Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 43 / Monday, March 6, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 12125

request for revision to any State

Implementation Plan. Each request for

revision to the State Implementation

Plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

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 May 5, 1995.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference, Ozone.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the

State Implementation Plan for the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts was

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated: February 9, 1995.

John P. DeVillars,

Regional Administrator, Region I.

Part 52 of 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. 7401–7671q.

Subpart W—Massachusetts

2. Section 52.1120 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(104) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1120 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(104) Revisions to the State

Implementation Plan submitted by the

Massachusetts Department of

Environmental Protection on March 31,

1994.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Letter from the Massachusetts

Department of Environmental Protection

dated March 31, 1994 submitting a

revision to the Massachusetts State

Implementation Plan.

(B) Final Plan Approval No. 4P92012,

dated and effective March 16, 1994

imposing reasonably available control

technology on Brittany Dyeing and

Finishing of New Bedford,

Massachusetts.

(ii) Additional materials.

(A) Nonregulatory portions of the

submittal.

3. In § 52.1167, Table 52.1167 is

amended by adding new entries to

existing state citation 310 CMR 7.18(17)

to read as follows:

§ 52.1167 EPA-approved Massachusetts

state regulations.

* * * * *

TABLE 52.1167—EPA-APPROVED RULES AND REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject

Date submitted by

State

Date approved by

EPA

Federal Register citation 52.1120(c) Comments/unapproved sections

* * * * * * *

310 CMR 7.18(17) ........ Reasonably Available Control

Technology.

3/31/94 March 6, 1995 ........ [Insert FR citation

from published

date].

104 RACT for Brittany

Dyeing and Finishing of New

Bedford, MA.

* * * * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–5350 Filed 3–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[TX–47–1–6705a; FRL–5161–5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans; Texas;

Revision to the State Implementation

Plan Addressing Sulfur Dioxide in

Harris County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: This action approves a

revision to the Texas State

Implementation Plan (SIP) to include

Agreed Orders limiting sulfur dioxide

(SO2) allowable emissions at certain

nonpermitted facilities in Harris

County, Texas. By approving these

Agreed Orders into the Texas SIP, along

with approving a modeling

demonstration showing attainment for

the SO2 National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS) in Harris County,

and acknowledging that Harris County

has more than two years of quality

assured SO2 monitoring data showing

no violations of the SO2 NAAQS, the

EPA will not, at this time, designate

Harris County, Texas nonattainment for

the SO2 NAAQS.

DATES: This final rule is effective on

May 5, 1995 unless adverse or critical

comments are received by April 5, 1995.

If the effective date is delayed, timely

notice will be published in the Federal

Register (FR).

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to Mr.

Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Planning

Section, at the EPA Regional Office

listed below. Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the following

locations. The interested persons

wanting to examine these documents

should make an appointment with the

appropriate office at least twenty-four

hours before the visiting day.

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 6, Air Programs Branch

(6T–A), 1445 Ross Avenue, suite 700,

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733.

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center, 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460

Texas Natural Resource Conservation

Commission, 12124 Park 35 Circle,

Austin, Texas 78753.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Mark Sather, Planning Section (6T-AP),

Air Programs Branch (6T–A), USEPA

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,

Texas 75202–2733, telephone (214)

665–7258.
12126 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 43 / Monday, March 6, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Four violations of the primary 24-

hour SO2 NAAQS of 365 ug/m3 (0.14

parts per million) were recorded at a

single monitoring site (Houston

Regional Monitoring Network (HRM)

monitoring site #3) located near the

Houston Ship Channel in Harris County,

Texas, during 1986, 1988, and 1990. The

24-hour SO2 NAAQS only allows one

exceedance of the 365 ug/m3 standard

per calendar year. Each additional

exceedance is considered a violation of

the NAAQS. Due to the monitoring

violations and a modeling study

conducted in 1987 by Science

Applications International Corporation,

under contract with the EPA Region 6,

which predicted SO2 NAAQS

exceedances in a portion of Harris

County, the EPA declared, in an FR

document dated April 22, 1991 (56 FR

16274), that Harris County was under

consideration as a potential new SO2

nonattainment area.

