Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Proposed Rules 58063 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• 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 CAA; and 

• 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). 

In addition, this rule 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: September 11, 2012. 

Samuel Coleman, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2012–23123 Filed 9–18–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2012–0100; FRL–9728–8] 

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: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing 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 proposing to approve 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 proposing 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: Comments must be received on 

or before October 19, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2012–0100, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• U.S. EPA Region 6 ‘‘Contact Us’’ 

Web site: http://epa.gov/region6/ 

r6coment.htm. Please click on ‘‘6PD’’ 

(Multimedia) and select ‘‘Air’’ before 

submitting comments. 

• Email: Mr. Guy Donaldson at 

donaldson.guy@epa.gov. Please also 

send a copy by email to the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section below. 

• Fax: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air 

Planning Section (6PD–L), at fax 

number 214–665–7263. 

• Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, 

Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. 

• Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Guy 

Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section 

(6PD–L), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. Such 

deliveries are accepted only between the 

hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. 

weekdays except for legal holidays. 

Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–2012– 

0100. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

the disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Do not submit information 

through www.regulations.gov or email 

that you consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected from disclosure. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

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 8:30 a.m. 

and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal 

holidays. Contact the person listed in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

paragraph below 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 75202– 

2733. 

The State submittal is also available 

for public inspection at the State Air 

Agency listed below during official 

business hours by appointment: TCEQ, 

Office of Air Quality, 12124 Park 35 

Circle, Austin, Texas 78753. 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
58064 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

(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 proposing? 

1. The June 13, 2007 Submittal 

2. What is a VMEP commitment? 

3. The April 6, 2010 Submittal 

B. What is RACT? 

II. Evaluation 

A. What types of VMEP commitments 

qualify for SIP credit? 

B. What type of programs did Texas submit 

as VMEP? 

C. Do the 2007 VMEPs meet our 

requirements for approval? 

D. What action is EPA taking on the 2007 

VMEP? 

E. What is TCEQ’s approach and analysis 

to RACT in the June 13, 2007 submittal? 

F. What CTG source categories are we 

addressing in this action? 

G. Are there any negative declarations 

associated with the VOC source 

categories in the HGB Area? 

H. Why does the revision to 30 TAC 

Chapter 115 of the June 13, 2007 

submittal meet RACT? 

I. Is Texas’ approach to major Non-CTG 

sources for RACT determination in the 

HGB Area acceptable? 

J. Is Texas’ approach to RACT 

determination for CTG sources based on 

the June 13, 2007 and April 6, 2010 

submittals acceptable? 

K. Is Texas’ approach to RACT 

determination for VOC sources based on 

the June 13, 2007 and April 6, 2010 

submittals acceptable? 

L. Is Texas’ approach to for RACT 

determination for major NOX sources 

based on the June 13, 2007 and April 6, 

2010 submittals acceptable? 

III. Proposed Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. What actions are we proposing? 

We are proposing to approve portions 

of revisions to the Texas SIP submitted 

to EPA with two separate letters dated 

June 13, 2007 and April 6, 2010 from 

TCEQ. These two separate submittals 

are described below. 

1. The June 13, 2007 Submittal 

The June 13, 2007 submittal, sent to 

EPA from TCEQ, included the following 

components. (1) Control of Air Pollution 

from Motor Vehicles, (2) Control of Air 

Pollution from Volatile Organic 

Compounds, and (3) Voluntary Mobile 

Emission Reduction Program (VMEP) 

commitments. Each component is 

discussed below. The first component 

concerns revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 

114 Control of Air Pollution from Motor 

Vehicles, sections 114.6 and 114.319 

which addressed the Texas Low 

Emission Diesel standards for marine 

fuels. We approved this component of 

the June 13, 2007 submittal on October 

24, 2008, at 73 FR 63378. The revision 

to these sections has been in effect, 

federally, since November 24, 2008. The 

second component of the June 13, 2007 

submittal concerns revisions to 30 TAC, 

Chapter 115 Control of Air Pollution 

from Volatile Organic Compounds, 

sections 115.110, 115.112 –115.117, 

115.119, 115.541–115.547 and 115.549. 

