Limited Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction Activities, 50205-50208 [05-16933]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
[FR Doc. 05–16594 Filed 8–25–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[R06–OAR–2005–TX–0022; FRL–7959–5]
Limited Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Texas; Excess
Emissions During Startup, Shutdown
and Malfunction Activities
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This action finalizes limited
approval of revisions to the Texas State
Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning
excess emissions which we proposed,
through the parallel processing
mechanism, on May 9, 2005.
Specifically, we are finalizing limited
approval of revisions to 30 TAC Chapter
101, General Air Quality Rules
concerning excess emissions during
startup, shutdown, and malfunction
(SSM) activities. The action will have
the effect of extending the expiration
date of certain provisions from June 30,
2005 to no later than June 30, 2006.
Texas has made this change to allow for
additional time before these provisions
expire from the SIP to submit a revised
excess emissions rule for our approval
into the SIP.
DATES: This rule is effective on
September 26, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents
relevant to this action are available for
public inspection during normal
business hours at the following
locations. Anyone 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),
1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–
2733.
Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality (TCEQ), Office of Air Quality,
12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas
78753.
Mr.
Alan Shar of the Air Planning Section
(6PD–L), EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733 at
(214) 665–6691, shar.alan@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Table of Contents
I. Background Information
1. What actions are we taking in this
document?
VerDate Aug<18>2005
16:11 Aug 25, 2005
Jkt 205001
2. What documents did we use in the
evaluation of this rule?
3. Who submitted comments to us?
4. What is our response to the submitted
written comments?
5. What areas in Texas will these rule
revisions affect?
II. Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
In this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and
‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
I. Background Information
1. What Actions Are We Taking in This
Document?
On May 9, 2005 (70 FR 24348) we
proposed limited approval of revisions
to the Texas SIP pertaining to excess
emissions during SSM activities. See 30
TAC, General Air Quality Rule 101,
subchapter F, sections 101.221, 101.222,
and 101.223. The currently approved
Texas SIP provides that these three
provisions of the State rules, that
address excess emissions resulting from
SSM related activities, will expire by
their own terms on June 30, 2005. In
granting a limited approval of those
provisions of the State rule EPA
interpreted those provisions to mean the
subsections would expire from the
approved SIP on that date (June 30,
2005).
Our May 9, 2005 (70 FR 24348)
proposal addressed changes to each of
these three provisions which would
extend the expiration date to as late as
June 30, 2006. Specifically, the State
revised each of the three subsections to
provide:
‘‘This section expires on January 15, 2006,
unless the commission submits a revised
version of this section to the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) for review and
approval into the Texas state implementation
plan. If the commission submits a revised
version of this section, this section expires on
June 30, 2006.’’
See 30 TAC, General Air Quality Rule
101, Subchapter F, subsections
101.221(g), 101.222(h), and 101.223(e).
Today, we are taking final action on
the May 9, 2005 (70 FR 24348) proposal.
Because we proposed to approve these
revisions prior to the time the State
completed its state rulemaking process,
we compared the final version of the
adopted State submission with the
submission on which the proposed
rulemaking was based. The comparison
reveals no changes in the State’s final
submission. The change we are
approving today will, in effect, extend
the expiration date of the affected
sections from June 30, 2005 to January
15, 2006, unless the State submits a
replacement rule to EPA, which would
have the effect of extending the
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
50205
expiration date in the SIP to June 30,
2006.
The EPA believes it is important to
reiterate our interpretation of the phrase
in the State’s rule, ‘‘submits a revised
version of this section.’’ If we receive a
SIP submission of a state-adopted
revised version of the specified sections
prior to January 15, 2006, we will
review the submission for completeness
in accordance with our completeness
regulations. See 40 CFR Part 51,
Appendix V. If the State fails to submit
an adopted rule by January 15, 2006, or
submits a SIP that we determine is
incomplete, the existing regulations will
expire from the SIP effective January 15,
2006. If we find the submission
complete, then the rule will expire from
the SIP on June 30, 2006, or at an earlier
date if so provided by a replacement
rule that we approve into the Texas SIP
prior to June 30, 2006.
