks.

(4) 95 percent control efficiency for add-on control devices.

(5) installation of gasketed seals.

The State submittal addresses each of these requirements in turn

and estimates the increased emissions associated with continued

compliance with the State rule versus compliance with the suggested

additional ACT controls. The EPA has analyzed the State submittal and

agrees that implementing the more stringent requirements of the ACT

will result in less than a 5 percent decrease in the emissions from VOL

storage tanks in Texas. The reason the State can make this

demonstration is that the State rules control some VOL storage tanks

that the ACT does not suggest controlling.

D. Miscellaneous Rule Revisions

The State has submitted several rule revisions during the period

January 1995 to March 1997. What follows is a brief description of the

most significant changes made in these SIP revisions. The Technical

Support Document for this action contains a more detailed evaluation of

these rules.

1. January 11, 1995 Revisions

In this SIP revision, the State made minor revisions to its General

Rules and rules for the control of emissions from storage of VOCs, vent

gas control, industrial wastewater, municipal solid waste landfills,

and loading and unloading of VOCs. The most significant changes were:

Revisions to the rules for storage of VOCs (115.112-115.119) to add

additional methods for determining true vapor pressure to include

American Society for Testing and Materials Test Methods D323-89,

[[Page 3844]]

D2879, D4953, D5190 or D5191. These additional test methods are

acceptable.

Revisions to Rules for Vent Gas Control (115.121-115.149) to clarify

the applicability requirements to include once-in-always-in

requirements. This means that vents that become subject to the control

requirements remain subject to the control requirements even if the

vent's throughput later falls below the applicability threshold. Texas

has included a provision that a source can become exempt from the rule

if the source institutes a project that would lower emissions below the

level of emissions that would be achieved by control of the vent

stream. It is not sufficient, however to control emissions to just the

level of emissions to applicability level of the rule. The EPA believes

these revisions are acceptable.

Revisions to the rules for the control of Industrial Wastewater to

clarify the rules. These rules were revised to correct cross-references

to other TNRCC rules and to clarify their use as contingency measures

in Beaumont/Port Arthur. The EPA is giving these minor changes limited

approval because they strengthen rules previously given limited

approval.

Revisions to the rule for Control of emissions from Municipal Solid

Waste Landfills to extend the compliance date from May 31, 1995 to

November 15, 1996. These rules were submitted as part of the 15% Rate-

of-Progress Plan. The rules were given limited approval on May 22, 1997

62 FR 27964 as a strengthening of the SIP. The EPA is taking no action

on these revisions in this action. The EPA will determine whether these

rules are fully approvable in its action on the State Plan for

Municipal Waste Landfill emissions control as required by section 111

of the Act and 40 CFR part 60, subparts Cc and WWW.

2. July 12, 1995 Revisions to VOCs Loading and Unloading Rules

(115.212-115.219)

These are revisions to rules that require control of emissions

during the loading of VOCs into tanker trucks and rail cars. Texas

previously revised these rules to prohibit any non-vapor tight

conditions during loading. The revision to the rule allows non-vapor

tight conditions during sampling and gauging provided that the loading

of VOCs is discontinued. The EPA believes that this revision is an

acceptable change that with the conditions imposed by the State will

result in only minor emissions and will facilitate operations.

3. November 10, 1995 Revisions to Requirements for Wastewater

Separators

The State revised these rules that control emissions from oil/water

separators to provide consideration for oil/water separators at oil and

gas productions facilities. The revision provides an exemption for oil/

water separators at oil and gas facilities that emit less than 18 tons/

year (100 pounds/day). The exemption is necessary because these

facilities are at remote locations often without existing flare systems

so the installation of controls is not considered cost effective.

The State required controls at oil and gas production facilities

when the State made revisions required by 182(b)(2) which required

existing RACT controls to be extended to the newly designated

nonattainment counties. The extension of the rules to the counties

surrounding the Houston/Galveston areas affected many oil and gas

production facilities. Previously, when these measures applied only in

the urban areas, most of the wastewater separators were located at

refinery or chemical plants where flare systems to control emissions

were available.

The EPA issued a pre-enactment CTG ``Control of Refinery Vacuum

Systems, Wastewater Separators and Process Unit Turnarounds'' on which

the Texas Wastewater Separator rules are based. The CTG only applies to

separators at refineries. Therefore, the CTG does not cover oil/water

separators at oil and gas productions facilities. Further, by requiring

oil/water separators that emit more than 100 pounds/day be controlled,

Texas is ensuring that RACT is implemented at major sources. One

hundred pounds/day translates to a maximum of about 18 tons/year which

is well under the 25 tons/year major source definition in the Houston

area. Finally, Texas has not projected emission reductions at oil and

gas production facilities in its 15% plansor attainment plans. For the

above reasons, this revision to the SIP is acceptable.