In response to the recommended

redesignation, Radian Corporation,

which represented the HRM, worked

with the Texas Natural Resource

Conservation Commission (TNRCC) to

obtain reductions in SO2 allowable

emissions from certain Houston

industries. Radian then modeled the

revised allowable SO2 emission

inventory to determine if the area would

attain the SO2 NAAQS. By achieving

these emission reductions, making them

federally enforceable, and executing an

in-depth modeling study, HRM sought

to demonstrate that Harris County was

in attainment for SO2, and could thus

avoid being redesignated to

nonattainment. The EPA agreed to defer

its final decision regarding

nonattainment for Harris County, and

granted the TNRCC, HRM, and the

involved Harris County industries time

to complete the modeling analysis, and

also allowed the TNRCC to put in place

enforceable restrictions on the new SO2

emission rates (i.e. through Agreed

Orders).

Analysis of State Submission

A. Procedural Background

The Clean Air Act (the Act) requires

states to observe certain procedural

requirements in developing

implementation plans for submission to

the EPA. Section 110(a)(2) of the Act

provides that each implementation plan

submitted by a state must be adopted

after reasonable notice and public

hearing. Section 110(l) of the Act

similarly provides that each revision to

an implementation plan submitted by a

state under the Act must be adopted by

such state after reasonable notice and

public hearing. The EPA also must

determine whether a submittal is

complete and therefore warrants further

EPA review and action (see section

110(k)(1) and 57 FR 13565). The EPA’s

completeness criteria for SIP submittals

are set out at 40 Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) part 51, appendix V.

The EPA attempts to make completeness

determinations within 60 days of

receiving a submission. However, a

submittal is deemed complete by

operation of law if a completeness

determination is not made by the EPA

six months after receipt of the

submission.

The State of Texas held a public

hearing on March 31, 1994, to entertain

public comment on a proposed Texas

SIP revision containing the following

elements: (1) An example Agreed Order

limiting SO2 allowable emissions; (2) a

modeling demonstration showing SO2

NAAQS attainment for Harris County;

and (3) supporting narrative

information. Subsequent to the public

hearing and consideration of hearing

comments, the SIP revision, containing

13 Agreed Orders, was adopted by the

State on June 29, 1994. The SIP revision

was submitted by the Governor to the

EPA by cover letter dated August 3,

1994.

The SIP revision package was

reviewed by the EPA to determine

completeness shortly after its submittal,

in accordance with the completeness

criteria set out at 40 CFR part 51,

appendix V. A letter dated September

20, 1994, was forwarded to the Governor

finding the submittal complete and

indicating the next steps to be taken in

the review process.

B. Review of State SIP Revision

The Texas SIP Revision for Harris

County contained, as outlined above,

modeling analyses demonstrating SO2

NAAQS attainment for Harris County

(3-hour, 24-hour, and annual), Agreed

Orders limiting SO2 allowable emissions

at 13 nonpermitted companies in Harris

County, and supporting narrative

information. The modeling analyses

used a revised allowable emission

inventory obtained through an SO2

emissions reduction plan involving

many Houston industries. As a result of

the reduction plan, about 94,000 tons

per year of federally-enforceable SO2

allowable emissions reductions were

obtained in Harris County, thereby

decreasing the original areawide SO2

allowable emissions inventory from

about 287,000 tons per year to about

193,000 tons per year.

A review of the worst case scenario

modeling presented in the SIP showed

no exceedances of the SO2 NAAQS (i.e.

no exceedances at any of the receptors

in the modeling grid). The modeling

protocol and procedures, approved by

the EPA and consistent with the EPA’s

‘‘Guideline on Air Quality Models

(Revised)’’ (July, 1986), used the EPA’s

Industrial Source Complex Short Term

2 model (most current version at the

time of modeling) and five years of

meteorological data (1981–1985) from

the Houston International Airport with

Lake Charles, Louisiana upper air data.