The EPA intends to work with the
State during the State’s rulemaking
process to identify any issues that
would prevent our full approval of the
replacement rule. Although we cannot
prejudge our ultimate decision on a
future SIP submission prior to our
review of such revisions and our
consideration of any public comments
in response to our proposed action on
such submission, we will attempt to
identify any issues that would prevent
our full approval of the replacement
rule during the State’s rulemaking
process and any preliminary
discussions we may have with the State.
We are granting limited, rather than
full, approval of this SIP submittal. We
are granting limited approval of this rule
because we granted limited approval of
the regulations which are modified by
this revision. Although this action will
extend the expiration date of sections
101.221, 101.222, and 101.223, the basis
for our limited approval of the State’s
excess emissions rules remains
unchanged as explained in our March
30, 2005 (70 FR 16129) rulemaking
action.
2. What Documents Did We Use in the
Evaluation of This Rule?
The EPA’s interpretation of the Act on
excess emissions occurring during SSM
is set forth in the following documents:
a memorandum dated September 28,
1982, from Kathleen M. Bennett,
Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise,
and Radiation, entitled ‘‘Policy on
Excess Emissions During Startup,
Shutdown, Maintenance, and
Malfunctions;’’ EPA’s clarification to the
above policy memorandum dated
February 15, 1983, from Kathleen M.
Bennett, Assistant Administrator for
Air, Noise, and Radiation; EPA’s policy
E:\FR\FM\26AUR1.SGM
26AUR1
50206
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
memorandum reaffirming and
supplementing the above policy, dated
September 20, 1999, from Steven A.
Herman, Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
and Robert Perciasepe, Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation,
entitled ‘‘State Implementation Plans:
Policy Regarding Excess Emissions
During Malfunctions, Startup, and
Shutdown’’ (September 1999 Policy);
EPA’s final rule for Utah’s sulfur
dioxide control strategy (Kennecott
Copper), 42 FR 21472 (April 27, 1977),
and EPA’s final rule for Idaho’s sulfur
dioxide control strategy, 42 FR 58171
(November 8, 1977); and the latest
clarification of EPA’s policy issued on
December 5, 2001. See the policy or
clarification of policy at: https://
www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html.
To find the latest Federally approved
Texas SIP concerning excess emissions
see 70 FR 16129 (March 30, 2005).
3. Who Submitted Comments to Us?
We received written comments on our
May 9, 2005 (70 FR 24348) proposed
limited approval of the Texas SIP
revision. The comments were submitted
by the Environmental Integrity Project,
Galveston-Houston Association for
Smog Prevention, Sierra Club Lone Star
Chapter, Blue Skies Alliance,
Downwinders at Risk, Community InPower and Development Association,
Public Citizen’s Texas Office, and Texas
Public Interest Research Group (the
Commenters) during the public
comment period.
4. What Is Our Response to the
Submitted Written Comments?
Our responses to the written
comments concerning the proposed May
9, 2005 (70 FR 24348), Texas SIP
revision are as follows:
Comment #1: The Commenters agree
that we should grant a limited approval
of the extended expiration date in
subsections 101.221(g) and 101.223(e),
but claim that for the following reasons
(see Comments #2, 3, and 4) we should
disapprove the extension of the
expiration date in subsection
101.222(h).
Response to Comment #1: We
appreciate the Commenters’ support of
limited approval of subsections
101.221(g) and 101.223(e). See our
responses to Comments #2, 3, and 4 of
this document concerning subsection
101.222(h).
Comment #2: The Commenters state
that an affirmative defense cannot apply
to emissions exceedances of the
Federally promulgated performancebased or technology driven standards
VerDate Aug<18>2005
16:11 Aug 25, 2005
Jkt 205001
such as New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS), and National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP). While EPA’s
interpretation of Texas’ rules is clear
from EPA’s statements in the final
limited approval (70 FR at 16132), EPA
should not approve a revision to the
Texas rules unless Texas clarifies on the
face of the rule that any affirmative
defense does not apply to Federally
promulgated performance-based or
technology driven standards or other
Federal requirements.
Response to Comment #2: We agree
that in order to receive a full approval
of the rule, Texas needs to revise the
rule to make clear that the affirmative
defense is not available for violations of
Federally promulgated performancebased or technology driven standards
such as NSPS and NESHAP. In this
action, we are only considering a brief
extension of the existing rule for which
we issued a limited approval on March
30, 2005. Because the extension of the
expiration date is brief, we do not
believe the underlying flaws in the rule
mandate a disapproval of the extension
and that it is appropriate to grant a
limited approval of the revised
expiration date. However, we note that
EPA will not approve any further
extensions of the expiration date in the
absence of the State correcting the
defects in the current rule. See section
1 of our May 9, 2005 (70 FR 24349).