4. March 13, 1996 Revisions

This SIP revision includes revisions adopted by the TNRCC on

December 6, 1995, and February 14, 1996.

On December 6, 1995, TNRCC adopted revisions to its rules for

control of emissions from consumer and commercial products (115.612).

The change deletes the VOC content limits for Insect-Repellents-

Aerosols. The previous requirements had not gained widespread consumer

acceptance. The deletion of the requirements makes the regulations in

Texas consistent with other States' consumer products rules, and the

final national consumer product rule (63 FR 48819). Texas used EPA

estimates of the amount of emission reductions from the national rule

to project emissions reductions from the State consumer/commercial

product rules. Therefore, since this rule change is consistent with the

national rulemaking, the EPA still expects the projected reductions to

be achieved.

On February 14, 1996, Texas adopted changes to several of its rules

for VOC control. The most significant are described below.

The State revised its definition of VOC to exclude acetone,

parachlorobenzotriflouride, and volatile methyl siloxanes. The EPA has

ruled that these compounds have negligible photochemical reactivity and

thus do not contribute to the formation of urban ozone (59 FR 50693 and

60 FR 31633). These changes to the definition of VOC make the TNRCC

definition consistent with the Federal definition.

The State also clarified that a tank with a self-supporting fixed

roof (typically a bolted aluminum geodesic dome) is considered to be an

internal floating roof storage tank. These self-supporting roofs are

effective in controlling emissions because support poles do not

penetrate the floating cover.

The State revised its storage tank rules to establish separate

inspection requirements for internal and external floating roof tanks.

They also establish a repair schedule where repairs of tank controls

will take place within 60 days of discovery. The modifications clarify

that facilities that are exempt from control because they store low

vapor pressure materials are not exempt from maintaining records of the

vapor pressure of the materials stored to show that they qualify for

the exemption.

The State revised its vent gas control rules (Sections 115.121-129)

to clarify that these rules were designed to control vents from

processes that were not otherwise controlled by the Texas VOC control

rules. This clarifies a long standing interpretation of the rule.

The State revised its rules to control emissions from Volatile

Organic Compound Transfer Operations (115.212 to 115.219)to delete the

requirement for vacuum assisted vapor collection systems on gasoline

loading racks. The TNRCC adopted this requirement because EPA proposed

it to be part of the Maximum Available Control Technology standard for

gasoline terminals. The EPA dropped the requirement in the final MACT

rule because it does not result in meaningful

[[Page 3845]]

additional emission reductions. The EPA estimated that installing the

technology results in only 1.3 percent improvement in capture

efficiency. Thus, the emission reduction potentially lost by not

installing this technology is considered to be negligible. In addition,

vacuum assisted vapor collection systems are not called for by the CTG

for gasoline loading operations so this requirement is not necessary

for the rule to be acceptable as RACT.

The State revised the rules for control of emissions from

Degreasing Processes (115.412-419) to remove the requirement for

control of acetone, because this chemical has been added to the list of

substances that are not considered photochemically reactive (June 15,

1995, 60 FR 31633).

The State has revised its rules for the control of emissions from

Surface Coating Processes to change the units of the emission limits

from pounds VOC/gallon of solids to pounds VOC/gallon of coating. While

this change is acceptable, it is important that all equivalency

calculations for sources using improved transfer efficiency or add-on

control devices be made on a solids basis. Texas included provisions in

its rule to make this clear, including formulas to translate VOC

content to a solids basis.

Texas also included a revision to provide for registration of an

innovative product just before its introduction into the Texas market.

Innovative products are those that due to some characteristic of the

product formulation, design, delivery systems, or other factors, the

use of the product will result in equal or less VOC emissions as

compared to products that comply with the VOC limits in the rule.

Registration is a departure from the approach of requiring approval of

the innovative product by the State and/or EPA before marketing. Texas

has included in the rules a considerable deterrent to facilities

marketing noncompliant innovative products. A company will be required

to provide VOC emission reduction in each nonattainment area equivalent

to twice the excess emissions determined to have occurred in the

respective nonattainment area due to the marketing of the non-compliant

product. The manufacturer will be required to reformulate or withdraw

the noncompliant product.

The innovative product waiver procedure provides for alternate

means of compliance with the SIP with less review than EPA would

generally find acceptable. Generally, EPA only approves provisions in

SIPs for alternate methods of compliance which include a replicable

procedure that will insure emission reductions equivalent to the

underlying SIP provision. The EPA believes that the innovative product

waiver procedure is acceptable, in this instance, because of the

national rule for control of consumer product emissions (63 FR 48819).

The national rule contains a procedure for obtaining innovative product

waivers very similar to the procedure contained in the Texas Rule.