We approved these revisions as 

enhancing the Texas SIP because these 

rule revisions required additional VOC 

controls on storage tanks, lowered VOC 

emissions, and helped lower ozone 

levels in the HGB Area. See 75 FR 15348 

of March 29, 2010. The revisions to 

these sections have been in effect, 

federally, since May 28, 2010. We are 

now proposing to approve the 2007 

VMEP for the HGB Area into Texas SIP. 

For more information on VMEP see 

section below. 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. What is a VMEP commitment? 

Voluntary mobile source strategies 

complement existing regulatory 

programs through voluntary, nonregulatory changes in local 

transportation activities or changes in 

in-use vehicle and engine composition. 

The EPA believes that the Act allows 

SIP credit for new approaches to 

reducing mobile source emissions, 

where supported by enforceable 

commitments to monitor and assess 

implementation and backfill any 

emissions reductions shortfall in a 

timely fashion. This flexible approach is 

consistent with the Clean Air Act 

section 110. 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 

innovative 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. 

3. The April 6, 2010 Submittal 

In conjunction with the June 13, 2007 

submittal, we are also proposing to 

approve a part of the April 6, 2010 

revision to the Texas SIP, submitted 

with TCEQ’s letter of April 6, 2010, for 

VOC RACT purposes. Specifically, we 

are proposing to find, based on the 

analysis in Appendix D of the April 6, 

2010 submittal 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 for more 

information on RACT evaluation for the 

HGB Area. 

B. What is RACT? 

The EPA has defined RACT as the 

lowest emissions limitation that a 

particular source is capable of meeting 

by the application of control technology 

that is reasonably available, considering 

technological and economic feasibility. 

See 44 FR 53761, September 17, 1979. 

Section 172(c)(1) of the Act requires that 

SIPs for nonattainment areas ‘‘provide 

for the implementation of all reasonably 

available control measures as 

expeditiously as practicable (including 

such reductions in emissions from 

existing sources in the area as may be 

obtained through the adoption, at a 

minimum, of reasonably available 

control technology) and shall provide 

for attainment of the primary National 

Ambient Air Quality (NAAQS) 

standards.’’ 

Section 182(b)(2) of the Act requires 

states to submit a SIP revision and 

implement RACT for moderate and 

above ozone nonattainment areas. For a 

Moderate, Serious, or Severe Area a 

major stationary source is one which 

emits, or has the potential to emit, 100, 

50, or 25 tons per year (tpy) or more of 

VOCs or NOX, respectively. See CAA 

sections 182(b), 182(c), and 182(d). The 

EPA provides states with guidance 

concerning what types of controls could 

constitute RACT for a given source 

category through the issuance of Control 

Techniques Guidelines (CTG) and 

Alternative Control Techniques (ACT) 

documents. See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

naaqs/ozone/ctg_act/index.htm (URL 

dating May 23, 2012) for a listing of 

EPA-issued CTGs and ACTs for VOC or 

Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX). 

The HGB Area was designated as 

Severe for the 1997 8-Hour ozone 

NAAQS. See 73 FR 56983, October 1, 

2008. Thus, per section 182(d) of the 

CAA, a major stationary source in the 

HGB Area is one which emits, or has the 

potential to emit, 25 tpy or more of 

VOCs or NOX. The inventory of VOC 

and NOX sources listed in Appendix D 

of the April 6, 2010 submittal is 

intended to fulfill this requirement. 

Under section 183(b), EPA is required 

to periodically review and, as necessary, 

update CTGs. EPA issued a number of 

new CTGs in 2006, 2007, and 2008. 

Accordingly, Texas revised its Chapter 

115 regulations to address these VOC 

RACT control measures. These most 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Proposed Rules 58065 

recent revisions to Chapter 115 

regulations corresponding to these 

newly-EPA-issued CTGs will be 

addressed in a separate rulemaking 

action. 

II. Evaluation 

A. What types of VMEP commitments 

qualify for SIP credit? 

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).’’ 

Generally, to obtain credit for a VMEP, 

a State submits a SIP that: (1) Identifies 

and describes a VMEP; (2) Contains 

projections of emission reductions 

attributable to the program, along with 

any relevant technical support 

documentation; (3) Commits to 

evaluation and reporting on program 

implementation and results; and (4) 

Commits to the timely remedy of any 

credit shortfall should the VMEP not 

achieve the anticipated emission 

reductions. More specifically, the 

guidance suggests the following key 

points be considered for approval of 

credits. The credits should be 

quantifiable, surplus, enforceable, 

permanent, and adequately supported. 

