Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Reasonably Available Control Technology for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 19599-19602 [2013-07388]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
[FR Doc. 2013–07391 Filed 4–1–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R06–OAR–2012–0100; FRL–9795–3]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Texas;
Reasonably Available Control
Technology for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The EPA is finalizing its
proposal to approve revisions to the
Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP)
for the Houston/Galveston/Brazoria
(HGB) 1997 8-Hour ozone
nonattainment Area (Area). The HGB
Area consists of Brazoria, Chambers,
Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty,
Montgomery and Waller counties.
Specifically, we are finalizing our
proposed approval of portions of two
revisions to the Texas SIP submitted by
the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ) as
meeting certain Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT)
requirements for Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOC), and Oxides of
Nitrogen (NOX) in the HGB Area. We are
also finalizing our proposal to approve
the 2007 Voluntary Mobile Emission
Reduction Program (VMEP)
commitments for the HGB Area. This
action is in accordance with section 110
of the federal Clean Air Act (the Act,
CAA).
SUMMARY:
This rule will be effective on
May 2, 2013.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R06–OAR–2012–0100. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., Confidential Business Information
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air Planning Section (6PD–L),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1445
Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
DATES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Apr 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
75202–2733. The file will be made
available by appointment for public
inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review
Room between the hours of 8:30am and
4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal
holidays. Contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
paragraph below 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Alan Shar, Air Planning Section (6PD–
L), Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700,
Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, telephone
(214) 665–6691, fax (214) 665–7263,
email address shar.alan@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
Outline
I. Background
A. What actions are we approving?
1. The June 13, 2007 submittal
2. The April 6, 2010 submittal
B. When did the public comment period
expire?
II. Evaluation
A. What are the public comments and
EPA’s response to them?
B. What is TCEQ’s approach and analysis
to RACT in the June 13, 2007 submittal?
C. What CTG source categories are we
addressing in this action?
D. Does the revision to 30 TAC Chapter 115
of the June 13, 2007 submittal meet
RACT for liquid storage sources in the
HGB Area?
E. Is Texas’ approach to major Non-CTG
sources for RACT determination in the
HGB Area acceptable?
F. Is Texas’ approach to RACT
determination for CTG source categories
based on the June 13, 2007 and April 6,
2010 submittals acceptable?
G. Is Texas’ approach to RACT
determination for NOX sources based on
the June 13, 2007 and April 6, 2010
submittals acceptable?
H. Is Texas’ approach to RACT
determination for VOC and NOX sources
based on the June 13, 2007 and April 6,
2010 submittals acceptable?
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. What actions are we approving?
In EPA’s September 19, 2012 (77 FR
58063) rulemaking action we proposed
to approve portions of revisions to the
Texas SIP submitted to EPA in two
separate letters dated June 13, 2007 and
April 6, 2010 from TCEQ. We are
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
19599
finalizing our proposed approval as
described below.
1. The June 13, 2007 Submittal
We are finalizing our proposal to
approve the June 13, 2007 submittal,
sent to EPA from TCEQ, which in part,
included the Voluntary Mobile
Emission Reduction Program (VMEP)
commitments as strategies to
complement existing regulatory
programs through voluntary, nonregulatory changes in local
transportation activities or changes in
in-use vehicle and engine composition.
Economic incentive provisions are also
available in sections 182 and 108 of the
Act. Credits generated through VMEP
can be counted toward attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS. Due to the
voluntary nature of this program, only
up to 3% of the total future year
emissions reductions required to attain
an appropriate NAAQS may be claimed
under the VMEP policy guidance.
In addition, the June 13, 2007
submittal included an analysis intended
to demonstrate RACT was being
implemented in the HGB Area as
required by the CAA (Appendix D of the
submittal).
2. The April 6, 2010 Submittal
Texas supplemented the RACT
analysis contained in the June 13, 2007
submittal as a part of the April 6, 2010
revision to the Texas SIP. We are
finalizing the proposal to find, based on
the analysis in Appendix D of the April
6, 2010 submittal, in conjunction with
the June 13, 2007 submission, that
Texas has met certain RACT
requirements under section 182(b).
Appendix D of the April 6, 2010
submittal is titled ‘‘Reasonably
Available Control Technology
Analysis.’’ See section B of the
September 19, 2012 (77 FR 58063)
proposal for more information on RACT
evaluation for the HGB Area.
B. When did the public comment period
expire?
The public comment period for the 77
FR 58063 proposed approval ended on
October 19, 2012, and we received
relevant comments from TCEQ and the
8-Hour Ozone SIP Coalition (the
Coalition) on this rulemaking action
during its comment period. See section
II below.