Under the national rule, those regulated entities that have received

innovative product waivers under State Regulations may submit the

factual basis for the waiver to EPA as part of the documentation to

receive an innovative product waiver from EPA. Also, the Texas rules

provide for innovative product waivers from the Texas rules in a

situation where the EPA has approved the waiver and the Federal

standard is as stringent as the State. The TNRCC Executive Director

will provide these waivers within 45 days of receipt.

5. August 9, 1996, Revisions to VOC Loading/Unloading (115.212-115.219)

and Consumer Products Rules (115.616)

The State revised the requirement for quarterly instrument

inspections for fugitive leaks at gasoline terminals to be replaced

with monthly inspections using audio-visual-olfactory (AVO) methods.

The requirement for instrument monitoring for fugitive leaks at

gasoline terminals was originally added to achieve emission reductions

as part of the State's 15% ROP plans. The State revised the rule to be

consistent with Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) rules

(December 14, 1994, 59 FR 64303). The State referenced an American

Petroleum Institute (API) study that showed that monthly AVO

inspections at gasoline terminals achieved essentially the same amount

(no statistical difference) of emission reductions as an instrument

monitoring program. The EPA used this study in the issuance of the MACT

standard. Based on the API study and the adopted MACT standard, these

changes to the Texas rule are considered acceptable because the same

emission reductions toward the 15% ROP plans should be achieved. The

CTG for gasoline terminals does not require monitoring for fugitive

leaks. Therefore, allowing AVO monitoring instead of instrument

monitoring is acceptable to meet RACT requirements.

Texas also modified its consumer products rules to revise the

labeling requirement to provide an option that rather than including

the date of manufacture, the producer can put on the product label a

statement that the product was manufactured after a certain day, month,

and year, so long as that date is after the compliance date of the rule

of January 1, 1996. This change is acceptable because sufficient

information is still available to determine if a product is subject to

the rules.

6. May 21, 1997, Vent Gas, Fugitives and Miscellaneous Revisions to the

VOC Rules

The State made a variety of changes to its rules for the control of

VOC emissions. Most of the changes were minor clarifications. The most

notable changes are:

Updating the definition of VOC to be consistent with EPA definition of

VOC by adding three compounds (HCFC-225ca, HCFC-225cb and HFC 43-10mee)

to the list of exempt chemicals because they have negligible

photochemical reactivity. This action is consistent with EPA's

definition (61 FR 52847, October 8, 1996).

The State revised the rules for the control of emissions from Marine

Vessel Loading. These rules previously allowed only vessels certified

as leak free to be loaded. Because many vessels, particularly from

foreign ports could not provide the required certification, the State

added the following alternatives: VOCs shall be loaded into the marine

vessel with the vessel product tank at negative pressure; leak testing

shall be performed using Method 21 during the final 20 percent of

loading, or documentation of leak testing conducted during the last 12

months by Method 21. The above alternatives are consistent with the

Marine Vessel Loading MACT, and should serve to limit leaks during the

loading of VOCs to Marine Vessel loading operations.

The State deleted the requirement that repair of valves be accompanied

by the simultaneous use of an organic vapor analyzer. This is known as

directed maintenance. This requirement was added as part of the new

leak detection and repair rules developed as part of the 15% ROP plan.

Directed maintenance is not required by any CTG, so it is not needed to

insure that RACT is in place. The State also did not project additional

emission reductions because of the inclusion of directed maintenance,

and there is some question whether additional emission reductions occur

by requiring this practice. Therefore it is acceptable to remove this

provision.

[[Page 3846]]

V. Final Action

By this action, EPA is approving the revisions to the Texas SIP

submitted on January 10, 1996, concerning RACT for VOCs for the

following source categories: plastic parts coating in the Dallas/Fort

Worth area, SOCMI distillation processes, SOCMI reactor processes and

VOL storage.

With the approval of these rules, the applicable requirements

relating to RACT for eight of the 13 CTG source categories have been

met. No action has been taken with respect to whether RACT has been

implemented for the industrial wastewater, batch processing, wood

furniture, ship building operations, or aerospace coatings categories.

Texas submitted rules for the control of emissions from wood

coating operations as part of their November 13, 1993, SIP revision.

The EPA granted these rules limited approval on May 22, 1997. Texas has

submitted revised rules to control emissions from wood furniture

coating and new rules for ship building operations on April 13, 1998.

The EPA will take action on these revisions and new rules in separate

Federal Register notices. Also, the EPA has issued a CTG for aerospace

coating. Texas is beginning the process of developing rules based on

the aerospace CTG. Finally, Texas proposed in their January 10, 1996,

SIP revision that existing TNRCC rules represented RACT for industrial

wastewater and batch processing. For batch processing, the State

claimed that the existing vent gas rule represented RACT for batch

processing. The EPA will evaluate the State's demonstrations for

industrial wastewater and batch processing in future Federal Register

actions.