A value of 3.5 ug/m3 was used as the 24-

hour background value, based on an

evaluation of background monitored

values and the area source contribution

to the total emission inventory. Further,

no violations of the SO2 NAAQS have

occurred at any Harris County area

monitoring site since calendar year

1990. It is important to note that an SO2

violation is defined as more than one

exceedance of the 3-hour or 24-hour SO2

NAAQS, or an exceedance of the annual

SO2 NAAQS. Only one exceedance of

the 24-hour SO2 NAAQS, in 1991, has

been recorded in Harris County since

calendar year 1990. For SO2 NAAQS

attainment, at least 8 calendar quarters

(2 years) of data with no violations of

the NAAQS is required. For further

details on the modeling analyses and

monitoring data, please reference the

Technical Support Document (TSD) and

the State submittal located at the EPA

Region 6 office listed above.

The Agreed Orders were reviewed for

consistency with the EPA enforceability

guidance (i.e., the September 23, 1987,

memorandum from J. Craig Potter

regarding SIP enforceability), and

with40 CFR part 60. The provisions of

the Agreed Orders clearly identify each

subject company, which all contain

unpermitted SO2 sources. Each Order,

effective June 29, 1994, also sets SO2

maximum allowable emissions limits,

and recordkeeping, reporting and

compliance monitoring requirements,

including continuous emission

monitoring requirements. Six facilities

requested approval of an equivalent

method of monitoring SO2 emissions:

Crown Central Petroleum Corporation,

Exxon Company USA, Lyondell Citgo

Refining Company, LTD., Mobil Mining

and Minerals Company (Mobil), Phibro

Energy USA, Inc., and Shell Chemical/

Oil. On June 28, 1994, the Executive

Director of the TNRCC approved the

alternate method requests. The EPA is

also granting in this FR document

approval for each of the alternative

monitoring proposals. The equivalent

monitoring method proposed by all of
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 43 / Monday, March 6, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 12127

the companies, except Mobil, was to use

a continuous emission monitor (CEM) to

measure the concentration of hydrogen

sulfide in the fuel gas that is fed to the

combustion units listed in Attachment

A of the respective Orders. In addition,

it was also proposed by all companies,

except Mobil, to use the maximum fuel

capacity of the combustion units listed

in Attachment A of the respective

Orders as part of the calculations to

demonstrate compliance with the

maximum allowable emission rates in

the event there is no fuel feed meter on

a combustion unit or in the event the

fuel feed meter is out of operation or

malfunctioning. Mobil requested

approval of an alternative CEM quality

assurance program, and an alternative

monitoring method for a small emission

point. For further details on the Agreed

Orders, please reference the TSD and

the State submittal located at the EPA

Region 6 office listed above.

Final Action

The EPA is approving a revision to

the Texas SIP submitted by the

Governor of Texas by cover letter dated

August 3, 1994, in order to make

federally enforceable Agreed Orders to

limit SO2 allowable emissions at 13

nonpermitted facilities in Harris

County. By approving these Agreed

Orders into the Texas SIP, along with

approving the modeling demonstration

showing attainment for the SO2 NAAQS

in Harris County, and acknowledging

that Harris County has more than 2

years of quality assured SO2 data

showing no violations, EPA will not

undertake the process to designate

Harris County, Texas as nonattainment

for the SO2 NAAQS at this time.

The EPA has reviewed this revision to

the Texas SIP and is approving the

revision as submitted. The EPA is

publishing this action without prior

proposal because the Agency views this

as a noncontroversial amendment and

anticipates no adverse comments.

However, in a separate document in this

Federal Register publication, the EPA is

proposing to approve the SIP revision

should adverse or critical comments be

filed. Thus, this action will be effective

May 5, 1995 unless, by April 5, 1995,

notice is received that adverse or critical

comments will be submitted.

If such notice is received, this action

will be withdrawn before the effective

date by publishing a subsequent

document that will withdraw the final

action. All public comments received

will then be addressed in a subsequent

final rule based on this action serving as

a proposed rule. The EPA will not

institute a second comment period on

this action. Any parties interested in

commenting on this action should do so

at this time. If no such comments are

received, the public is advised that this

action will be effective May 5, 1995.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. Each

request for revision to the SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors, and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

Miscellaneous

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., the EPA must

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603

and 604). Alternatively, the EPA may

certify that the rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D, of the Act do not

create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP-approval does

not impose any new requirements, I

certify that it does not have a significant

impact on any small entities affected.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-state relationship under the Act,

preparation of a regulatory flexibility

analysis would constitute Federal

inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The Act

forbids the EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds

(Union Electric Co. vs. U.S. E.P.A., 427

U.S. 246, 256–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2)).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act,

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by May 5, 1995. 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)).