In addition, VMEPs must be consistent 

with attainment of the standard and 

with the ROP requirements and not 

interfere with other CAA requirements. 

The VMEP program for an area can be 

revised by a SIP revision that substitutes 

or adds other VMEP measures if needed. 

B. What type of programs did Texas 

submit as VMEP? 

The State submitted program 

descriptions that projected emission 

reductions attributable to each specific 

program as part of the HGB attainment 

demonstration submitted June 13, 2007. 

Table 1 below lists the identified 

programs and their projected credits. 

TABLE 1—VOLUNTARY MOBILE EMISSION REDUCTION PROGRAMS AND

CREDITS CLAIMED

Program type NOX benefits 

(tons per day) 

Public and Private Sector 

Clean Fuel Fleet ............. 2 .0 

Commute Solutions ............ 0 .77 

Pooled Ownership of Vehicles .................................. 0 .05 

Total Benefits (tpd) ...... 2 .82 

This revision to the VMEP builds on the 

existing HGB VMEP program approved 

by EPA on November 14, 2001 which 

the State previously has committed to 

evaluate and report on the program 

implementation and results and to 

timely remedy any credit shortfall. 

C. Do the 2007 VMEPs meet our 

requirements for approval? 

A detailed analysis of all the VMEP 

measures can be found in our TSD 

prepared for this document. For each 

creditable VMEP, the measure was 

found to be quantifiable. The reductions 

are surplus because they are not 

substitutes for mandatory, required 

emission reductions. The commitment 

to monitor, assess and timely remedy 

any shortfall from implementation of 

the measures is enforceable against the 

State. The reductions will continue at 

least for as long as the time period in 

which they are used by this SIP 

demonstration, so they are considered 

permanent. There is a commitment that 

each measure is adequately supported 

by personnel and program resources for 

implementation. 

D. What action is EPA taking on the 

2007 VMEP? 

The HGB Area’s ozone SIP VMEP 

meets the criteria for credit in the SIP. 

Texas has demonstrated that the credits 

are quantifiable, surplus, enforceable, 

permanent, adequately supported, and 

consistent with the SIP and the Act. 

Therefore, we are proposing to approve 

the 2007 VMEP portion of the Texas 

SIP. 

E. 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 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. The TCEQ 

conducted its analysis by: (1) 

Identifying all categories of CTG and 

major non-CTG sources of VOC and 

NOX emissions within the HGB Area; (2) 

Listing the state regulation that 

implements or exceeds RACT 

requirements for that CTG or non-CTG 

category; (3) Detailing the basis for 

concluding that these regulations fulfill 

RACT through comparison with 

established RACT requirements 

described in the CTG guidance 

documents and rules developed by 

other state and local agencies; and (4) 

Submitting negative declarations when 

there are no CTG or major Non-CTG 

sources of VOC emissions within the 

HGB Area. We have reviewed the 

submittal and are proposing that TCEQ 

has properly conducted its analysis, and 

their approach to control requirements 

are in agreement with our RACT 

requirements for affected VOC sources 

in the HGB Area. 

F. What CTG source categories are we 

addressing in this action? 

The EPA entered into a CD with the 

Sierra Club concerning revisions to the 

Texas SIP for HGB Area. Under the 

terms of this CD, February 1, 2013 is the 

deadline by which EPA has to propose 

a rulemaking action relevant to RACT 

for VOC and NOX source for the HGB 

Area. Table 2 below contains a list of 

VOC CTG source categories and their 

corresponding sections of 30 TAC 

Chapter 115 that fulfill the applicable 

RACT requirements, under the terms of 

the CD. 

TABLE 2—CTG SOURCE CATEGORIES AND THEIR CORRESPONDING TEXAS VOC RACT RULES

Source category in HGB area Fulfilling RACT requirement, 30 TAC chapter 115 

Bulk Gasoline Plants ................................................................................................. § 115.211–219. 

Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing ............................................................................. § 115.352–359. 

Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry—Polymer & Resin Manufacturing.§ 115.352–359. 

Gasoline Tank Trucks & Vapor Collection Systems ................................................. § 115.211–219 and § 115.234–239. 

Refineries—Leaks from Equipment .......................................................................... § 115.352–359. 

Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry—High Density Resins ........... § 115.120–129. 

Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry—Synthesized Pharmaceutical 

Products.