II. Evaluation
A. What are the public comments and
EPA’s response to them?
Comment: TCEQ and the Coalition
both expressed their support for the
September 19, 2012 (77 FR 58063)
rulemaking action. TCEQ stated that
E:\FR\FM\02APR1.SGM
02APR1
19600
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
EPA should expedite approval of RACT
SIP for other CTG categories not
included in the proposal.
Response: The EPA appreciates the
commenters’ support of our proposed
approval. The EPA is cognizant of other
VOC CTG categories in the HGB Area.
As stated in the proposal, EPA intends
to act upon other VOC CTG categories
(including the negative declarations)
separately in a different rulemaking
action.
Comment: TCEQ requested that the
EPA provide clarification on how long
the VMEP measures submitted on June
13, 2007 must remain in place. TCEQ
interprets this time period to be through
the year 2009.
Response: The basic framework for
ensuring SIP credit for VMEPs is spelled
out in guidance issued under a
memorandum from Richard D. Wilson,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation, dated October 24, 1997,
entitled ‘‘Guidance on Incorporating
Voluntary Mobile Source Emission
Reduction Programs in State
Implementation Plans (SIPs).’’ (the
Policy). For VMEP credits to be
approvable they should be quantifiable,
surplus, enforceable, permanent, and
adequately supported. The Policy states
that ‘‘emission reductions produced by
the VMEP must continue at least for as
long as the time period in which they
are used by applicable SIP
demonstrations. The VMEP need not
continue forever to generate permanent
emissions reductions, but must specify
an appropriate period of
implementation in the SIP.’’ See page 19
of the Policy. In addition, ‘‘the
voluntary program should be permanent
unless it is replaced by another measure
(through a SIP revision) or the State
demonstrates in a SIP revision that the
emission reductions from the voluntary
program are no longer needed.’’ See
page 5 of the Policy. The VMEP for an
area can be revised by a SIP revision
that substitutes or adds other VMEP
measures, if needed. The 2007 VMEP
measures are considered permanent and
remain part of Texas SIP until the states
revises its SIP, or demonstrates in a SIP
revision that the emission reductions
(for example; the 2.82 tons per day of
NOX reductions) from the voluntary
program are no longer needed. In 2010,
Texas revised the 2007 VMEP measures
as a part of the HGB Area attainment
demonstration plan. See section 4.6.2.2:
Voluntary Mobile Emission Reduction
Program (VMEP) and Appendix H of the
2010 submittal. Based on above Policy
statements and the supporting record/
documentation, the 2010 VMEP
measures, submitted with the 2010 HGB
Area attainment demonstration plan,
supersede and replace the 2007 VMEP
measures. We will be taking action on
the 2010 VMEP measures in a different
rulemaking. In short, EPA interprets the
2007 VMEP measures remain in place
through the year 2009 (that is until the
year 2010) when the State updated its
HGB Area attainment demonstration
plan.
This concludes our response to the
comments received on the September
19, 2012 (77 FR 58063) proposal during
comment period. As a result of
comments received no changes were
made to the proposed approval action.
B. What is TCEQ’s approach and
analysis to RACT in the June 13, 2007
submittal?
Under sections 182(b)(2)(A) and (B),
states must insure RACT is in place for
each source category for which EPA
issued a CTG. As a part of its June 13,
2007 submittal TCEQ conducted a
RACT analysis to demonstrate that the
RACT requirements for CTG sources in
the HGB 8-Hour ozone nonattainment
Area have been fulfilled. The TCEQ
revised and supplemented this analysis
in the April 6, 2010 submittal. For
information on how TCEQ conducted its
RACT analysis see section E of the
September 19, 2012 (77 FR 58065)
proposal. We are finalizing our proposal
finding that TCEQ has properly
conducted its analysis, and their
approach to control requirements are in
agreement with the CAA RACT
requirements for VOC sources in the
HGB Area listed in Table 1 below.
C. What CTG source categories are we
addressing in this action?
Table 1 below contains a list of VOC
CTG source categories, and their
corresponding sections of 30 TAC
Chapter 115 that fulfill the applicable
RACT requirements.
TABLE 1—CTG SOURCE CATEGORIES AND THEIR CORRESPONDING TEXAS VOC RACT RULES
Fulfilling RACT requirement, 30
TAC Chapter 115
Source category in HGB area
Bulk Gasoline Plants ..............................................................................................................................................
Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing ..........................................................................................................................
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry–Polymer & Resin Manufacturing ........................................
Gasoline Tank Trucks & Vapor Collection Systems ..............................................................................................
Refineries—Leaks from Equipment ........................................................................................................................
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry—High Density Resins .........................................................
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry—Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products .............................
Petroleum Liquid Storage—External Floating Roof Tanks ....................................................................................
Refineries—Vacuum Producing Systems, Wastewater Separators, Unit Turnarounds ........................................
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry—Air Oxidation Processes ...................................................
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry—Reactor Processes & Distillation Operations ...................
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair .................................................................................................................................
Solvent Metal Cleaning ..........................................................................................................................................
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Gasoline Service Stations ......................................................................................................................................
Petroleum Liquid Storage—Fixed Roof Tanks .......................................................................................................
Tank Trucks—Gasoline Loading Terminals ...........................................................................................................
In addition, Texas declared that there
are no existing major sources of rubber
tire manufacturing, identified with the
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Apr 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
3011, in the HGB Area. As such, TCEQ
does not have to adopt VOC regulations
for this source category at this time for
the HGB Area. We are also finalizing our
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
§ 115.211–219
§ 115.352–359
§ 115.352–359
§ 115.211–219
239
§ 115.352–359
§ 115.120–129
§ 115.531–539
§ 115.112–119
§ 115.311–319
139
§ 115.120–129
§ 115.120–129
§ 115.420–429
§ 115.412–419
429
§ 115.221–229
§ 115.112–119
§ 115.211–219
and § 115.234–
and § 115.131–
and § 115.420–
or § 115.221–229
proposed approval of Texas’ negative
declaration for this source category.
E:\FR\FM\02APR1.SGM
02APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
D. Does the revision to 30 TAC Chapter
115 of the June 13, 2007 submittal meet
RACT for liquid storage sources in the
HGB Area?
On March 29, 2010 (75 FR 15348) we
approved revisions to 30 TAC, Chapter
115 Control of Air Pollution from
Volatile Organic Compounds. On
September 19, 2012 (77 FR 58063), we
proposed approval of these revisions as
satisfying RACT requirements for liquid
storage sources in the HGB Area. We are
now finalizing our proposed approval of
these revisions and finding that by
implementing these measures Texas is
meeting the VOC RACT for liquid
storage sources in the HGB Area.
E. Is Texas’ approach to major Non-CTG
sources for RACT determination in the
HGB Area acceptable?
Under section 182(b)(2)(C), states
must assure that major sources not
covered by a CTG have RACT in place.
Texas has identified a list, in its
Appendix D of the April 6, 2010
submittal, of major VOC sources in the
HGB Area to determine if any do not
have RACT level controls in place and
do not fall into the identified sectors for
which EPA has issued a CTG. For
information on how TCEQ reviewed the
point source emissions inventory and
title V databases to identify all major
sources of VOC emissions see section I
of the September 19, 2012 (77 FR
58063). As a part of our approval of the
1-Hour ozone attainment demonstration
plan for the HGB Area at 70 FR 58136,
October 5, 2005, and 71 FR 52676,
September 6, 2006, we stated that Texas
has met RACT for VOC and NOX
sources. In its April 06, 2010, submittal
to EPA Texas identified major Non-CTG
sources, certified that it has RACT in
place, and we proposed approval of
their determination at September 19,
2012 (77 FR 58063). We are finalizing
our proposed approval finding that the
Texas SIP meets the RACT requirements
for the major Non-CTG sources of VOC
in the HGB Area under the 1997 8-Hour
ozone NAAQS.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
F. Is Texas’ approach to RACT
determination for CTG source categories
based on the June 13, 2007 and April 6,
2010 submittals acceptable?
As a part of our action on the 1-Hour
ozone attainment demonstration plan
for the HGB Area at 70 FR 58136,
October 5, 2005; and 71 FR 52676,
September 6, 2006, we stated that Texas
has met RACT for VOC and NOX
sources. In its submittals to EPA, TCEQ
stated that it has reviewed the HGB VOC
rules, certified that they satisfy RACT
requirements for the 8-Hour ozone
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Apr 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
standard by the application of control
technology that is reasonably available
considering technological and economic
feasibility, and we proposed approval of
their determination on September 19,
2012 (77 FR 58063). For more
information see section J of the
September 19, 2012 (77 FR 58063). We
are finalizing the proposed approval
that VOC control measures in Chapter
115 meet RACT requirements for CTG
sources of VOC in the HGB Area under
the 1997 8-Hour ozone NAAQS. By
implementing these control
requirements (Chapter 115), Texas is
satisfying the RACT requirements for
CTG source categories identified in
Table 1 of this document in the HGB
Area under the 1997 8-Hour ozone
standard.