In addition, EPA is approving as RACT revisions to the Texas rules

for the control of VOCs submitted on January 11, 1995 (except for the

industrial wastewater revisions and the municipal solid waste landfill

revisions), July 12, 1995, November 10, 1995, March 13, 1996, August 9,

1996, and March 21, 1997. No action is being taken on the revisions to

the municipal solid waste landfill rules. See the following discussion

for EPA action on the revisions to the industrial wastewater rules.

Limited Approval of VOC Control Measures

On November 13, 1993, May 9, 1994, and August 3, 1994, Texas

submitted a number of revisions to its rules for VOC control as part of

its plan to meet the 15% ROP requirements of the Act. On May 22, 1997

(62 FR 27964), EPA published a limited approval of these control

measures in the Texas 15% ROP plan. The EPA gave these rules limited

approval because they strengthened the SIP. The rules could not receive

full approval because the rules had not been demonstrated to meet the

underlying requirements of the Act, such as the requirement to

implement RACT. In this action, the limited approval of rules in the

November 13, 1993, May 9, 1994, and August 3, 1994 submittals is

converted to a full approval with the exception of the rules for the

control of emissions from industrial wastewater, wood furniture,

municipal waste landfills, and bakeries which retain their limited

approval. These latter rules status as RACT will be addressed in

separate actions.

Also, in today's action, the EPA is giving limited approval to the

revisions to the industrial wastewater rules submitted on Janaury 11,

1995, because the rules strengthen the SIP by clarifying the

requirements.

The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we

view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse

comment. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal

Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will

serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments

are filed. This rule will be effective on March 29, 1999 without

further notice unless we receive adverse comment by February 25, 1999.

If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in

the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take

effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule

based on the proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment

period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so

at this time.

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.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 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 Clean Air 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. 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 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

requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or

tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

[[Page 3847]]

D. 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).

E. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership

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, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office

of Management and Budget 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.

F. Executive Order 13084 Consultation and Coordination With Indian

Tribal Governments

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 the EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, 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 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.

G. 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

Executive Order 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 involved

decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

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 March 29, 1999. 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, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: December 10, 1998.

Sam Becker,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

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

amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart SS--Texas

2. Section 52.2270 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(105) to read

as follows:

Sec. 52.2270 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(105) Revisions to the Texas State Implementation Plan, submitted

to EPA in letters dated January 11, 1995; July 12, 1995; November 10,

1995; January 10, 1996; March 13, 1996; August 9, 1996 and May 21,

1997. Sections 115.122(a)(3), 126(a)(4), 126(a)(5), 127(a)(5) and

129(2)-129(5) pertaining to bakeries, 115.140-115.149 pertaining to

Industrial Wastewater, 115.421(a)(13) pertaining to wood coating, and

115.152-115.159 pertaining to municipal waste landfills retain their

limited approval as revised in these SIP revisions because they

strengthen the SIP. All other sections of these SIP revisions receive

full approval.

(i) Incorporation by Reference

(A) Revisions to the General Rules as adopted by the Texas Natural

Resources Conservation Commission (Commission) on January 4, 1995,

effective January 27, 1995, Section 101.10(a)(1).

(B) Revisions to Regulation V, as adopted by the Commission on

January 4, 1995, effective on January 27, 1995, Sections 115.112(c),

115.112(c)(2)(A), 115.112(c)(3), 115.113(a), 115.113(b), 115.113(c),

115.115(a)(7), 115.115(b)(7), 115.116(a)(2), 115.116(a)(2)(A)-

115.116(a)(2)(J), 115.117(c), 115.119 introductory paragraph,

115.121(b), 115.122(a)(4)(B), 115.123(a)(1), 115.127(a)(5)(C),

115.127(b)(2)(A), 115.127(b)(2)(B), 115.143 introductory paragraph,

115.147(6), 115.149(a), 115.149(b), 115.159(a), 115.219(c).

[[Page 3848]]

(C) Certification dated January 4, 1995 that copies of revisions to

General Rules and Regulation V adopted by the Commission on January 4,

1995, and submitted to EPA on January 11, 1995, are true and correct

copies of documents on file in the permanent records of the Commission.