Executive Order

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this action from review

under Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the SIP

for the State of Texas was approved by the

Director of the Federal Register on July 1,

1982.

Dated: February 14, 1995.

William B. Hathaway,

Acting Regional Administrator.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart SS—Texas

2. Section 52.2270 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(93) to read as

follows:

§ 52.2270 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(93) A revision to the Texas State

Implementation Plan (SIP) to include

agreed orders limiting sulfur dioxide

(SO2) allowable emissions at certain

nonpermitted facilities in Harris

County, and to include a modeling

demonstration showing attainment of

the SO2 National Ambient Air Quality

Standards, was submitted by the

Governor by cover letter dated August 3,

1994.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Texas Natural Resource

Conservation Commission (TNRCC)

Order No. 94–09, as adopted by the

TNRCC on June 29, 1994.

(B) TNRCC Order No. 94–10 for

Anchor Glass Container, as adopted by

the TNRCC on June 29, 1994.

(C) TNRCC Order No. 94–11 for

Crown Central Petroleum Corporation,

as adopted by the TNRCC on June 29,

1994.

(D) TNRCC Order No. 94–12 for Elf

Atochem North America, Inc., as

adopted by the TNRCC on June 29,

1994.

(E) TNRCC Order No. 94–13 for Exxon

Company USA, as adopted by the

TNRCC on June 29, 1994.

(F) TNRCC Order No. 94–14 for ISK

Biosciences Corporation, as adopted by

the TNRCC on June 29, 1994.

(G) TNRCC Order No. 94–15 for

Lyondell Citgo Refining Company,

LTD., as adopted by the TNRCC on June

29, 1994.

(H) TNRCC Order No. 94–16 for

Lyondell Petrochemical Company, as

adopted by the TNRCC on June 29,

1994.
12128 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 43 / Monday, March 6, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

(I) TNRCC Order No. 94–17 for

Merichem Company, as adopted by the

TNRCC on June 29, 1994.

(J) TNRCC Order No. 94–18 for Mobil

Mining and Minerals Company, as

adopted by the TNRCC on June 29,

1994.

(K) TNRCC Order No. 94–19 for

Phibro Energy USA, Inc., as adopted by

the TNRCC on June 29, 1994.

(L) TNRCC Order No. 94–20 for Shell

Chemical and Shell Oil, as adopted by

the TNRCC on June 29, 1994.

(M) TNRCC Order No. 94–21 for Shell

Oil Company, as adopted by the TNRCC

on June 29, 1994.

(N) TNRCC Order No. 94–22 for

Simpson Pasadena Paper Company, as

adopted by the TNRCC on June 29,

1994.

(ii) Additional material.

(A) May 27, 1994, letter from Mr.

Norman D. Radford, Jr. to the TNRCC

and the EPA Region 6 requesting

approval of an equivalent method of

monitoring sulfur in fuel and an

equivalent method of determining

compliance.

(B) June 28, 1994, letter from Anthony

C. Grigsby, Executive Director, TNRCC,

to Crown Central Petroleum

Corporation, approving an alternate

monitoring and compliance

demonstration method.

(C) June 28, 1994, letter from Anthony

C. Grigsby, Executive Director, TNRCC,

to Exxon Company USA, approving an

alternate monitoring and compliance

demonstration method.

(D) June 28, 1994, letter from Anthony

C. Grigsby, Executive Director, TNRCC,

to Lyondell Citgo Refining Co., LTD.,

approving an alternate monitoring and

compliance demonstration method.

(E) June 28, 1994, letter from Anthony

C. Grigsby, Executive Director, TNRCC,

to Phibro Energy, USA, Inc., approving

an alternate monitoring and compliance

demonstration method.

(F) June 28, 1994, letter from Anthony

C. Grigsby, Executive Director, TNRCC,

to Shell Oil Company, approving an

alternate monitoring and compliance

demonstration method.