G. Is Texas’ approach to RACT
determination for NOX sources based on
the June 13, 2007 and April 6, 2010
submittals acceptable?
As a part of our approval of the 1Hour ozone attainment demonstration
plan for the HGB Area at 70 FR 58136,
October 5, 2005; and 71 FR 52676,
September 6, 2006, we stated that Texas
has met RACT for VOC and NOX
sources. In its submittals to EPA, TCEQ
stated that it has reviewed the HGB NOX
rules, certified that they satisfy RACT
requirements for the 8-Hour ozone
standard by the application of control
technology that is reasonably available
considering technological and economic
feasibility, and we proposed approval of
their determination on September 19,
2012 (77 FR 58063). For more
information see section L of the
September 19, 2012 (77 FR 58063). We
are finalizing the proposed approval
that NOX control measures in Chapter
117 meet RACT requirements for major
sources of NOX in the HGB Area under
the 1997 8-Hour ozone NAAQS. By
implementing these control
requirements (Chapter 117), Texas is
satisfying the RACT requirements for
NOX source in the HGB Area under the
1997 8-Hour ozone standard.
19601
58063). As such, and based upon the
above 3 sections (sections E, F, and G),
we are finalizing our proposed approval
finding that, for major sources of NOX,
CTG VOC categories identified in Table
1, and Non-CTG VOC sources, Texas has
RACT-level controls in place for the
HGB Area under the 1997 8-Hour ozone
standard.
III. Final Action
Today, we are finalizing our proposal
to find that for VOC CTG categories
identified in Table 1 and all major NonCTG VOC sources, and for NOX, Texas
has RACT-level controls in place for the
HGB Area under the 1997 8-Hour ozone
standard. The EPA had previously
approved RACT for VOC and NOX into
Texas’ SIP under the 1-Hour ozone
standard. We are also finalizing our
proposal to approve the 2007 VMEP into
Texas SIP.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews:
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
state choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
H. Is Texas’ approach to RACT
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
determination for VOC and NOX sources U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
based on the June 13, 2007 and April 6,
• Does not contain any unfunded
2010 submittals acceptable?
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
The purpose of 30 TAC Chapter 115
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
and 117 rules for the HGB Area is to
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
establish reasonable controls on the
• Does not have Federalism
emissions of ozone precursors. Texas
implications as specified in Executive
reviewed its VOC and NOX rules and
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
certified that its rules satisfy RACT
1999);
requirements, and we proposed
• Is not an economically significant
approval of their determination at
regulatory action based on health or
September 19, 2012 (77 FR 58063). For
safety risks subject to Executive Order
more information see sections K and L
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
of the September 19, 2012 (77 FR
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\02APR1.SGM
02APR1
19602
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); and
• Does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because
the SIP is not approved to apply in
Indian country located in the state, and
EPA notes that it will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
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. EPA will submit a
report containing this action 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. 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 June 3, 2013.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this action for
the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a
petition for judicial review may be filed,
and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may
not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: March 20, 2013.
Ron Curry,
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 for Part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart SS—Texas
2. In Section 52.2270, the second table
in paragraph (e) entitled ‘‘EPAApproved Nonregulatory Provisions and
Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas
SIP’’ is amended by adding three new
entries at the end.
■
§ 52.2270
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
*
*
EPA-APPROVED NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES IN THE TEXAS SIP
Applicable geographic or
nonattainment area
State submittal/effective date
EPA approval date
*
*
*
Voluntary Mobile Emission Re- Brazoria, Chambers, Fort
duction Program (VMEP).
Bend, Galveston, Harris,
Liberty, Montgomery and
Waller Counties, TX.
NOX RACT finding for the
Brazoria, Chambers, Fort
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Bend, Galveston, Harris,
Liberty, Montgomery and
Waller Counties, TX.
VOC RACT finding for the
Brazoria, Chambers, Fort
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Bend, Galveston, Harris,
Liberty, Montgomery and
Waller Counties, TX.
*
*
June 13, 2007 ........................
*
4/2/13, [Insert FR page number where document begins].
April 6, 2010 ...........................
4/2/13, [Insert FR page number where document begins].
April 6, 2010 ...........................
4/2/13, [Insert FR page number where document begins].