Comment #3: The Commenters state
that subsection 101.222(c) exempts
excess emissions during scheduled
maintenance, startup, and shutdown
from permitting requirements, if certain
criteria are met, and conclude that such
exemptions could jeopardize SIP’s
ability to attain and maintain
compliance with the SIP. In addition,
the commenters note that EPA’s SSM
guidance makes clear that scheduled
maintenance, startup and shutdown
activities should be accounted for in the
plan and design, and an affirmative
defense should not be available. The
Commenters state that because
subsections 101.222(c) and (e) violate
the Act and EPA’s guidance, EPA
cannot approve an extension of the
expiration date for these provisions.
Response to Comment #3: We agree
with many of the points raised by the
Commenters regarding the underlying
flaws with subsections 101.222(c) and
(e), and those flaws were the basis for
our limited, rather than full approval of
the State’s excess emissions rules. See
section 3 of our March 30, 2005 (70 FR
16130–16131).
However, we do not think the brief
extension of the expiration date at issue
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
here will have a significant effect and
that it is appropriate to grant a limited
approval of the revised expiration
provision. As noted above, however, we
will not grant any further extensions of
the expiration date in the absence of a
submitted SIP revision correcting the
defects in the rule. See section 1 of our
May 9, 2005 (70 FR 24349).
Comment #4: The Commenters state
that because subsections 101.222(b) and
(d) limit the ability of citizen and EPA
enforcement, EPA cannot approve the
extension of the expiration date for
these provisions under section
101.222(h).
Response to Comment #4: In part, we
based our rationale for a limited, rather
than a full, approval of Texas SSM rule
on concerns similar to those expressed
by the Commenters. See our explanation
at 70 FR 16130. As provided above,
however, we do not believe these flaws
with the rule for which we granted a
limited approval mandate that we
disapprove the brief extension of the
expiration date.
This concludes our responses to the
written comments we received during
public comment period concerning May
9, 2005 (70 FR 24348), Texas proposed
SIP revision.
5. What Areas in Texas Will These Rule
Revisions Affect?
These rule revisions affect all sources
of air emissions operating within the
State of Texas that are subject to
emission reduction requirements under
the State’s SIP approved regulations.
II. Final Action
Today, we are finalizing limited
approval of the deletion of existing SIP
subsections 101.221(g), 101.222(h), and
101.223(e) and the addition of revised
subsections 101.221(g), 101.222(h), and
101.223(e) into the Texas SIP. We
published the proposal for this limited
approval on May 9, 2005 (70 FR 24348).
III. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this action is
not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and
therefore is not subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget. For
this reason, this action is also not
subject to Executive Order 13211,
‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001). This action merely approves
state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this rule
E:\FR\FM\26AUR1.SGM
26AUR1
50207
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this
rule approves pre-existing requirements
under state law and does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond
that required by state law, it 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).
This rule also does not have tribal
implications because it will not have a
substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This
action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This action merely
approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard, and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power
and responsibilities established in the
Clean Air Act. This rule also is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
‘‘Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
because it is not economically
significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the
absence of a prior existing requirement
for the State to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for
failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,
to use VCS in place of a SIP submission
that otherwise satisfies the provisions of
the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. This rule does
not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. section 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. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by October 25, 2005.
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, Excess emissions,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: August 10, 2005.
Lawrence Starfield,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
■
40 CFR part 52 is amended:
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart SS—Texas
2. The table in § 52.2270(c) entitled
‘‘EPA Approved Regulations in the
Texas SIP’’ is amended by revising the
entries for sections 101.221, 101.222,
and 101.223 to read as follows:
■
§ 52.2270
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(c) * * *
*
*
EPA APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE TEXAS SIP
State citation
*
*
State, approval/, submittal, date
Title/subject
*
*
*
*
Chapter 101—General Air Quality Rules
*
*
Operational Requirements ..............
06/03/05
Section 101.222 ...............................
Demonstrations ...............................
06/03/05
Section 101.223 ...............................