(D) Revisions to Regulation V, as adopted by the Commission on May

24, 1995, effective June 16, 1995, Sections 115.212(a)(1),

115.212(a)(2), 115.212(a)(5)(A)(i), 115.212(a)(5)(A)(ii),

115.212(a)(5)(C), 115.212(a)(5)(C)(i), 115.212(a)(5)(C)(ii),

115.212(a)(5)(D), 115.212(a)(10)(C), 115.212(a)(10)(C)(i),

115.212(a)(10)(C)(ii), 115.212(a)(12)(B), 115.212(b)(1),

115.212(b)(3)(A), 115.212(b)(3)(A)(i), 115.212(b)(3)(A)(ii),

115.212(b)(3)(C), 115.212(c)(1), 115.212(c)(2), 115.212(c)(3)(A),

115.212(c)(3)(A)(i), 115.212(c)(3)(A)(ii), 115.212(c)(3)(C),

115.213(a), 115.213(b), 115.213(c), 115.214(a)(3), 115.214(a)(4),

115.214(a)(4)(A)-115.214(a)(4)(E), 115.214(a)(5), 115.215(a)(7),

115.215(b)(7), 115.216(a)(3)(A), 115.215(a)(3)(B), 115.216(a)(4)(A),

115.216(a)(4)(B), 115.216(a)(5)(A), 115.216(a)(6)(C), 115.217(a)(3),

115.217(a)(4), 115.217(a)(6)(A)-115.217(a)(6)(D), 115.217(b)(2),

115.217(b)(4), 115.217(b)(4)(D), 115.217(b)(5)(C), 115.217(c)(2),

115.217(c)(4)(D), 115.217(c)(5)(C), 115.219 introductory paragraph,

115.219(1), 115.219(2), 115.219(3), 115.219(4), 115.219(5).

(E) Certification dated May 24, 1995, that the copy of revisions to

Regulation V adopted by the Commission on May 24, 1995, and submitted

to EPA on July 12, 1995, is a true and correct copy of the document on

file in the permanent records of the Commission.

(F) Revisions to Regulation V, as adopted by the Commission on

October 25, 1995, effective November 20, 1995, Sections 115.131(a),

115.131(c), 115.132(c), 115.133(a), 115.133(b), 115.133(c), 115.135(a),

115.135(a)(5), 115.135(b), 115.135(b)(5), 115.137(a)(1), 115.137(a)(2),

115.137(a)(3), 115.137(c), 115.137(c)(4), 115.139 introductory

paragraph.

(G) Certification dated October 25, 1995, that the copy of

revisions to Regulation V adopted by the Commission on October 25,

1995, and submitted to EPA on November 10, 1995, is a true and correct

copy of the document on file in the permanent records of the

Commission.

(H) Revisions to Regulation V, as adopted by the Commission on

December 6, 1995, effective December 28, 1995, Section 115.612(a)(1)

(Table III).

(I) Certification dated December 6, 1995, that the copy of

revisions to Regulation V adopted by the Commission on December 6,

1995, and submitted to EPA on March 13, 1996, is a true and correct

copy of the document on file in the permanent records of the

Commission.

(J) Revisions to the General Rules as adopted by the Texas Natural

Resource Conservation Commission on February 14, 1996, effective March

7, 1996, Section 101.1, definitions of Automotive basecoat/clearcoat

system (used in vehicle refinishing (body shops)), Automotive precoat

(used in vehicle refinishing (body shops)), Automotive pretreatment

(used in vehicle refinishing (body shops)), Automotive primer or primer

surfacers (used in vehicle refinishing (body shops)), Automotive

sealers (used in vehicle refinishing (body shops)), Automotive

specialty coatings (used in vehicle refinishing (body shops)),

Automotive three-stage system (used in vehicle refinishing (body

shops)), Automotive wipe-down solutions (used in vehicle refinishing

(body shops)), Cold solvent cleaning, Conveyorized degreasing, Gasoline

bulk plant, Gasoline terminal, High-bake coatings, Low-bake coatings,

Mechanical shoe seal, Open-top vapor degreasing, Remote reservoir cold

solvent cleaning, Vehicle refinishing (body shops), Volatile organic

compound.

(K) Revisions to Regulation V, as adopted by the Commission on

February 14, 1996, effective March 7, 1996, Section 115.1, definitions

of Automotive basecoat/clearcoat system (used in vehicle refinishing

(body shops)), Automotive precoat (used in vehicle refinishing (body

shops)), Automotive pretreatment (used in vehicle refinishing (body

shops)), Automotive primer or primer surfacers (used in vehicle

refinishing (body shops)), Automotive sealers (used in vehicle

refinishing (body shops)), Automotive specialty coatings (used in

vehicle refinishing (body shops)), Automotive three-stage system (used

in vehicle refinishing (body shops)), Automotive wipe-down solutions

(used in vehicle refinishing (body shops)), Cold solvent cleaning,

Conveyorized degreasing, External floating roof, Gasoline bulk plant,

Gasoline terminal, High-bake coatings, Internal floating cover, Low-

bake coatings, Mechanical shoe seal, Open-top vapor degreasing, Remote

reservoir cold solvent cleaning, Vehicle refinishing (body shops),

Volatile organic compound, sections 115.112(a)(2), 115.112(a)(2)(A),

115.112(a)(2)(B), 115.112(a)(2)(D), 115.112(b)(2), 115.112(b)(2)(A),

115.112(b)(2)(B), 115.112(b)(2)(D), new 115.114, 115.116(a)(1),

115.116(b)(1), 115.117(a)(1), 115.117(a)(4), 115.117(a)(6),

115.116(a)(6)(A), 115.117(a)(7), 115.117(a)(7)(A), 115.117(b)(1),

115.117(b)(4), 115.117(b)(6)(A), 115.117(b)(7)(A), 115.117(c),

115.117(c)(1), 115.121(a)(1)-115.121(a)(4), 115.121(c), 115.122(a)(1)-

115.122(a)(3), 115.122(a)(3)(C), 115.122(a)(3)(D), 115.122(c),

115.123(c), 115.126(a)(1), 115.126(a)(5), 115.126(a)(5)(A),

115.127(a)(1), 115.127(a)(2), 115.127(a)(2)(A)-115.127(a)(2)(E),

115.127(a)(3), 115.127(a)(3)(A)-115.127(a)(3)(C), 115.127(a)(4),

115.127(a)(4)(A)-115.127(a)(5)(E), 115.127(a)(5), 115.127(a)(6),

115.127(a)(7), 115.127(b)(2), 115.127(b)(3), 115.127(b)(4), 115.127(c),

115.127(c)(2)(B), 115.127(c)(3), 115.127(c)(4), 115.129(1)-115.129(5),

115.212(a)(11), 115.219 introductory paragraph, 115.219(5),

115.219(5)(A)-115.219(5)(C), 115.412(a), 115.413(a), 115.413(b),

115.416(a), 115.417(a)(3), 115.417(a)(4), 115.417(b)(5), 115.419

introductory paragraph, 115.421(a), 115.421(a)(1)-115.421(a)(8),

115.421(a)(8)(B), 115.421(a)(8)(B)(i)-115.421(a)(8)(B)(ix),

115.421(a)(8)(C), 115.421(a)(9)(A)(i)-115.421(a)(9)(A)(v),

115.421(a)(12)(A), 115.421(a)(12)(A)(i), 115.421(a)(12)(A)(ii),

115.421(b), 115.421(b)(1)-115.421(b)(8), 115.421(b)(8)(A),

115.421(b)(8)(A)(i)-115.421(b)(8)(A)(iv), 115.422(1), 115.422(2),

115.423(a)(1), 115.423(a)(2), 115.423(b), 115.423(b)(1), 115.423(b)(2),

115.423(b)(4), 115.425(a)(1)(C), 115.425(b)(1)(C), 115.426(a)(1)(B),

115.427(a)(1)(A)-115.427(a)(1)(D), 115.427(a)(3), 115.427(a)(5),

115.427(b)(2), 115.427(b)(2)(B)-115.427(b)(2)(D), 115.427(b)(3),

115.429(a), 115.429(b), 115.433(a), 115.433(b), 115.435(a)(5),

115.435(b)(5), 115.436(a), 115.436(b), 115.437(a)(1), 115.437(a)(2),

115.439(b), 115.439(c), 115.442(1)(F)(i), 115.422(1)(F)(ii), 115.443

introductory paragraph, 115.445(5), 115.446(7), 115.512(1), 115.512(2),

115.513 introductory paragraph, 115.517(1), 115.541(a)(2)(C),

115.541(2)(E), 115.541(b), 115.541(b)(5), 115.542(a)(1), 115.542(a)(2),

115.542(a)(5), 115.542(b), 115.542(b)(1), 115.542(b)(2), 115.542(b)(4),

115.543 introductory paragraph, 115.546(1)(A), 115.547 introductory

paragraph, 115.547(2), 115.547(4), 115.547(5), 115.549(a)-115.549(c),

115.600 introductory paragraph and definitions of Consumer product,

Pesticide, Sections 115.614(a), 115.614(c), 115.614(c)(1),

115.614(c)(1)(A)-115.614(c)(1)(F), 115.614(c)(2),

[[Page 3849]]

115.614(c)(2)(A)-115.614(c)(2)(F), 115.614(d), 115.614(e), 115.614(f),

115.617(h).

(L) Certification dated February 14, 1996, that copies of revisions

to General Rules and Regulation V adopted by The Commission on February

14, 1996, and submitted to EPA on March 13, 1996, are true and correct

copies of documents on file in the permanent records of the Commission.

(M) Revisions to Regulation V, as adopted by the Commission on July

24, 1996, effective August 16, 1996, Sections 115.214(a)(4),

115.214(a)(4)(E), 115.214(a)(5), 115.216(a), 115.216(a)(7),

115.216(a)(7)(A)-115.216(a)(7)(G), 115.616(a), 115.616(a)(1)-

115.616(a)(3).

(N) Certifications dated July 24, 1996, that the copy of revisions

to Regulation V adopted by the Commission on July 24, 1996, and

submitted to EPA on August 9, 1996, is a true and correct copy of the

document on file in the permanent records of the Commission.

(O) Revisions to the General Rules as adopted by the Commission on

April 30, 1997, effective May 22, 1997, Section 101.1, introductory

paragraph and definitions of Component, Leak, Synthetic Organic

Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) batch distillation operation,

Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) batch

process, Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI)

distillation operation, Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing

Industry (SOCMI) distillation unit, Synthetic Organic Chemical

Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) reactor process, Tank-truck tank,

Vehicle refinishing (body shops), Volatile organic compound

(introduction paragraph).

(P) Revisions to Regulation V, as adopted by the Commission on

April 30, 1997, effective May 22, 1997, Section 115.10, introductory

paragraph and definitions of Fugitive emission, Leak, Synthetic Organic

Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) batch distillation operation,

Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) batch

process, Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI)

distillation operation, Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing

Industry (SOCMI) distillation unit, Synthetic Organic Chemical

Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) reactor process, Tank-truck tank,

Vehicle refinishing (body shops), Volatile organic compound

(introduction paragraph), and Sections 115.112(a)(2), 115.112(a)(2)(F),

115.112(b)(2), 115.112(b)(2)(F), 115.114(a), 115.114(a)(1),

115.114(a)(2), 115.114(a)(4), 115.114(b), 115.114(b)(1), 115.114(b)(2),

115.114(a)(4), 115.114(c), 115.114(c)(1), 115.114(c)(2), 115.115(a)(6),

115.115(b)(6), 115.116(a)(5), 115.116(b)(5), 115.119(a), 115.119(b),

115.121(a)(1), 115.121(a)(2), 115.121(a)(2)(A)-115.121(a)(2)(E),

115.121(a)(3), 115.121(b), 115.121(c), 115.121(c)(1), 115.121(c)(2),

115.121(c)(3), 115.121(c)(4), 115.122(a)(1), 115.122(a)(1)(A),

115.122(a)(1)(B), 115.122(a)(1)(C), 115.122(a)(2), 115.122(a)(2)(A),

115.122(a)(2)(B), 115.122(a)(3), 115.122(a)(4), 115.122(a)(4)(A),

155.122(a)(4)(B), 115.122(b), 115.122(b)(1), 115.122(b)(2),

115.122(b)(3), 115.122(c), 115.122(c)(1), 115.122(c)(1)(A)-

115.122(c)(1)(C), 115.122(c)(2), 115.122(c)(2)(A), 115.122(c)(2)(B),

115.122(c)(3), 115.122(c)(3)(A), 115.122(c)(3)(B), 115.122(c)(4),

115.122(c)(4)(A), 115.122(c)(4)(B), 115.123(a)(1), 115.123(b),

115.123(c), 115.126(a), 115.126(a)(3), 115.126(a)(4)(A),

115.126(a)(4)(B), 115.126(a)(4)(C), 115.126(a)(5)(A)-115.126(a)(5)(C),

115.126(b), 115.126(b)(3), 115.127(a)(2), 115.127(a)(2)(C),

115.127(a)(2)(D), 115.127(a)(2)(E), 115.127(a)(3), 115.127(a)(4),

115.127(a)(4)(A)-115.127(a)(4)(E), 115.127(a)(5), 115.127(c),

115.127(c)(1), 115.127(c)(1)(A)-115.127(c)(1)(C), 115.127(c)(2),

115.129(1)-115.129(5), 115.132(a)(1), 115.132(a)(4)(A),

115.132(a)(4)(B), 115.132(b)(1), 115.132(c), 115.132(c)(1),

115.136(a)(4), 115.136(b)(4), 115.137(a)(3), 115.137(b)(5), 115.137(c),

115.137(c)(4), 115.146(5), 115.147(5)(A), 115.147(5)(B), 115.147(5)(C),

115.149(b), 115.153 introductory paragraph, 115.156(3)(E)(i),

115.159(a), 115.159(b), 115.159(c), 115.211(a)(1), 115.211(a)(3),

115.212(a)(1), 115.212(a)(2), 115.212(a)(3), 115.212(a)(3)(A),

115.212(a)(3)(A)(i), 115.212(a)(3)(A)(ii), 115.212(a)(3)(B),

115.212(a)(3)(C), 115.212(a)(3)(C)(i), 115.212(a)(3)(C)(ii),

115.212(a)(3)(D), 115.212(a)(4), 115.212(a)(5), 115.212(a)(6),