(G) June 8, 1994, letter from Mr. S. E.

Pierce, Mobil Mining and Minerals

Company, to the TNRCC requesting

approval of an alternative quality

assurance program.

(H) June 28, 1994, letter from Anthony

C. Grigsby, Executive Director, TNRCC,

to Mobil Mining and Minerals

Company, approving an alternative

quality assurance program.

(I) August 3, 1994, narrative plan

addressing the Harris County Agreed

Orders for SO2, including emission

inventories and modeling analyses (i.e.

the April 16, 1993, report entitled

‘‘Evaluation of Potential 24-hour SO2

Nonattainment Area in Harris County,

Texas–Phase II’’ and the June, 1994,

addendum).

(J) TNRCC certification letter dated

June 29, 1994, and signed by Gloria

Vasquez, Chief Clerk, TNRCC.

[FR Doc. 95–5352 Filed 3–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

40 CFR Part 70

[WI001; FRL–5164–9]

Clean Air Act Final Interim Approval of

the Operating Permits Program;

Wisconsin

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final interim approval.

SUMMARY: The EPA is promulgating

interim approval of the Operating

Permits Program submitted by the State

of Wisconsin for the purpose of

complying with Federal requirements

for an approvable State program to issue

operating permits to all major stationary

sources, and to certain other sources.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 5, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the State’s

submittal and other supporting

information used in developing the final

interim approval are available for

inspection during normal business

hours at the following location: EPA

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division

(AT–18J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beth

Valenziano, Permits and Grants Section

(AT–18J), EPA, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,

(312) 886–2703.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Purpose

A. Introduction

Title V of the Clean Air Act (Act), and

implementing regulations at 40 Code of

Federal Regulations (CFR) part 70

require that States develop and submit

operating permits programs to EPA by

November 15, 1993, and that EPA act to

approve or disapprove each program

within 1 year after receiving the

submittal. The EPA’s program review

occurs pursuant to section 502 of the

Act and the part 70 regulations, which

together outline criteria for approval or

disapproval. Where a program

substantially, but not fully, meets the

requirements of part 70, EPA may grant

the program interim approval for a

period of up to 2 years. If EPA has not

fully approved a program by 2 years

after the November 15, 1993 date, or by

the end of an interim program, it must

establish and implement a Federal

program.

On October 19, 1994, EPA proposed

interim approval of the operating

permits program for the State of

Wisconsin. See 59 FR 52743. The EPA

received public comment from 7

organizations on the proposal and

compiled a Technical Support

Document (TSD) responding to the

comments and briefly describing and

clarifying aspects of the operating

permits program. In this notice EPA is

taking final action to promulgate interim

approval of the operating permits

program for the State of Wisconsin.

II. Final Action and Implications

A. Analysis of State Submission and

Response to Public Comments

The EPA received comments on a

total of 14 topics from 7 organizations.

The EPA’s response to these comments

is summarized in this section.

Comments supporting EPA’s proposal

are not addressed in this notice;

however, EPA’s complete response to

comments TSD is available in the

official file at the Region 5 address

noted in the ADDRESSES section above.

1. Indian Lands

The EPA proposed that interim

approval of Wisconsin’s operating

permits program not extend to lands

within the exterior boundaries of

reservations of federally recognized

Indian Tribes in the State of Wisconsin.

The proposal indicated that the

Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources (WDNR) had not

demonstrated the legal authority to

regulate sources on tribal lands. WDNR

submitted several comments on this

issue, which are summarized and

addressed below.

Comment: ‘‘[W]ho will be responsible

for issuance of permits to sources on

Indian reservations prior to

promulgation of either a tribal operation

permits program or the federal operation

permits program under 40 CFR Part 71?

We are not aware of any tribal programs

being developed or implemented in

Wisconsin, and the federal part 71 rules

have not yet been formally proposed.

We are concerned about the apparent

lack of any regulatory authority over

sources on Indian reservations until a

federal or tribal program is

promulgated.’’

Response: At this time, EPA is not

aware of any facility within the exterior

boundaries of a reservation in the State

of Wisconsin that requires a title V

operating permit. Further, the Act