Actions to Reduce Excessive Emissions.
06/03/05
VerDate Aug<18>2005
*
*
*
*
*
*
Subchapter F—Emissions Events and Scheduled Maintenance, Startup, and Shutdown Activities
*
*
Section 101.221 ...............................
*
EPA approval date
*
16:11 Aug 25, 2005
*
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
*
Frm 00059
Fmt 4700
*
*
08/26/05, [Insert FR citation from
published date].
08/26/05, [Insert FR citation from
published date].
08/26/05, [Insert FR citation from
published date].
*
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\26AUR1.SGM
*
26AUR1
Explanation
*
*
*
With Expiration Date.
With Expiration Date.
With Expiration Date.
*
50208
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
[FR Doc. 05–16933 Filed 8–25–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
during official business hours by
appointment: Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality, Office of Air
Quality, 12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin,
Texas 78753.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
40 CFR Part 52
[TX 126–1–7690; FRL–7960–4]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Texas;
Dallas-Fort Worth Voluntary Mobile
Emission Reduction Program
Sandra Rennie, Air Planning Section
(6PD–L), Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733,
telephone (214) 665–7367; fax number
214–665–7263; e-mail address
rennie.sandra@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Texas. This
revision approves the Dallas-Fort Worth
(DFW) Voluntary Mobile Emission
Reduction Program (VMEP) which is
relied upon to achieve the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
for ozone in the DFW nonattainment
area.
DATES: This rule is effective on
September 26, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents
relevant to this action are in the official
file which is available at the Air
Planning Section (6PD–L),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1445
Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas
75202–2733. The file will be made
available by appointment for public
inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review
Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m.
and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal
holidays. Contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at
214–665–7253 to make an appointment.
If possible, please make the
appointment at least two working days
in advance of your visit. There will be
a 15 cent per page fee for making
photocopies of documents. On the day
of the visit, please check in at the EPA
Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.
Copies of any State submittals and
EPA’s technical support document are
also available for public inspection at
the State Air Agency listed below
Throughout this document wherever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
the EPA.
Outline of Topics
I. What Action Is EPA Taking and Why?
II. What Are the Federal Requirements?
III. What Is the Background for This Action?
IV. What Did the State Submit?
V. What Does the DFW VMEP Include?
VI. What Comments Did EPA Receive in
Response to the January 18, 2001,
Proposed Rule?
VII. EPA’s Final Rulemaking Action
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Action Is EPA Taking and
Why?
We are approving the DFW VMEP
into the Texas SIP. We are taking this
action because the State submitted a SIP
revision that relies on the VMEP to
achieve the NAAQS in the DFW ozone
nonattainment area.
II. What Are the Federal Requirements?
Section 172 of the Act provides the
general requirements for nonattainment
plans. Section 172(c)(6) and section 110
require SIPs to include enforceable
emission limitations, and such other
control measures, means or techniques
as well as schedules and timetables for
compliance, as may be necessary to
provide for attainment by the applicable
attainment date. Today’s action involves
approval of one of a collection of
controls adopted by the State to achieve
the ozone standard in the DFW
nonattainment area as required under
section 172. EPA approval of this SIP
revision is governed by section 110 of
the Act.
III. What Is the Background for This
Action?
In the Federal Register published on
January 18, 2001 (66 FR 4756) we
proposed to approve a Voluntary Mobile
Emissions Reduction Program (VMEP)
in nine counties (including the DFW 4county area) as local initiatives. The
counties are Collin, Dallas, Denton, and
Tarrant along with the surrounding
counties of Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman,
Parker, and Rockwall.
Voluntary mobile source strategies
that attempt to complement existing
regulatory programs through voluntary,
non-regulatory changes in local
transportation activities or changes in
in-use vehicle and engine composition
constitute the VMEP. EPA concludes
that the Clean Air Act allows SIP credit
for new approaches to reducing mobile
source emissions. This flexible
approach is consistent with section 110.
Up to 3% of the total future year
emissions reductions required to attain
the appropriate NAAQS may be claimed
under the VMEP policy.1
Specifically, the guidance suggests
key points be considered for approval of
credits. The credits should be
quantifiable, surplus, enforceable,
permanent, and adequately supported.