115.212(a)(6)(A), 115.212(a)(6)(B), 115.212(a)(6)(C), 115.212(a)(7),

115.212(a)(7)(A)-115.212(a)(7)(D), 115.212(a)(8), 115.212(a)(8)(A),

115.212(a)(8)(B), 115.212(a)(8)(B)(i), 115.212(a)(8)(B)(ii),

115.212(a)(8)(B)(iii), 115.212(a)(8)(C), 115.212(a)(8)(C)(i),

115.212(a)(8)(C)(ii), 115.212(a)(9), 115.212(a)(10), 115.212(a)(10)(A),

115.212(a)(10)(B), 115.214(a)(4), 115.214(a)(4)(E), 115.214(a)(5),

115.215(a)(8), 115.216(a), 115.216(a)(1), 115.216(a)(6), 115.216(b),

115.216(b)(1), 115.217(a)(1), 115.217(a)(2), 115.217(a)(3),

115.217(a)(4), 115.217(a)(4)(A), 115.217(a)(4)(B), 115.217(a)(5),

115.217(a)(6), 115.217(a)(6)(A)-115.217(a)(6)(D), 115.217(a)(7),

115.217(a)(7)(A)-115.217(a)(7)(E), 115.217(a)(8), 115.217(a)(8)(A)-

115.217(a)(8)(C), 115.217(a)(9), 115.217(b)(2), 115.217(b)(4)(A)-

115.217(b)(4)(D), 115.217(b)(5), 115.217(c)(2), 115.217(c)(4),

115.217(c)(4)(A)-115.217(c)(4)(D), 115.217(c)(5), 115.219(1),

115.219(4), 115.221 introductory paragraph, 115.222(7), 115.223

introductory paragraph, 115.226 introductory paragraph, 115.226(1),

115.253 introductory paragraph, 115.256 introductory paragraph,

115.311(a)(1), 115.311(a)(2), 115.311(b)(1)-115.311(b)(2),

115.312(a)(2), 115.312(a)(2)(A)-115.312(a)(2)(C), 115.312(b)(2)

115.312(b)(2)(A)-115.312(b)(2)(C), 115.313(a), 115.313(b), 115.319

introductory paragraph, 115.322 introductory paragraph, 115.322(1)-

15.322(5), 115.323 introductory paragraph, 115.323(1), 115.323(2), new

115.324, 115.325 introductory paragraph, 115.325(1)-115.325(3), 115.326

introductory paragraph, 115.326(1), 115.326(2), 115.326(2)(A)-

115.326(2)(I), 115.326(3), 115.324(4), 115.327 introductory paragraph,

115.327(1), 115.327(1)(A)-115.327(1)(C), 115.327(2)-115.327(6), 115.329

introductory paragraph, 115.352(1), 115.352(2), 115.352(9), 115.353

introductory paragraph, 115.354(1)(C), 115.354(4)-115.354(7),

115.354(7)(A), 115.354(7)(B), 115.354(8), 115.356(1)(I), 115.356(3),

115.357(2), 115.357(8), 115.421(a), 115.421(a)(13)(A), 115.422(3)(A),

115.422(3)(B), 155.424(a)(1), 115.424(a)(2), 115.424(b)(1),

115.426(a)(1)(D), 115.426(a)(2)(C), 115.426(b)(1)(D), 115.426(b)(2)(C),

115.427(a)(5), 115.427(a)(6), 115.442(1)(B)-115.422(1)(D), 155.446(8),

115.449(a), 115.449(b), 115.449(c), 115.532(a)(5), 115.532(a)(5)(A),

115.532(a)(5)(B), 115.533(a), 115.533(b), 115.536(a)(5), 115.536(b)(5),

115.537(a)(5), 115.539 introductory paragraph, 115.552(b)(1),

115.522(b)(2), 115.533 introductory paragraph, 115.559(a)-115.559(d),

and repeal of Sections 115.332, 115.333, 115.334, 115.335, 115.336,

115.337, 115.339, 115.342, 115.343, 115.344, 115.345, 115.346, 115.347,

115.349.

(Q) Certification dated April 30, 1997, that copies of revisions to

General Rules and Regulation V adopted by the Commission on April 30,

1997, and submitted to EPA on May 21, 1997, are true and correct copies

of documents on file in the permanent records of the Commission.

[[Page 3850]]

(R) Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission order adopting

amendments to the SIP; Docket Number 95-1198-RUL, issued December 19,

1995.

(ii) Additional Material

(A) TNRCC certification letter dated December 13, 1995, and signed

by the Chief Clerk, TNRCC that the attached are true and correct copies

of the SIP revision adopted by the Commission on December 13, 1995.

(B) The following portions of the SIP narrative entitled Post-1996

Rate of Progress Plan for the Beaumont/Port Arthur and Houston/

Galveston Ozone Nonattainment Areas Dated December 13, 1995: The

section pertaining to Storage Tanks (pp. 17-37), the section pertaining

to SOCMI Reactor and Distillation (p. 40), the Section pertaining to

Plastic Parts Coating (pp. 54-55).

[FR Doc. 99-1650 Filed 1-25-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P