Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 16803

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air 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 the State action. The

Clean Air Act forbids USEPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. USEPA.,

427 U.S. 246, 256–66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42

U.S.C. 7410(a)(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 2, 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

Air pollution control, Environmental

protection, Incorporation by reference.

Dated: February 9, 1995.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator.

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. 7401–7671q.

Subpart O—Illinois

2. Section 52.720 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(106) to read as

follows:

§ 52.720 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(106) On November 23, 1994, the

State submitted amended marine vessel

loading rules which consisted of revised

definitions, and revisions to the Ozone

Control Plan for the Chicago and MetroEast St. Louis areas.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

Illinois Administrative Code, Title 35:

Environmental Protection, Subtitle B:

Air Pollution, Chapter I: Pollution

Control Board, Subchapter c: Emissions

Standards and Limitations for

Stationary Sources.

(A) Part 211: Definitions and General

Provisions, Subpart B: Definitions,

Sections 211.3480 Loading Event and

211.3660 Marine Vessel added at 18 Ill.

Reg. 166769, effective October 25, 1994;

Sections 211.3650 Marine Terminal, and

211.6970 Vapor Collection System, and

Section 211.6990 Vapor Control System

amended at 18 Ill. Reg. 16769, effective

October 25, 1994.

(B) Part 218: Organic Material

Emission Standards and Limitations for

the Chicago Area, Subpart A; General

Provisions, Sections 218.101 Savings

Clause and 218.106 Compliance Dates

amended at 18 Ill. Reg. 16392, effective

October 25, 1994; Subpart GG: Marine

Terminals, Sections 218.760

Applicability, 218.762 Control

Requirements, 218.764 Compliance

Certification, 218.766 Leaks, 218.768

Testing and Monitoring, and 218.770

Recordkeeping and Reporting added at

18 Ill. Reg. 16392, effective October 25,

1994; Appendix E: List of Affected

Marine Terminals amended at 18 Ill.

Reg. 16392, effective October 25, 1994.

(C) Part 219: Organic Material

Emissions Standards and Limitations for

the Metro-East Area, Subpart A; General

Provisions, Sections 219.101 Savings

Clause and 219.106 Compliance Dates

amended at 18 Ill. Reg. 16415, effective

October 25, 1994; Subpart GG: Marine

Terminals, Sections 219.760

Applicability, 219.762 Control

Requirements, 219.764 Compliance

Certification, 219.766 Leaks, 219.768

Testing and Monitoring, and 219.770

Recordkeeping and Reporting added at

18 Ill. Reg. 16415, effective October 25,

1994.

[FR Doc. 95–8044 Filed 3–31–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[IL91–1–6279a; FRL–5169–4]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Illinois

AGENCY: United States Environmental

Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The USEPA approves the sitespecific State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revision request submitted by the State

of Illinois on January 25, 1994, for

Quantum Chemical Corporation’s

(Quantum) facility located in Morris,

Illinois. This site-specific SIP revision

alters certain Reasonably Available

Control Technology (RACT) regulations

contained within 35 Illinois

Administrative Code (IAC) Part 218 as

they apply to specific units or plants

within this facility. This approval is

based upon sufficient demonstration

that factors relating to this facility are

substantially and significantly different

from those relied upon in adopting 35

IAC Part 218, and that these factors

warrant a corresponding adjustment of

this facility’s RACT requirements. The

submittal was reviewed for

completeness, and was found to be

complete on March 21, 1994. The

rationale for this approval is set forth in

this final rule; additional information is

available at the address indicated below.

In the proposed rules section of this

Federal Register, USEPA is proposing

approval of and soliciting public

comment on this requested SIP revision.

If adverse comments are received on

this direct final rule, USEPA will

withdraw this direct final rule and

address the comments received in a

subsequent final rule on the related

proposed rule which is being published

in the proposed rules section of this

Federal Register. No additional

opportunity for public comment will be

provided. Unless this direct final rule is

withdrawn no further rulemaking will

occur on this requested SIP revision.

DATES: This final rule is effective June

2, 1995 unless notice is received by May

3, 1995 that someone wishes to submit

adverse comments. If the effective date

is delayed, timely notice will be

published in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the USEPA’s

technical analysis are available for

inspection at the following address: (It

is recommended that you telephone

Mark J. Palermo at (312) 886–6082

before visiting the Region 5 Office.)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division,

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604.

Written comments should be mailed to:

J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Regulation

Development Section, Regulation

Development Branch (AR–18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604.

A copy of this SIP revision is also

available for inspection at: Office of

Air and Radiation (OAR), Docket and

Information Center (Air Docket 6102),

room 1500, U.S. Environmental
16804 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark J. Palermo (312) 886–6036.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background/Summary of Submittal

On January 25, 1994, the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency

(IEPA) submitted a site-specific SIP

revision request for Quantum’s Morris,

Illinois facility. This site-specific SIP

revision would relax the Volatile

Organic Material (VOM) emission

reduction requirements for the polymer

manufacturing units and cooling water

towers at this facility.

The Quantum facility is located in

Aux Sable Township, Grundy County.

Aux Sable Township was added to the

Chicago ozone nonattainment area, with

an effective date of January 6, 1992. The

Chicago ozone nonattainment area is

covered by the RACT requirements

contained within 35 IAC Part 218. The

site-specific SIP revision submitted on

January 25, 1994, seeks relaxation of

these requirements as they apply to

specific units or plants within the

Quantum facility.

The Quantum facility in Morris,

Illinois is an integrated petroleum

manufacturing complex that includes

manufacturing operations classified as

organic chemical manufacturing

(Standard Industrial Code [SIC] 2869)

and polymer manufacturing (SIC 2821).

The site-specific SIP revision is

confined to VOM (VOM, as defined by

the State of Illinois is identical to

‘‘volatile organic compounds’’ [VOC], as

defined by the USEPA) emission

sources associated with polymer

manufacturing and water cooling. In the

polymer manufacturing processes,

plastic resins are synthesized in closed,

high pressure reactor units from feed

stocks of ethane, propane, and butane.

During the synthesis process, some of

the VOM are entrained within the

polymer resins. These entrained gases

are emitted to the atmosphere with the

conveying air at numerous exhaust

points.

The site-specific SIP revision seeks an

adjusted standard for three plants at the

Quantum facility: the Low Density

Polyethylene (LDPE) Plant; the Linear

Low Density Polyethylene (LLDPE)

Plant; and the Polypropylene Plant. The

site-specific SIP revision also seeks an

adjusted standard for six water cooling

towers at the facility.

The site-specific SIP revision would

alter application of regulations found

within two sections of the Chicago area

RACT rules. These are sections 218.966

and 218.986 of the 35 IAC. The rules in

section 218.966 address miscellaneous

organic chemical manufacturing

processes (35 IAC: Subpart RR), and the

rules in section 218.986 address ‘‘other’’

VOM emission sources (35 IAC: Subpart

TT). The request for an adjusted

standard from section 218.966 deals

solely with the requirements found in

subsections (a) and (b), which require a

reduction of VOM emissions of at least

81 percent or an alternative control plan

which has been approved by the IEPA

and the USEPA. The request for an

adjusted standard from section 218.986

deals with the requirements found in

subsections (a), (b), and (c), which

require an 81 percent reduction in

uncontrolled VOM emissions, an

independent requirement for coating

lines (not applicable in this case), or an

alternative control plan which has been

approved by the IEPA and the USEPA.

The adjusted standard would pertain

to VOM emission sources from

Quantum’s polymer plants’ finishing

and storage units with the affected units

defined as follows:

(1) LDPE Plant:

(a) Spin Driers—total of 4 spin driers,

one for each line;

(b) Blenders—total of 18 blenders, BL–

1 through BL–18, and associated

bagfilters;

(c) Storage and Car Loading—total of 17

silos, car loading facilities, and

associated bagfilters;

(2) LLDPE Plant:

(a) Pellet Driers—total of 2 spin dryers,

one for each line;

(b) Blenders—total of 12 blenders, 4 for

line #5 (BL–13 through BL–16) and 8

for line #6 (BL–30 through BL–37),

and associated bagfilters;

(c) Multipass Separators—total of 4

multipass separators, 2 at the booster

blower and 2 at car loading facilities,

and associated bagfilters;

(d) Scalperators and Hopper Cars—total

of 4 scalperators and 2 bagfilters at car

loading facilities;

(3) Polypropylene Plant:

(a) Pellet Driers—total of 4 spin dryers,

one for each line;

(b) Blenders—total of 7 blenders and

associated bagfilters; and

(c) Storage and Car Loading—total of 24

silos, car loading facilities, and

associated bagfilters.

In addition, the adjusted standard

would pertain to the following:

(1) Non-contact cooling water towers at

the Ethylene Plant, LDPE Plant,

Polypropylene Plant, Utilities Area,

and Process Research Area; and

(2) Process cooling water tower at the

Ethylene Oxide/Ethylene Glycol

Plant.

The SIP revision defines the current

operations at the sources listed above to

be RACT with no additional VOM

emission reduction needed to meet the

requirements of 35 IAC sections 218.966

and 219.986.

In addition to the above, the SIP

revision requires Quantum to comply

with the following at the LDPE Plant:

(1) VOM concentrations from the

LDPE finishing operations, measured at

the discharge of the fabric filters (during

normal operation in which two

production lines are running through

one bagfilter), may not exceed 250 parts

per million by weight;

(2) VOM concentrations from LDPE

spin dryers may not exceed 500 parts

per million by weight;

(3) Quantum shall conduct testing in

accordance with 35 IAC section 218.105

to determine VOM concentrations from

the LDPE finishing operation and spin

dryers upon written request by the IEPA

or upon a significant change in LDPE

product or operation that may increase

VOM emissions; and

(4) Quantum shall maintain operation

records, as specified in an operating

permit, that identify any significant

changes in LDPE product or operation

that may increase VOM emissions.

The adjusted standards described

above were adopted by the Illinois

Pollution Control Board on October 7,

1993, and effective on October 7, 1993.

In support of the SIP revision and

adjusted standard, Quantum and IEPA

note that the particular type of polymer

manufacturing employed at the Morris,

Illinois facility was not considered

during the promulgation of Part 218 of

35 IAC and was not reviewed by the

USEPA in the preparation of the Control

Technology Guideline (CTG) upon

which RACT for the polymer

manufacturing industry was based. It is

noted, however, that the USEPA did

review this type of polymer

manufacturing during the development

of the New Source Performance

Standard (NSPS) for this source

category. The NSPS for this source

category exempts (40 CFR Part

60.560(g)) vent streams from controls

where VOM concentrations are less than

0.1 percent by weight. The emission

sources for which Quantum has

requested an adjusted standard have

vent stream VOM concentrations below

0.1 percent by weight.

Quantum commissioned a study to

review possible emission control

strategies and costs for the low-VOM

concentration emission sources

associated with the polymer

manufacturing units. This study

considered nine possible control

technologies, including carbon

adsorption, absorption, condensation,

thermal incineration, catalytic
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 16805

incineration, regenerative thermal

incineration, flaring, and use of a low

pressure product separator or degassing

extruder. The carbon adsorption,

absorption, and condensation

technologies were found to be

technically infeasible. The remaining

control technologies, although

considered to be technically feasible,

were found to be economically

unacceptable, with costs ranging from

$7,270 per VOM ton reduction for

regenerative thermal incineration to

$183,110 per VOM ton reduction for

flaring. An additional drawback to the

incineration technologies is the

increased emission of oxides of

nitrogen, which Quantum and the IEPA

believe may add to the formation of

downwind ozone.

Quantum and the IEPA agree that,

under normal operating procedures,

little or no VOM should be emitted from

the non-contact cooling towers. In the

case of the single contact cooling tower,

which cools process water, the VOM

emissions are contended to be negligible

due to the high solubility and low vapor

pressure (less than 1 millimeter Hg at

ambient temperatures) of ethylene

glycol, which is the primary VOM to be

included in the cooled water. Water

sampling has also shown a small

concentration of ethylene oxide, with an

expected emission rate of 3.4 tons per

year under normal operating conditions.

Therefore, total VOM emissions from

the contact cooling tower are expected

to be minimal.

II. USEPA Analysis of Submittal

Review of the emissions data

provided in Attachment A and Exhibit

E (‘‘Economic Analysis and Technology

Review For Control of VOM Emissions

From Polyolefin Finishing and Storage

Units’’) of the SIP revision submittal

shows that the majority of the VOM

emissions occur at the LDPE Plant. This

plant accounts for 94.1 percent of the

annual VOM emissions from the

polymer manufacturing operations at

this facility. At the LDPE Plant, nearly

all VOM emissions are associated with

vent emissions from spin dryer and

blending operations, with the emissions

from the blending operations

dominating.

The IEPA and Quantum have

correctly interpreted the implications of

the emission limits specified for vent

streams in the NSPS standard. Review

of process flow and emissions data

contained in Attachment A, Exhibit E,

and Exhibit C (‘‘LDPE Synthesis

Simplified Process Flow Diagram’’) of

the submittal show that most of the

VOM emissions from the LDPE Plant

occur at vent streams. Given the low

density of VOM in the vent streams, less

than 0.1 percent by weight, these

emissions would be exempted if the

NSPS is assumed to equivalent to RACT

for this facility. It is the opinion of the

USEPA that this is the case given the

current nature of the NSPS for this

source type and the lack of other VOM

control analyses specificly representing

RACT. It should be noted that the VOM

emission limits adopted by the State for

this source would limit emissions to

levels below the NSPS cutoffs specified

for vent streams.

The remaining emissions from storage

and loading operations and from water

cooling towers can not be exempted

under the NSPS exemption specified by

Quantum and the State. It is noted,

however, that these emissions are

expected to total to less than 10 tons

VOM per year. Given the small total of

these emissions and the high cost of

control, in excess of $7,500 per ton of

VOM controlled, the USEPA agrees that

the current operations at this facility

may be assumed to be RACT.

Based on the State’s submittal, the

USEPA approves this site-specific

revision to the Illinois SIP.

Procedural Background

The USEPA is publishing this action

without prior proposal because USEPA

views this action as a noncontroversial

action and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, USEPA is

publishing a separate document in this

Federal Register publication, which

constitutes a ‘‘proposed approval’’ of the

requested SIP revision and clarifies that

the rulemaking will not be deemed final

if timely adverse or critical comments

are filed. The ‘‘direct final’’ approval

shall be effective on June 2, 1995, unless

USEPA receives adverse or critical

comments by May 3, 1995.

If USEPA receives comments adverse

to or critical of the approval discussed

above, USEPA will withdraw this

approval before its effective date by

publishing a subsequent Federal

Register document which withdraws

this final action. All public comments

received will then be addressed in a

subsequent rulemaking notice. Please be

aware that USEPA will institute another

comment period on this action only if

warranted by significant revision to the

rulemaking based on any comments

received in response to today’s action.

Any parties interested in commenting

on this action should do so at this time.

If no such comments are received,

USEPA hereby advises the public that

this action will be effective on June 2,

1995.

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action by the Regional

Administrator under the procedures

published in the Federal Register on

January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214–2225), as

revised by an October 4, 1993

memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air

and Radiation. The Office of

Management and Budget has exempted

this regulatory action from Executive

Order 12866 review.

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 any SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA 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, USEPA may

certify that the rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

government entities with jurisdiction

over populations of less than 50,000.

The 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 small entities. 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 USEPA to

base its actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S.

E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256–66 (S.Ct.

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 June 2, 1995. Filing a petition

for reconsideration by the Administrator

of this final rule does not affect the

finality of this rule for the purpose 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)).
16806 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 63 / Monday, April 3, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference, Ozone,

Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: February 23, 1995.

Robert Springer,

Acting Regional Administrator.

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. 7401–7671q.

Subpart O—Illinois

2. Section 52.720 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(108) to read as

follows:

§ 52.720 Identification of plan.

(c)* * *

(108) On January 25, 1994, the State

submitted a revision to its ozone State

Implementation Plan (SIP) for Quantum

Chemical Corporation’s facility located

in Morris, Aux Sable Township, Grundy

County, Illinois. It grants an adjusted

standard from Parts 35 Illinois

Administration Code (IAC) 218.966 and

218.986 as they apply to specific units

or plants within this facility.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Illinois Pollution Control Board

Final Opinion and Order, AS 92–14,

adopted on October 7, 1993, and

effective on October 7, 1993.

[FR Doc. 95–8038 Filed 3–31–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[MO–9–1 6878; FRL–5180–7]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; State of

Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY: This document corrects the

submission date for material submitted

by the State of Missouri in the final rule

published on August 24, 1994 which

approved revisions to the Missouri State

Implementation Plan. Missouri

submitted administrative amendments

to rule 10 CSR 10–6.030 which

renumber and reorganize sections

within that rule.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 3, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents

relative to this action are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the: Environmental

Protection Agency, Air Branch, 726

Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas

66101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Josh

Tapp at (913) 551–7606.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc.

94–20737 in the Federal Register of

August 24, 1994 (59 FR 43480), the

submission date in § 52.1320(c)(79) of

‘‘September 20, 1991,’’ should have

been ‘‘November 20, 1991.’’

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compounds.

Dated: March 3, 1995.

William Rice,

Acting Regional Administrator.

Correction of Publication

Accordingly, the regulations

published at 59 FR 43480 on August 24,

1994, are corrected as follows:

§ 52.1320 [Corrected]

On page 43481, in the second column,

in § 52.1320, in paragraph (c)(79)

introductory text, in the last line, the

date ‘‘September 20’’ is corrected to read

‘‘November 20’’.

[FR Doc. 95–7748 Filed 3–31–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[TX–10–1–5223a; FRL–5171–1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans; Texas;

Revision to the State Implementation

Plan (SIP) Addressing Visible

Emissions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: This action approves a

revision to the Texas SIP addressing

visible emissions. The purpose of

approving this revision is to enable the

visible emissions provisions of Texas

Regulation I to become federally

enforceable.

DATES: This final rule will become

effective on June 2, 1995, unless adverse

or critical comments are received by

May 3, 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 24 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, P.O. Box 13087, Austin,

Texas 78711–3087.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Mark Sather or Mr. Bill Deese, Planning

Section (6T–AP), Air Programs Branch,

USEPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, telephone

(214) 665–7214.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Analysis of State Submissions

A. Procedural Background

The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires

states to observe certain procedural

requirements in developing

implementation plans for submission to

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

provides that each implementation plan

submitted by a state must be adopted

after reasonable notice and public

hearing. Section 110(l) of the CAA

similarly provides that each revision to

an implementation plan submitted by a

state under the CAA 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) of the CAA 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 public

hearings on February 1–2, 1989, May 17,

1990, May 21–22, 1992, and on March

17, 1993, to entertain public comment