Name of SIP provision
ACTION:
[FR Doc. 2013–07388 Filed 4–1–13; 8:45 am]
Direct final rule.
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
EPA is taking direct final
action to approve a revision to the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) and
Operating Permits Program to amend
the definitions provisions of the rules.
This SIP revision and revision to the
Missouri operating permits program add
the compounds propylene carbonate
and dimethyl carbonate to the list of
compounds which are excluded from
the definition of Volatile Organic
Compound (VOC) for consistency with
the Federal definition of VOC. The SIP
revision also corrects two asbestos
SUMMARY:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 70
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
[EPA–R07–OAR–2012–0749; FRL–9795–2]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans and Operating
Permits Program; State of Missouri
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Apr 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Comments
*
For selected
categories.
method subpart references. This
revision also approves Missouri’s
request to amend the SIP to meet the
2008 fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
implementation requirements of the
May 16, 2008, New Source Review
(NSR) PM2.5 Rule. In this SIP revision,
Missouri adopted rule revisions to
establish the requirement for NSR
permits to address directly emitted
PM2.5 and precursor pollutants; and
significant emission rates for direct
PM2.5 and precursor pollutants (sulfur
dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen dioxide
(NOX)).
E:\FR\FM\02APR1.SGM
02APR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 63 (Tuesday, April 2, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19599-19602]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07388]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R06-OAR-2012-0100; FRL-9795-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas;
Reasonably Available Control Technology for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is finalizing its proposal to approve revisions to the
Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Houston/Galveston/
Brazoria (HGB) 1997 8-Hour ozone nonattainment Area (Area). The HGB
Area consists of Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris,
Liberty, Montgomery and Waller counties. Specifically, we are
finalizing our proposed approval of portions of two revisions to the
Texas SIP submitted by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ) as meeting certain Reasonably Available Control Technology
(RACT) requirements for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), and Oxides of
Nitrogen (NOX) in the HGB Area. We are also finalizing our
proposal to approve the 2007 Voluntary Mobile Emission Reduction
Program (VMEP) commitments for the HGB Area. This action is in
accordance with section 110 of the federal Clean Air Act (the Act,
CAA).
DATES: This rule will be effective on May 2, 2013.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2012-0100. All documents in the docket are
listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy 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 8:30am and 4:30 p.m.
weekdays except for legal holidays. Contact the person listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph below 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Alan Shar, Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-6691, fax
(214) 665-7263, email address shar.alan@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.
Outline
I. Background
A. What actions are we approving?
1. The June 13, 2007 submittal
2. The April 6, 2010 submittal
B. When did the public comment period expire?
II. Evaluation
A. What are the public comments and EPA's response to them?
B. What is TCEQ's approach and analysis to RACT in the June 13,
2007 submittal?
C. What CTG source categories are we addressing in this action?
D. Does the revision to 30 TAC Chapter 115 of the June 13, 2007
submittal meet RACT for liquid storage sources in the HGB Area?
E. Is Texas' approach to major Non-CTG sources for RACT
determination in the HGB Area acceptable?
F. Is Texas' approach to RACT determination for CTG source
categories based on the June 13, 2007 and April 6, 2010 submittals
acceptable?
G. Is Texas' approach to RACT determination for NOX
sources based on the June 13, 2007 and April 6, 2010 submittals
acceptable?
H. Is Texas' approach to RACT determination for VOC and
NOX sources based on the June 13, 2007 and April 6, 2010
submittals acceptable?
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. What actions are we approving?
In EPA's September 19, 2012 (77 FR 58063) rulemaking action we
proposed to approve portions of revisions to the Texas SIP submitted to
EPA in two separate letters dated June 13, 2007 and April 6, 2010 from
TCEQ. We are finalizing our proposed approval as described below.
1. The June 13, 2007 Submittal
We are finalizing our proposal to approve the June 13, 2007
submittal, sent to EPA from TCEQ, which in part, included the Voluntary
Mobile Emission Reduction Program (VMEP) commitments as strategies to
complement existing regulatory programs through voluntary, non-
regulatory changes in local transportation activities or changes in in-
use vehicle and engine composition. Economic incentive provisions are
also available in sections 182 and 108 of the Act. Credits generated
through VMEP can be counted toward attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS. Due to the voluntary nature of this program, only up to 3% of
the total future year emissions reductions required to attain an
appropriate NAAQS may be claimed under the VMEP policy guidance.
In addition, the June 13, 2007 submittal included an analysis
intended to demonstrate RACT was being implemented in the HGB Area as
required by the CAA (Appendix D of the submittal).
2. The April 6, 2010 Submittal
Texas supplemented the RACT analysis contained in the June 13, 2007
submittal as a part of the April 6, 2010 revision to the Texas SIP. We
are finalizing the proposal to find, based on the analysis in Appendix
D of the April 6, 2010 submittal, in conjunction with the June 13, 2007
submission, that Texas has met certain RACT requirements under section
182(b). Appendix D of the April 6, 2010 submittal is titled
``Reasonably Available Control Technology Analysis.'' See section B of
the September 19, 2012 (77 FR 58063) proposal for more information on
RACT evaluation for the HGB Area.
B. When did the public comment period expire?
The public comment period for the 77 FR 58063 proposed approval
ended on October 19, 2012, and we received relevant comments from TCEQ
and the 8-Hour Ozone SIP Coalition (the Coalition) on this rulemaking
action during its comment period. See section II below.
II. Evaluation
A. What are the public comments and EPA's response to them?
Comment: TCEQ and the Coalition both expressed their support for
the September 19, 2012 (77 FR 58063) rulemaking action. TCEQ stated
that
[[Page 19600]]
EPA should expedite approval of RACT SIP for other CTG categories not
included in the proposal.
Response: The EPA appreciates the commenters' support of our
proposed approval. The EPA is cognizant of other VOC CTG categories in
the HGB Area. As stated in the proposal, EPA intends to act upon other
VOC CTG categories (including the negative declarations) separately in
a different rulemaking action.
Comment: TCEQ requested that the EPA provide clarification on how
long the VMEP measures submitted on June 13, 2007 must remain in place.
TCEQ interprets this time period to be through the year 2009.
Response: The basic framework for ensuring SIP credit for VMEPs is
spelled out in guidance issued under a memorandum from Richard D.
Wilson, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated
October 24, 1997, entitled ``Guidance on Incorporating Voluntary Mobile
Source Emission Reduction Programs in State Implementation Plans
(SIPs).'' (the Policy). For VMEP credits to be approvable they should
be quantifiable, surplus, enforceable, permanent, and adequately
supported. The Policy states that ``emission reductions produced by the
VMEP must continue at least for as long as the time period in which
they are used by applicable SIP demonstrations. The VMEP need not
continue forever to generate permanent emissions reductions, but must
specify an appropriate period of implementation in the SIP.'' See page
19 of the Policy. In addition, ``the voluntary program should be
permanent unless it is replaced by another measure (through a SIP
revision) or the State demonstrates in a SIP revision that the emission
reductions from the voluntary program are no longer needed.'' See page
5 of the Policy. The VMEP for an area can be revised by a SIP revision
that substitutes or adds other VMEP measures, if needed. The 2007 VMEP
measures are considered permanent and remain part of Texas SIP until
the states revises its SIP, or demonstrates in a SIP revision that the
emission reductions (for example; the 2.82 tons per day of
NOX reductions) from the voluntary program are no longer
needed. In 2010, Texas revised the 2007 VMEP measures as a part of the
HGB Area attainment demonstration plan. See section 4.6.2.2: Voluntary
Mobile Emission Reduction Program (VMEP) and Appendix H of the 2010
submittal. Based on above Policy statements and the supporting record/
documentation, the 2010 VMEP measures, submitted with the 2010 HGB Area
attainment demonstration plan, supersede and replace the 2007 VMEP
measures. We will be taking action on the 2010 VMEP measures in a
different rulemaking. In short, EPA interprets the 2007 VMEP measures
remain in place through the year 2009 (that is until the year 2010)
when the State updated its HGB Area attainment demonstration plan.
This concludes our response to the comments received on the
September 19, 2012 (77 FR 58063) proposal during comment period. As a
result of comments received no changes were made to the proposed
approval action.
B. What is TCEQ's approach and analysis to RACT in the June 13, 2007
submittal?
Under sections 182(b)(2)(A) and (B), states must insure RACT is in
place for each source category for which EPA issued a CTG. As a part of
its June 13, 2007 submittal TCEQ conducted a RACT analysis to
demonstrate that the RACT requirements for CTG sources in the HGB 8-
Hour ozone nonattainment Area have been fulfilled. The TCEQ revised and
supplemented this analysis in the April 6, 2010 submittal. For
information on how TCEQ conducted its RACT analysis see section E of
the September 19, 2012 (77 FR 58065) proposal. We are finalizing our
proposal finding that TCEQ has properly conducted its analysis, and
their approach to control requirements are in agreement with the CAA
RACT requirements for VOC sources in the HGB Area listed in Table 1
below.