§ 115.531—539. 

Petroleum Liquid Storage—External Floating Roof Tanks ....................................... § 115.112–119. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
58066 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—CTG SOURCE CATEGORIES AND THEIR CORRESPONDING TEXAS VOC RACT RULES—Continued 

Source category in HGB area Fulfilling RACT requirement, 30 TAC chapter 115 

Refineries—Vacuum Producing Systems, Wastewater Separators, Unit Turnarounds.§ 115.311–319 and § 115.131–139. 

Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry—Air Oxidation Processes ..... § 115.120–129. 

Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry—Reactor Processes & Distillation Operations.§ 115.120–129. 

Shipbuilding and Ship Repair ................................................................................... § 115.420–429. 

Solvent Metal Cleaning ............................................................................................. § 115.412–419 and § 115.420–429. 

Gasoline Service Stations ......................................................................................... § 115.221–229.

Petroleum Liquid Storage—Fixed Roof Tanks ......................................................... § 115.112–119. 

Tank Trucks—Gasoline Loading Terminals .............................................................. § 115.211–219 or § 115.221–229. 

G. Are there any negative declarations 

associated with the CTG source 

categories in the HGB Area? 

Yes, Texas has 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 

relevant to this source category at this 

time for the HGB Area. However, if a 

major source of this category locates in 

the HGB Area in future, then TCEQ will 

need to take appropriate regulatory 

measures for SIP purposes. 

H. Why does the revision to 30 TAC 

Chapter 115 of the June 13, 2007 

submittal meet RACT? 

As stated elsewhere, we approved 

revisions to 30 TAC, Chapter 115 

Control of Air Pollution from Volatile 

Organic Compounds on March 29, 2010 

at 75 FR 15348. We now have reviewed 

these revisions to Chapter 115 and have 

determined that they are in agreement 

with EPA’s Control Technique 

Guidelines (CTG) documents titled 

Control of Volatile Organic Emissions 

from Storage of Petroleum Liquids in 

Fixed-Roof Tanks (EPA–450/2–77–036, 

December 1977); Control of Volatile 

Organic Emissions from Petroleum 

Liquid Storage in External Floating Roof 

Tanks (EPA–450/2–78–047, December 

1978); and Alternative Control 

Techniques Document—Volatile 

Organic Liquid Storage in Floating and 

Fixed Roof Tanks (EPA–453/R–94–001, 

January 1994). Also, see our Technical 

Support Document (TSD) prepared in 

conjunction with this document. Since 

these revisions are in agreement with 

our guideline documents, we are 

proposing that they satisfy RACT 

requirements, and by implementing 

these measures Texas is meeting the 

VOC RACT for liquid storage sources in 

the HGB Area. 

I. 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. TCEQ reviewed the point 

source emissions inventory and title V 

databases to identify all major sources of 

VOC emissions. All sources in the title 

V database that were listed as a major 

source for VOC emissions were 

included in the RACT analysis. Since 

the point source emissions inventory 

database reports actual emissions rather 

than potential to emit emissions, the 

TCEQ reviewed sources that reported 

actual emissions as low as 10 tpy of 

VOC to account for the difference 

between actual and potential emissions. 

To be conservative, sites from the 

emissions inventory database with 

emissions of 10 tpy or more of NOX or 

VOC that were not identified in the title 

V database and could not be verified as 

minor sources by other means are also 

included in the RACT analysis. We have 

reviewed TCEQ’s April 6, 2010 

submittal and find their approach to 

include these sources in the inventory 

of the sources acceptable. As 

documented in Appendix D, Texas 

found that each source was covered by 

existing rules and the corresponding 

VOC control measures were in place for 

the affected sources. Consistent with our 

finding under 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, Texas has met RACT for VOC and 

NOX sources, and because Texas’ 

approach in its April 06, 2010 submittal, 

in identifying major Non-CTG sources, 

is acceptable and consistent with our 

finding and State has certified that it has 

RACT in place; we are proposing to 

approve TCEQ’s determination that 

VOC control measures in Chapter 115 

meet RACT requirements for the major 

Non-CTG sources of VOC in the HGB 

Area under the 1997 8-Hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

J. 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 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 the TSD developed for 

this action, we evaluated the 

corresponding sections of 30 TAC 

Chapter 115 for the source categories 

identified in Table 2 above in the HGB 

Area, and have reviewed these sections 

against our identified reference 

documents. In its April 6, 2010, 

submittal to EPA, TCEQ states that it 

has reviewed the HGB VOC rules and 

certifies 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. We are proposing a 

determination that Texas VOC rules are 

in agreement with the CAA’s RACT 

requirements. Consequently, by 

implementing these control 

requirements (Chapter 115) Texas is 

satisfying the RACT requirements for 

CTG source categories identified in 

Table 2 of this document in the HGB 

Area under the 1997 8-Hour ozone 

standard. 