The State must timely assess and
backfill any shortfall pursuant to
enforceable commitments in the SIP in
the event that the projected emission
reductions are not achieved. In addition,
VMEPs must be consistent with
attainment of the standard and with the
Rate of Progress requirements and not
interfere with other Clean Air Act
requirements.
IV. What Did the State Submit?
The State submitted program
descriptions that projected emission
reductions attributable to each specific
voluntary program. These program
descriptions were included in the DFW
1-hour ozone SIP revision submitted
April 25, 2000.
V. What Does the DFW VMEP Include?
The following Table lists the
programs and projected credits.
Programs submitted with no credit
assigned are also listed.
VOLUNTARY MOBILE EMISSION REDUCTION PROGRAMS AND CREDITS CLAIMED
VOC benefits
(tons per day)
Program type
Alternative Fuel Program .........................................................................................................................................
Employee Trip Reduction ........................................................................................................................................
Public Education Campaign/Ozone Season Fare Reduction .................................................................................
1 Memorandum from Richard D. Wilson, Acting
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation,
VerDate Aug<18>2005
16:11 Aug 25, 2005
Jkt 205001
dated October 24, 1997, entitled ‘‘Guidance on
Incorporating Voluntary Mobile Source Emission
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
NOX benefits
(tons per day)
0.18
0.29
0.08
0.18
0.53
0.15
Reduction Programs in State Implementation Plans
(SIPs).’’
E:\FR\FM\26AUR1.SGM
26AUR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 165 (Friday, August 26, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50205-50208]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-16933]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[R06-OAR-2005-TX-0022; FRL-7959-5]
Limited Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas;
Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction Activities
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action finalizes limited approval of revisions to the
Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning excess emissions which
we proposed, through the parallel processing mechanism, on May 9, 2005.
Specifically, we are finalizing limited approval of revisions to 30 TAC
Chapter 101, General Air Quality Rules concerning excess emissions
during startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) activities. The action
will have the effect of extending the expiration date of certain
provisions from June 30, 2005 to no later than June 30, 2006. Texas has
made this change to allow for additional time before these provisions
expire from the SIP to submit a revised excess emissions rule for our
approval into the SIP.
DATES: This rule is effective on September 26, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
following locations. Anyone 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), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), Office of Air
Quality, 12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Alan Shar of the Air Planning
Section (6PD-L), EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-
2733 at (214) 665-6691, shar.alan@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background Information
1. What actions are we taking in this document?
2. What documents did we use in the evaluation of this rule?
3. Who submitted comments to us?
4. What is our response to the submitted written comments?
5. What areas in Texas will these rule revisions affect?
II. Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
In this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to EPA.
I. Background Information
1. What Actions Are We Taking in This Document?
On May 9, 2005 (70 FR 24348) we proposed limited approval of
revisions to the Texas SIP pertaining to excess emissions during SSM
activities. See 30 TAC, General Air Quality Rule 101, subchapter F,
sections 101.221, 101.222, and 101.223. The currently approved Texas
SIP provides that these three provisions of the State rules, that
address excess emissions resulting from SSM related activities, will
expire by their own terms on June 30, 2005. In granting a limited
approval of those provisions of the State rule EPA interpreted those
provisions to mean the subsections would expire from the approved SIP
on that date (June 30, 2005).
Our May 9, 2005 (70 FR 24348) proposal addressed changes to each of
these three provisions which would extend the expiration date to as
late as June 30, 2006. Specifically, the State revised each of the
three subsections to provide:
``This section expires on January 15, 2006, unless the
commission submits a revised version of this section to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for review and approval into
the Texas state implementation plan. If the commission submits a
revised version of this section, this section expires on June 30,
2006.''
See 30 TAC, General Air Quality Rule 101, Subchapter F, subsections
101.221(g), 101.222(h), and 101.223(e).
Today, we are taking final action on the May 9, 2005 (70 FR 24348)
proposal. Because we proposed to approve these revisions prior to the
time the State completed its state rulemaking process, we compared the
final version of the adopted State submission with the submission on
which the proposed rulemaking was based. The comparison reveals no
changes in the State's final submission. The change we are approving
today will, in effect, extend the expiration date of the affected
sections from June 30, 2005 to January 15, 2006, unless the State
submits a replacement rule to EPA, which would have the effect of
extending the expiration date in the SIP to June 30, 2006.
The EPA believes it is important to reiterate our interpretation of
the phrase in the State's rule, ``submits a revised version of this
section.'' If we receive a SIP submission of a state-adopted revised
version of the specified sections prior to January 15, 2006, we will
review the submission for completeness in accordance with our
completeness regulations. See 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V. If the State
fails to submit an adopted rule by January 15, 2006, or submits a SIP
that we determine is incomplete, the existing regulations will expire
from the SIP effective January 15, 2006. If we find the submission
complete, then the rule will expire from the SIP on June 30, 2006, or
at an earlier date if so provided by a replacement rule that we approve
into the Texas SIP prior to June 30, 2006.
The EPA intends to work with the State during the State's
rulemaking process to identify any issues that would prevent our full
approval of the replacement rule. Although we cannot prejudge our
ultimate decision on a future SIP submission prior to our review of
such revisions and our consideration of any public comments in response
to our proposed action on such submission, we will attempt to identify
any issues that would prevent our full approval of the replacement rule
during the State's rulemaking process and any preliminary discussions
we may have with the State.
We are granting limited, rather than full, approval of this SIP
submittal. We are granting limited approval of this rule because we
granted limited approval of the regulations which are modified by this
revision. Although this action will extend the expiration date of
sections 101.221, 101.222, and 101.223, the basis for our limited
approval of the State's excess emissions rules remains unchanged as
explained in our March 30, 2005 (70 FR 16129) rulemaking action.
2. What Documents Did We Use in the Evaluation of This Rule?
The EPA's interpretation of the Act on excess emissions occurring
during SSM is set forth in the following documents: a memorandum dated
September 28, 1982, from Kathleen M. Bennett, Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise, and Radiation, entitled ``Policy on Excess Emissions
During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and Malfunctions;'' EPA's
clarification to the above policy memorandum dated February 15, 1983,
from Kathleen M. Bennett, Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise, and
Radiation; EPA's policy
[[Page 50206]]
memorandum reaffirming and supplementing the above policy, dated
September 20, 1999, from Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and Robert Perciasepe, Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, entitled ``State Implementation
Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup,
and Shutdown'' (September 1999 Policy); EPA's final rule for Utah's
sulfur dioxide control strategy (Kennecott Copper), 42 FR 21472 (April
27, 1977), and EPA's final rule for Idaho's sulfur dioxide control
strategy, 42 FR 58171 (November 8, 1977); and the latest clarification
of EPA's policy issued on December 5, 2001. See the policy or
clarification of policy at: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html.
To find the latest Federally approved Texas SIP concerning excess
emissions see 70 FR 16129 (March 30, 2005).
3. Who Submitted Comments to Us?
We received written comments on our May 9, 2005 (70 FR 24348)
proposed limited approval of the Texas SIP revision. The comments were
submitted by the Environmental Integrity Project, Galveston-Houston
Association for Smog Prevention, Sierra Club Lone Star Chapter, Blue
Skies Alliance, Downwinders at Risk, Community In-Power and Development
Association, Public Citizen's Texas Office, and Texas Public Interest
Research Group (the Commenters) during the public comment period.
4. What Is Our Response to the Submitted Written Comments?
Our responses to the written comments concerning the proposed May
9, 2005 (70 FR 24348), Texas SIP revision are as follows:
Comment #1: The Commenters agree that we should grant a limited
approval of the extended expiration date in subsections 101.221(g) and
101.223(e), but claim that for the following reasons (see Comments
2, 3, and 4) we should disapprove the extension of the
expiration date in subsection 101.222(h).
Response to Comment #1: We appreciate the Commenters' support of
limited approval of subsections 101.221(g) and 101.223(e). See our
responses to Comments 2, 3, and 4 of this document concerning
subsection 101.222(h).
Comment #2: The Commenters state that an affirmative defense cannot
apply to emissions exceedances of the Federally promulgated
performance-based or technology driven standards such as New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS), and National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). While EPA's interpretation of Texas'
rules is clear from EPA's statements in the final limited approval (70
FR at 16132), EPA should not approve a revision to the Texas rules
unless Texas clarifies on the face of the rule that any affirmative
defense does not apply to Federally promulgated performance-based or
technology driven standards or other Federal requirements.
Response to Comment #2: We agree that in order to receive a full
approval of the rule, Texas needs to revise the rule to make clear that
the affirmative defense is not available for violations of Federally
promulgated performance-based or technology driven standards such as
NSPS and NESHAP. In this action, we are only considering a brief
extension of the existing rule for which we issued a limited approval
on March 30, 2005. Because the extension of the expiration date is
brief, we do not believe the underlying flaws in the rule mandate a
disapproval of the extension and that it is appropriate to grant a
limited approval of the revised expiration date. However, we note that
EPA will not approve any further extensions of the expiration date in
the absence of the State correcting the defects in the current rule.
See section 1 of our May 9, 2005 (70 FR 24349).
Comment #3: The Commenters state that subsection 101.222(c) exempts
excess emissions during scheduled maintenance, startup, and shutdown
from permitting requirements, if certain criteria are met, and conclude
that such exemptions could jeopardize SIP's ability to attain and
maintain compliance with the SIP. In addition, the commenters note that
EPA's SSM guidance makes clear that scheduled maintenance, startup and
shutdown activities should be accounted for in the plan and design, and
an affirmative defense should not be available. The Commenters state
that because subsections 101.222(c) and (e) violate the Act and EPA's
guidance, EPA cannot approve an extension of the expiration date for
these provisions.
Response to Comment #3: We agree with many of the points raised by
the Commenters regarding the underlying flaws with subsections
101.222(c) and (e), and those flaws were the basis for our limited,
rather than full approval of the State's excess emissions rules. See
section 3 of our March 30, 2005 (70 FR 16130-16131).
However, we do not think the brief extension of the expiration date
at issue here will have a significant effect and that it is appropriate
to grant a limited approval of the revised expiration provision. As
noted above, however, we will not grant any further extensions of the
expiration date in the absence of a submitted SIP revision correcting
the defects in the rule. See section 1 of our May 9, 2005 (70 FR
24349).
Comment #4: The Commenters state that because subsections
101.222(b) and (d) limit the ability of citizen and EPA enforcement,
EPA cannot approve the extension of the expiration date for these
provisions under section 101.222(h).
Response to Comment #4: In part, we based our rationale for a
limited, rather than a full, approval of Texas SSM rule on concerns
similar to those expressed by the Commenters. See our explanation at 70
FR 16130. As provided above, however, we do not believe these flaws
with the rule for which we granted a limited approval mandate that we
disapprove the brief extension of the expiration date.
This concludes our responses to the written comments we received
during public comment period concerning May 9, 2005 (70 FR 24348),
Texas proposed SIP revision.
5. What Areas in Texas Will These Rule Revisions Affect?
These rule revisions affect all sources of air emissions operating
within the State of Texas that are subject to emission reduction
requirements under the State's SIP approved regulations.
II. Final Action
Today, we are finalizing limited approval of the deletion of
existing SIP subsections 101.221(g), 101.222(h), and 101.223(e) and the
addition of revised subsections 101.221(g), 101.222(h), and 101.223(e)
into the Texas SIP. We published the proposal for this limited approval
on May 9, 2005 (70 FR 24348).
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule
[[Page 50207]]
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state
law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that
required by state law, it 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).
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 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. A
major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in
the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by
5 U.S.C. section 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 25, 2005. 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, Excess emissions,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: August 10, 2005.
Lawrence Starfield,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
0
40 CFR part 52 is amended:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart SS--Texas
0
2. The table in Sec. 52.2270(c) entitled ``EPA Approved Regulations in
the Texas SIP'' is amended by revising the entries for sections
101.221, 101.222, and 101.223 to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2270 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
EPA Approved Regulations in the Texas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State,
approval/,
State citation Title/subject submittal, EPA approval date Explanation
date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Chapter 101--General Air Quality Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Subchapter F--Emissions Events and Scheduled Maintenance, Startup, and Shutdown Activities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Section 101.221.................. Operational 06/03/05 08/26/05, [Insert With Expiration
Requirements. FR citation from Date.
published date].
Section 101.222.................. Demonstrations...... 06/03/05 08/26/05, [Insert With Expiration
FR citation from Date.
published date].
Section 101.223.................. Actions to Reduce 06/03/05 08/26/05, [Insert With Expiration
Excessive Emissions. FR citation from Date.
published date].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 50208]]
[FR Doc. 05-16933 Filed 8-25-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P