C. What CTG source categories are we addressing in this action?
Table 1 below contains a list of VOC CTG source categories, and
their corresponding sections of 30 TAC Chapter 115 that fulfill the
applicable RACT requirements.
Table 1--CTG Source Categories and Their Corresponding Texas VOC RACT
Rules
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fulfilling RACT requirement, 30 TAC
Source category in HGB area Chapter 115
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bulk Gasoline Plants.......... Sec. 115.211-219
Natural Gas/Gasoline Sec. 115.352-359
Processing.
Synthetic Organic Chemical Sec. 115.352-359
Manufacturing Industry-
Polymer & Resin Manufacturing.
Gasoline Tank Trucks & Vapor Sec. 115.211-219 and Sec. 115.234-
Collection Systems. 239
Refineries--Leaks from Sec. 115.352-359
Equipment.
Synthetic Organic Chemical Sec. 115.120-129
Manufacturing Industry--High
Density Resins.
Synthetic Organic Chemical Sec. 115.531-539
Manufacturing Industry--
Synthesized Pharmaceutical
Products.
Petroleum Liquid Storage-- Sec. 115.112-119
External Floating Roof Tanks.
Refineries--Vacuum Producing Sec. 115.311-319 and Sec. 115.131-
Systems, Wastewater 139
Separators, Unit Turnarounds.
Synthetic Organic Chemical Sec. 115.120-129
Manufacturing Industry--Air
Oxidation Processes.
Synthetic Organic Chemical Sec. 115.120-129
Manufacturing Industry--
Reactor Processes &
Distillation Operations.
Shipbuilding and Ship Repair.. Sec. 115.420-429
Solvent Metal Cleaning........ Sec. 115.412-419 and Sec. 115.420-
429
Gasoline Service Stations..... Sec. 115.221-229
Petroleum Liquid Storage-- Sec. 115.112-119
Fixed Roof Tanks.
Tank Trucks--Gasoline Loading Sec. 115.211-219 or Sec. 115.221-229
Terminals.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, Texas declared that there are no existing major
sources of rubber tire manufacturing, identified with the Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) 3011, in the HGB Area. As such, TCEQ
does not have to adopt VOC regulations for this source category at this
time for the HGB Area. We are also finalizing our proposed approval of
Texas' negative declaration for this source category.
[[Page 19601]]
D. Does the revision to 30 TAC Chapter 115 of the June 13, 2007
submittal meet RACT for liquid storage sources in the HGB Area?
On March 29, 2010 (75 FR 15348) we approved revisions to 30 TAC,
Chapter 115 Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds.
On September 19, 2012 (77 FR 58063), we proposed approval of these
revisions as satisfying RACT requirements for liquid storage sources in
the HGB Area. We are now finalizing our proposed approval of these
revisions and finding that by implementing these measures Texas is
meeting the VOC RACT for liquid storage sources in the HGB Area.
E. Is Texas' approach to major Non-CTG sources for RACT determination
in the HGB Area acceptable?
Under section 182(b)(2)(C), states must assure that major sources
not covered by a CTG have RACT in place. Texas has identified a list,
in its Appendix D of the April 6, 2010 submittal, of major VOC sources
in the HGB Area to determine if any do not have RACT level controls in
place and do not fall into the identified sectors for which EPA has
issued a CTG. For information on how TCEQ reviewed the point source
emissions inventory and title V databases to identify all major sources
of VOC emissions see section I of the September 19, 2012 (77 FR 58063).
As a part of our approval of the 1-Hour ozone attainment demonstration
plan for the HGB Area at 70 FR 58136, October 5, 2005, and 71 FR 52676,
September 6, 2006, we stated that Texas has met RACT for VOC and
NOX sources. In its April 06, 2010, submittal to EPA Texas
identified major Non-CTG sources, certified that it has RACT in place,
and we proposed approval of their determination at September 19, 2012
(77 FR 58063). We are finalizing our proposed approval finding that the
Texas SIP meets the RACT requirements for the major Non-CTG sources of
VOC in the HGB Area under the 1997 8-Hour ozone NAAQS.
F. Is Texas' approach to RACT determination for CTG source categories
based on the June 13, 2007 and April 6, 2010 submittals acceptable?
As a part of our action on the 1-Hour ozone attainment
demonstration plan for the HGB Area at 70 FR 58136, October 5, 2005;
and 71 FR 52676, September 6, 2006, we stated that Texas has met RACT
for VOC and NOX sources. In its submittals to EPA, TCEQ
stated that it has reviewed the HGB VOC rules, certified that they
satisfy RACT requirements for the 8-Hour ozone standard by the
application of control technology that is reasonably available
considering technological and economic feasibility, and we proposed
approval of their determination on September 19, 2012 (77 FR 58063).
For more information see section J of the September 19, 2012 (77 FR
58063). We are finalizing the proposed approval that VOC control
measures in Chapter 115 meet RACT requirements for CTG sources of VOC
in the HGB Area under the 1997 8-Hour ozone NAAQS. By implementing
these control requirements (Chapter 115), Texas is satisfying the RACT
requirements for CTG source categories identified in Table 1 of this
document in the HGB Area under the 1997 8-Hour ozone standard.
G. Is Texas' approach to RACT determination for NOX sources
based on the June 13, 2007 and April 6, 2010 submittals acceptable?
As a part of our approval of the 1-Hour ozone attainment
demonstration plan for the HGB Area at 70 FR 58136, October 5, 2005;
and 71 FR 52676, September 6, 2006, we stated that Texas has met RACT
for VOC and NOX sources. In its submittals to EPA, TCEQ
stated that it has reviewed the HGB NOX rules, certified
that they satisfy RACT requirements for the 8-Hour ozone standard by
the application of control technology that is reasonably available
considering technological and economic feasibility, and we proposed
approval of their determination on September 19, 2012 (77 FR 58063).
For more information see section L of the September 19, 2012 (77 FR
58063). We are finalizing the proposed approval that NOX
control measures in Chapter 117 meet RACT requirements for major
sources of NOX in the HGB Area under the 1997 8-Hour ozone
NAAQS. By implementing these control requirements (Chapter 117), Texas
is satisfying the RACT requirements for NOX source in the
HGB Area under the 1997 8-Hour ozone standard.
H. Is Texas' approach to RACT determination for VOC and NOX
sources based on the June 13, 2007 and April 6, 2010 submittals
acceptable?
The purpose of 30 TAC Chapter 115 and 117 rules for the HGB Area is
to establish reasonable controls on the emissions of ozone precursors.
Texas reviewed its VOC and NOX rules and certified that its
rules satisfy RACT requirements, and we proposed approval of their
determination at September 19, 2012 (77 FR 58063). For more information
see sections K and L of the September 19, 2012 (77 FR 58063). As such,
and based upon the above 3 sections (sections E, F, and G), we are
finalizing our proposed approval finding that, for major sources of
NOX, CTG VOC categories identified in Table 1, and Non-CTG
VOC sources, Texas has RACT-level controls in place for the HGB Area
under the 1997 8-Hour ozone standard.
III. Final Action
Today, we are finalizing our proposal to find that for VOC CTG
categories identified in Table 1 and all major Non-CTG VOC sources, and
for NOX, Texas has RACT-level controls in place for the HGB
Area under the 1997 8-Hour ozone standard. The EPA had previously
approved RACT for VOC and NOX into Texas' SIP under the 1-
Hour ozone standard. We are also finalizing our proposal to approve the
2007 VMEP into Texas SIP.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews:
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
[[Page 19602]]
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act;
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); and
Does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and
EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
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. EPA will submit a report containing this action 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.
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 June 3, 2013. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: March 20, 2013.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
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. In Section 52.2270, the second table in paragraph (e) entitled
``EPA-Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
in the Texas SIP'' is amended by adding three new entries at the end.
Sec. 52.2270 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
EPA-Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable
Name of SIP provision geographic or State submittal/ EPA approval date Comments
nonattainment area effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Voluntary Mobile Emission Brazoria, June 13, 2007..... 4/2/13, [Insert FR
Reduction Program (VMEP). Chambers, Fort page number where
Bend, Galveston, document begins].
Harris, Liberty,
Montgomery and
Waller Counties,
TX.
NOX RACT finding for the 1997 8- Brazoria, April 6, 2010..... 4/2/13, [Insert FR
hour ozone NAAQS. Chambers, Fort page number where
Bend, Galveston, document begins].
Harris, Liberty,
Montgomery and
Waller Counties,
TX.
VOC RACT finding for the 1997 8- Brazoria, April 6, 2010..... 4/2/13, [Insert FR For selected
hour ozone NAAQS. Chambers, Fort page number where categories.
Bend, Galveston, document begins].
Harris, Liberty,
Montgomery and
Waller Counties,
TX.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2013-07388 Filed 4-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