K. Is Texas’ approach to RACT 

determination for VOC sources based on 

the June 13, 2007 and April 6, 2010 

submittals acceptable? 

Yes. The purpose of 30 TAC Chapter 

115 rules for the HGB Area is to 

establish reasonable controls on the 

emissions of ozone precursors. Texas 

has reviewed its VOC rules and has 

certified that its rules satisfy RACT 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 19, 2012 / Proposed Rules 58067 

requirements. As such and based upon 

the above two sections we are proposing 

to find that for both the CTG categories 

identified in Table 2 and all Non-CTG 

sources Texas has RACT-level controls 

in place for the HGB Area under the 

1997 8-Hour ozone standard. 

L. Is Texas’ approach to for RACT 

determination for major NOX sources 

based on the June 13, 2007 and April 6, 

2010 submittals acceptable? 

Texas has identified a list of major 

NOX sources in the HGB Area, in its 

Appendix D of the April 6, 2010 

submittal. TCEQ reviewed the point 

source emissions inventory and title V 

databases to identify all major sources of 

NOX emissions. All sources in the title 

V database that were listed as a major 

source for NOX emissions were included 

in the RACT analysis. Since the point 

source emissions inventory database 

reports actual emissions rather than 

potential to emit emissions, the TCEQ 

reviewed sources that reported actual 

emissions as low as 10 tpy of NOX to 

account for the difference between 

actual and potential emissions. To be 

conservative, sites from the emissions 

inventory database with emissions of 10 

tpy or more of NOX that were not 

identified in the title V database and 

could not be verified as minor sources 

by other means are also included in the 

RACT analysis. We have reviewed 

TCEQ’s April 6, 2010 submittal and find 

their approach to include these sources 

in the inventory of the sources 

acceptable. 

Texas reviewed the list of sources and 

certified that it has the appropriate NOX

control measures in place for the 

affected sources. In addition, as a part 

of 1-Hour ozone attainment 

demonstration plan for the HGB Area at 

70 FR 58136, October 5, 2005, and 71 

FR 52676, September 6, 2006, Texas has 

met RACT for VOC and NOX sources. 

We are proposing to approve TCEQ’s 

determination 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. 

III. Proposed Action 

Today, we are proposing to find that 

for VOC, CTG categories identified in 

Table 2 and major Non-CTG 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 proposing 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. If a portion of the 

plan revision meets all the applicable 

requirements of this chapter and Federal 

regulations, the Administrator may 

approve the plan revision in part. 42 

U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, 

in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices that meet 

the criteria of the Act, and to disapprove 

state choices that do not meet the 

criteria of the Act. Accordingly, this 

proposed action approves state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed 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); 

• 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 

• This rule 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. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

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: September 6, 2012. 

Lynda F. Carroll, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2012–23152 Filed 9–18–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0713; FRL–9727–6] 

Disapproval of Implementation Plan 

Revisions; State of California; South 

Coast VMT Emissions Offset 

Demonstrations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to withdraw 

its final approvals of state 

implementation plan revisions 

submitted by the State of California to 

meet the vehicle-miles-traveled 

emissions offset requirement under the 

Clean Air Act for the Los Angeles-South 

Coast Air Basin 1-hour and 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment areas. EPA is also 

proposing to disapprove the same plan 

revisions. EPA is proposing the 

withdrawal and disapproval actions in 

response to a remand by the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals in Association 

of Irritated Residents v. EPA. The effect 

of this action, if finalized as proposed, 

would be to trigger deadlines by which 

new plan revisions meeting the 

applicable requirements must be 

submitted by the State of California and 

approved by EPA to avoid sanctions and 

to avoid an obligation on EPA to 

promulgate a federal implementation 

plan. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before October 19, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2012–0713, by one of the 

following methods: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS