Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 1996 / Proposed Rules 2751

PART 281—FOREIGN EXCHANGE

OPERATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 281

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 22 U.S.C. 2363; 31 U.S.C. 3513;

E.O. 10488, 18 FR 5699, 3 CFR 1949–1953,

Comp., p. 972; E.O. 10900, 26 FR 143, 3 CFR

1959–1963, Comp., p. 429.

2. Section 281.7(c) is revised to read

as follows:

§ 281.7 Limitations.

* * * * *

(c) Unless otherwise authorized by the

Secretary, no accountable officer shall

purchase foreign exchange which,

together with the balance on hand at the

time of purchase, would exceed

estimated requirements for a 5–7

business day period.

* * * * *

Dated: December 4, 1995.

Russell D. Morris,

Commissioner.

[FR Doc. 96–899 Filed 1–26–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–35–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[TX43–1–6275; FRL–5403–7]

Clean Air Act Limited Approval and

Limited Disapproval of 15 Percent Rate

of Progress and Contingency Plans for

Texas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes a limited

approval and limited disapproval of the

State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revisions submitted by the State of

Texas to meet the 15 Percent Rate of

Progress Plan requirements of the Clean

Air Act. The EPA is proposing a limited

approval because the 15 Percent Plans,

submitted by Texas, will result in

significant emission reductions from the

1990 baseline and thus, will improve air

quality. Simultaneously, the EPA is

proposing a limited disapproval of the

15 Percent Plans because they fail to

demonstrate sufficient reductions of

area-wide Volatile Organic Compounds

(VOC) to meet the 15 Percent Rate of

Progress requirements. Also, the EPA is

proposing a limited approval of the

contingency plans because these plans,

if implemented, will result in emission

reductions that will improve air quality.

Simultaneously, the EPA is proposing a

limited disapproval of the contingency

plans because they fail to demonstrate

that the required three percent

reduction of VOC emissions will be

achieved if the plans are implemented.

The EPA is also proposing a limited

approval of the specific control

measures in the 15 Percent and

Contingency Plans because these rules

will strengthen the SIP. A final action

on these control measures will

incorporate these rules into the

Federally approved SIP.

DATES: Comments on this proposed

action must be post marked by March

29, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to Mr.

Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Air 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. Persons interested in

examining 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 Planning Section (6PD–

L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700,

Dallas, Texas 72202–2733.

Texas Natural Resource Conservation

Commission, 12100 Park 35 Circle,

Austin, Texas 78711–3087.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Guy R. Donaldson, Air Planning Section

(6PD–L), USEPA Region 6, 1445 Ross

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733,

telephone (214) 665–7242.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background:

Section 182(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act

(CAA), as amended in 1990, requires

ozone nonattainment areas with

classifications of moderate and above to

develop plans to reduce area-wide VOC

emissions by 15 percent from a 1990

baseline. The plans were to be

submitted by November 15, 1993 and

the reductions were required to be

achieved within 6 years of enactment or

November 15, 1996. The Clean Air Act

also sets limitations on the creditability

of certain types of reductions.

Specifically, States cannot take credit

for reductions achieved by Federal

Motor Vehicle Control Program

(FMVCP) measures (new car emissions

standards) promulgated prior to 1990 or

for reductions resulting from

requirements to lower the Reid Vapor

Pressure of gasoline promulgated prior

to 1990. Furthermore, the CAA does not

allow credit for corrections to Vehicle

Inspection and Maintenance Programs

(I/M) or corrections to Reasonably

Available Control Technology (RACT)

rules as these programs were required

prior to 1990.

In addition, section 172(c)(9) of the

Clean Air Act requires that contingency

measures be included in the plan

revision to be implemented if

reasonable further progress is not

achieved or if the standard is not

attained.

In Texas, four moderate and above

ozone nonattainment areas are subject to

the 15 Percent Rate of Progress

requirements. These are the Beaumont/

Port Arthur (serious), Dallas/Fort Worth

(moderate), El Paso (serious), and the

Houston/Galveston (severe) areas. Texas

adopted measures for the 15 Percent

Rate of Progress Plans and the required

contingency measures in two phases.

Phase I was submitted to the EPA on

November 13, 1993, and contained

measures achieving the bulk of the

required reductions in each of the

nonattainment areas. Phase II was

submitted May 9, 1994. The Phase II

submittal was to make up the shortfall

in reductions not achieved in the Phase

I measures. The combination of the

Phase I and Phase II measures was ruled

complete by the EPA on May 12, 1994.

On August 3, 1994, Texas submitted

rules for the review and processing of

Alternate Means of Control (AMOC).

These revisions provide for the EPA

review and approval of AMOC plans.

On November 9, 1994, Texas submitted

a narrative explanation and justification

of the AMOC process with their plan to

reduce emissions an additional 9

percent in the Houston/Galveston and

Beaumont/Port Arthur Areas.

The EPA has analyzed the November

13, 1993, submittal; May 9, 1994,

submittal; August 3, 1994 submittal; and

the AMOC narrative portion of the

November 9, 1994, submittal; and

believes that these proposed 15 Percent

Plans and Contingency Plans can be

given limited approval because they

overall would strengthen the SIP by

achieving reductions in VOC emissions.

The 15 Percent Plan and Contingency

Plans do not, however, achieve the total

required percentage of reductions.

Therefore, the EPA is proposing a

limited disapproval of the plans. Also,

the control measures in the four 15

Percent Plans and Contingency Plans

cannot be completely approved, because

they do not meet all of the underlying

conditions of the Clean Air Act.

Therefore, the EPA is only proposing

limited approval of the control measures

in the 15 Percent Plans and the

Contingency Plans as a strengthening of

the SIP. The EPA is not taking any

action on whether the control measures

included in these plans comply with the
2752 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 1996 / Proposed Rules

RACT requirements of CAA section

182(b)(2), or any other underlying CAA

requirement. In addition, the EPA is

proposing limited approval of only the

AMOC portion of the November 9, 1994,

submittal as a strengthening of the SIP.

The EPA is taking no action on any

other portion of the November 9, 1994,

submittal. For a complete discussion of

EPA’s analysis of the State submittals,

please refer to the Technical Support

Document for this action. A summary of

the EPA’s findings follows.

Analysis

Emission Inventory

The base from which States determine

the required reductions in the 15

Percent Plan is the 1990 emission

inventory. The EPA approved the Texas

1990 base year inventory on November

8, 1994 (59 FR 55586). The inventory

approved by the EPA and the one used

in the 15 Percent Rate of Progress plans

are the same except for some minor

differences. The inventory used in the

15 Percent Rate of Progress Plans is

slightly larger than the approved

inventory. So it results in slightly more

required reductions. It is, therefore, a

somewhat conservative approach.

Calculation of Target Level Emissions

Texas subtracted the non-creditable

reductions from the FMVCP and Reid

Vapor Pressure (RVP) program from the

1990 inventory. This subtraction results

in the 1990 adjusted inventory. The

total emission reduction required to

meet the 15 Percent Rate of Progress

Plan requirements equals the sum of 15

percent of the adjusted inventory, plus

reductions to offset any growth that

takes place between 1990 and 1996,

plus any reductions that result from

corrections to the I/M or VOC RACT

rules. Table 1 summarizes the

calculations for the nonattainment areas

in Texas.

TABLE 1.—CALCULATION OF REQUIRED REDUCTIONS (TONS/DAY)

Dallas/Fort

Worth El Paso Beaumont/Port Arthur

Houston/

Galveston

1990 Emission Inventory .................................................................................................. 644.93 87.24 342.63 1179.27

1990 Adjusted .................................................................................................................. 542.68 73.97 331.16 1090.94

15% of adjusted ............................................................................................................... 81.40 11.10 49.67 163.64

RACT and I/M Corr .......................................................................................................... .99 1.57 4.28 11.83

1996 Target ...................................................................................................................... 460.29 61.30 277.21 915.47

1996 1 Projection .............................................................................................................. 606.22 82.68 324.89 1147.71

Required Reduction ......................................................................................................... 145.93 21.38 47.68 232.24

1 1996 forecasted emissions with growth and pre-1990 controls.

Measures Achieving the Projected

Reductions

For each of the four nonattainment

areas, Texas provided a plan to achieve

the required reductions. The specific

measures adopted in each of the areas

vary with the combination of sources in

each area. The following is a concise

description of each control measure

Texas used to achieve reductions credit

in the plan. The EPA is proposing

limited approval of the following

control measures as a strengthening of

the SIP and agrees with the emission

reductions projected in the State

submittals for these measures.

Stage II Vapor Recovery

This measure requires the installation

and operation of vapor recovery

equipment on gasoline pumps to reduce

the emissions during refueling. The

rules of the program are contained in 30

TAC Chapter 115.241–259. The EPA

approved these rules in the Federal

Register on April 15, 1994, (59 FR

17940). The EPA agrees with the

reductions projected for this measure in

the Beaumont/Port Arthur, Dallas/Fort

Worth and Houston areas. In the El Paso

area, the EPA believes that too much

credit has been claimed in the proposed

SIP revision. (see noncreditable

reductions).

Bakeries

Texas made revisions to its vent gas

control rules (30 TAC 115.121–129) to

require controls on commercial

bakeries. These bakeries can be

significant sources of VOC emissions in

the form of ethanol produced by yeast

in the leavening process. The ethanol is

liberated primarily when the bread is

baked in the oven. These rules apply to

major source bakeries in the Dallas/Fort

Worth and Houston/Galveston areas.

Major sources are defined as those

emitting more than 100 tons/year in the

Dallas/Fort Worth area and more than

25 tons/year in the Houston area. These

rules require that the bakeries reduce

emissions by 30 percent from the levels

reported in the 1990 emissions

inventory. Each of the affected bakeries

has submitted control plans to achieve

the required reductions. Upon the EPA’s

approval of these rules, these control

plans will become Federally

enforceable. The control plans all rely

on some form of incineration and

should easily achieve the expected

reductions. The EPA proposes to

approve these rules as a strengthening of

the SIP and agrees with the associated

projected emission reductions.

Offset Lithography:

These rules, contained in 30 TAC

115.442–449, regulate emissions from

offset printing operations in the El Paso

area. This control measure was also

adopted as a contingency measure in the

Houston/Galveston and Beaumont/Port

Arthur areas. These operations produce

a wide variety of products such as

magazines, newspapers and books. The

rules regulate emissions from the

fountain solution, clean up solvent, and

dryer exhaust. The EPA believes that

these rules will result in enforceable

emission reductions. The EPA is

proposing to approve these rules as a

strengthening of the SIP and agrees with

the associated projected emission

reductions.

Consumer Products

Under section 183(e)(9) of the Clean

Air Act, states may develop and submit

to the Administrator a procedure under

state law to regulate consumer and

commercial products, provided they

consult with the EPA regarding other

State and local regulations for consumer

and commercial product rules.

Throughout the process of regulating

consumer and commercial products,

Texas has consulted the EPA and other

states to utilize the collective expertise

of other regulatory bodies in drafting

and adopting their regulation. The rule

applies to any person offering a

consumer or commercial product for

sale, supply, distribution, manufacture

or use in Texas. Consumer and
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 1996 / Proposed Rules 2753

commercial products include all VOCemitting products used in homes,

businesses, institutions, and a multitude

of commercial manufacturing

operations. The Texas rules, found at 30

TAC 115.600–625 apply standards for

the VOC content of the products in 26

categories.

The rules allow the Executive Director

of the Texas Natural Resource

Conservation Commission (TNRCC) to

grant Innovative Product Waivers to

exempt products from the VOC content

requirements of this rule; if the

Executive Director determines the

innovative product emits, equal to or

less than, the emissions from a

representative consumer product that is

in compliance. In general, the EPA can

grant approval of a rule that allows the

State discretion to grant variances or

exemptions without a full SIP revision,

only if the rule contains specific

conditions and a replicable procedure

for the granting of the waivers. The EPA

does not believe that the Texas

consumer/commercial product rule

contains such a replicable procedure

that the EPA could use to verify a

waiver was merited. The EPA believes

it is appropriate to approve the rule as

a strengthening of the SIP in this

specific case, because EPA intends to

promulgate national rules for the

regulation of consumer and commercial

products under section 183 of the CAA

in the near future. Thus, requiring the

state to develop a replicable waiver

procedure now would duplicate efforts

that will also occur through

promulgation of the national rules. The

EPA is proposing to approve these rules

as a strengthening of the SIP and agrees

with the projected emission reductions.

Automobile Refinishing:

Texas has adopted measures to reduce

emissions from repainting cars at auto

body repair shops. Reductions are

achieved through two mechanisms.

First, limits on the VOC content of

paints and primers have been set.

Second, the application equipment must

be High Volume Low Pressure

equipment or equivalent. This

equipment tends to increase the transfer

efficiency, or the percentage of paint

that actually adheres to the vehicle. By

getting a higher percentage of the paint

on the car, less paint is used and less

VOC is emitted to the atmosphere. The

rules also require special equipment be

used for equipment cleaning which will

result in lower solvent emissions. These

requirements contained at 30 TAC

115.421–422 have been adopted for all

four nonattainment areas.

In addition to the State rules, the EPA

intends to promulgate a national rule

that will further limit the VOC content

of coatings. The EPA believes the

combination of the emission reductions

from the State rules and creditable

emission reductions from future

national rules will result in the levels

projected in the State’s submittal. The

EPA is proposing to approve these State

rules as a strengthening of the SIP.

RACT Catch Up

Section 182(b)(2)(B) of the Clean Air

Act requires that moderate and above

ozone nonattainment areas adopt rules

to require RACT for all VOC sources in

the area covered by any Control

Technique Guideline (CTG) issued

before the date of the enactment of the

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. In

practice, this required areas that were

considered rural under pre-amendment

guidance to ‘‘catch up’’ by adopting the

same requirements as urban

nonattainment areas. Newly designated

nonattainment areas were required to

adopt rules based on the preamendment CTG’s. Also, RACT was to

be applied to smaller sources of

emissions in some instances because the

amount of emissions defining a major

source in serious and above

nonattainment areas was reduced by the

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.

In Texas, Beaumont/Port Arthur was

a rural nonattainment area prior to the

1990 amendments. Also, the following

counties were added to the

nonattainment areas based on the Clean

Air Act amendments of 1990; Collin,

Denton, Fort Bend, Liberty,

Montgomery, Waller, Chambers and

Hardin. Texas submitted rules to meet

the RACT catch up requirements. The

EPA approved these submittals on May

8, 1995 (60 FR 12438). Emission

reductions from these rule changes are

creditable toward the Rate of Progress

requirement. The EPA agrees with the

reductions projected in the 15 Percent

Rate of Progress plans due to RACT

catch up rule changes.

Rule Effectiveness Improvements

Rule Effectiveness (RE)is an

adjustment to an emission reduction

calculation that compensates for the fact

that facilities are not fully in

compliance with a given rule 100

percent of the time. Texas expects that

compliance will improve from 1990

levels for various reasons, the most

important of which is a large projected

increase in State enforcement staff. To

insure that real emission reductions

have occurred, the State must commit to

performing a study to confirm that the

rule has achieved the expected

effectiveness. Texas has committed to

conducting detailed inspections of inuse control efficiency during annual

inspections and to revising the State’s

upset/maintenance rule to require more

record keeping. These confirmation

studies will be expected to be submitted

with the State’s Milestone Compliance

Demonstration. The EPA believes the

projected emission reductions are

appropriate.

Wood Parts and Products Coatings

These rules, found at 30 TAC

115.421(a)(13), limit the VOC content of

wood coatings. The rules apply to wood

part and product manufacturers in the

Houston, El Paso and Dallas/Fort Worth

areas. Texas has projected a 20 percent

reduction in emissions due to the rules,

which the EPA believes is appropriate.

The EPA is proposing to approve these

rules as a strengthening of the SIP. The

EPA also agrees with the projected

reductions.

Fugitive Emission Control

115.352–115.357 These rules,

contained at 30 TAC 115.352–115.357,

tighten leak detection and repair

requirements in petroleum refining and

petrochemical processes. Texas changed

the leak detection minimum from

10,000 ppm to 500 ppm for valves. The

EPA is proposing to approve these rules

as a strengthening of the SIP. The EPA

also agrees with the projected

reductions.

Municipal Waste Landfills

These rules, contained at 30 TAC

115.152–115.159, limit emissions from

municipal waste landfills. The

decomposition of municipal waste

generates large amounts of methane and

significant amounts of VOC’s. These

emissions can be captured and recycled

or flared. The EPA has proposed a New

Source Performance Standard for new

landfills, and also proposed

requirements which States will be

required to adopt for existing landfills

under section 111(d) of the CAA. Texas

has proceeded with rules in advance of

final national rules so the reductions

can be achieved by 1996. The EPA is

proposing to approve these rules as a

strengthening of the SIP. The EPA also

agrees with the projected reductions.

SOCMI Reactor and Distillation

These rules require control of

emissions from reactor and distillation

vents in the synthetic organic chemical

manufacturing industry. These rules

were based on a draft CTG that has since

been finalized. The EPA is proposing

approval of these rules as a

strengthening of the SIP. The EPA also

agrees with the projected emission

reductions.
2754 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 1996 / Proposed Rules

Carswell Fire Training

This emission reduction is included

in the Rate of Progress plan because

Carswell Air Force Base no longer

conducts fire training exercises. A letter

of commitment from the Air Force Base,

adopted into the Dallas/Fort Worth 15

percent plan, documents that these

training exercises are no longer

conducted at the base and will not be

conducted in the future. The EPA also

agrees with the projected emission

reductions.

Degassing or Cleaning of Vessels

(115.541–115.549)

These rules require the control of

emissions that occur during the

degassing or cleaning of stationary or

transport vessels by the capture and

either recovery or destruction of the

resulting emissions. The EPA is

proposing to approve these rules as a

strengthening of the SIP. The EPA also

agrees with the projected reductions.

Outdoor Burning

Texas has calculated the reduction in

VOC emissions that have occurred due

to the more stringent outdoor burning

restrictions that have been implemented

in the El Paso area as required by the El

Paso PM–10 SIP approved on January

18, 1994 (59 FR 2532). The EPA also

agrees with the projected emission

reductions.

Gasoline Terminals

Texas projected emission reductions

from tightening the control

requirements contained in 30 TAC

115.211–219 for vapor recovery devices

on gasoline terminals used by gasoline

powered transport trucks. Various other

changes have also been made to

strengthen these rules. The EPA is

proposing to approve these revisions to

the State rules as a strengthening of the

SIP. The EPA also agrees with the

emission reductions associated with

these measures.

Reformulated Gasoline

Section 211(k) of the CAA requires

that after January 1, 1995, in severe and

above ozone nonattainment areas, only

reformulated gasoline be sold or

dispensed. This gasoline is reformulated

to burn cleaner and produce fewer

evaporative emissions. As a severe area,

Houston will benefit from these

emission reductions. The EPA agrees

with the emission reductions that the

State has projected for the Houston area.

Section 211(k)(6) allows other

nonattainment areas to ‘‘opt in’’ to the

program. On June 11, 1992, the

Governor of Texas asked that the Dallas/

Fort Worth area also participate in the

program. This request was approved in

the Federal Register on October 8, 1992

(57 FR 46317). These emission

reductions are fully creditable toward

the Dallas/Fort Worth Plan. The EPA

agrees with the reductions that have

been projected due to the introduction

of reformulated gasoline in the Dallas/

Fort Worth area.

Reid Vapor Pressure Control

Texas has enacted rules (30 TAC

115.252–115.259) lowering the allowed

RVP of gasoline sold in the El Paso

nonattainment area. RVP is a measure of

the tendency of gasoline to evaporate.

Lowering the RVP results in lower VOC

emissions and the reductions can be

credited to the plan. The rules require

the gasoline sold in El Paso between

June 1 and September 15 of each year

to have an RVP of no greater than 7.0

psi.

State governments are generally

preempted under section 211(c)(4)(A) of

the CAA from requiring gasoline sold in

any area in a State to meet an RVP

standard different from the federal

standard. However, under 211(c)(4)(C) a

State can require a more stringent RVP

standard in its SIP if the more stringent

standard is necessary to achieve the

National Ambient Air Quality Standard

(NAAQS) in a particular nonattainment

area. The State can make this

demonstration of necessity by providing

evidence that no other measures exist

that would bring about timely

attainment, or that such measures exist,

are technically possible to implement,

but are unreasonable or impracticable.

Economic consequences may be

considered in this demonstration. If a

State makes this demonstration, it can

lower the volatility to whatever

standard is necessary for the

nonattainment area.

In addition to the control measures

mandated by the CAA, Texas has

compiled a Control Measure Catalog for

each of its nonattainment areas and has

graded each measure on its viability for

use in these 15 Percent Plans. The grade

was based on six criteria; cost of

implementation, reactivity, emission

reductions potential, technical

feasibility, toxicity, and enforceability.

The Catalog identified fourteen control

measures for the El Paso area; the El

Paso 15 Percent Plan contained all of

these measures and an additional ten for

a total of twenty-four. The EPA believes

the State has considered all of the

reasonably available control measures.

Included among these control

measures was control of VOC’s from

fuel. In the absence of fuel controls, it

was projected there would be

insufficient VOC reductions to achieve

the 15 percent SIP target and there may

ultimately be insufficient VOC

reductions to achieve attainment of the

NAAQS. The State considered two fuel

control measures: opting into the federal

reformulated gasoline program (RFG) or

implementing a Low RVP (7.0 psi)

Program. The State, with help and input

from local area refineries, determined

the two programs would generate the

same VOC emission reductions in the El

Paso ozone nonattainment area.

However, as explained below, El Paso

may receive additional VOC reductions

from the Low RVP Program when the

Juarez area is considered. The local area

refineries expressed support for the Low

RVP Program over an RFG Program

because of economic reasons as outlined

below.

El Paso and Juarez, Mexico are

essentially one air shed from an air

quality standpoint. Modeling submitted

by the State demonstrates El Paso is in

attainment of the NAAQS for ozone but

for emissions from Juarez and suggests

that reduction of VOC emissions from

Juarez will be needed for the El Paso

area to attain the NAAQS for ozone.

This modeling, in support of a 179B

demonstration, has been submitted by

the State and is pending before the EPA.

Action on this submittal will be taken

in a separate Federal Register notice.

Currently, Juarez is receiving in

excess of 80 percent of its gasoline from

refineries located in El Paso. The local

area refineries estimated the cost to

produce low RVP gasoline would be

about one cent per gallon over that of

conventional gasoline. The capital

investments and other costs necessary

for the production of RFG was estimated

to increase the cost of RFG by about four

cents per gallon. The State concluded

that the Juarez market would accept the

small increase in the cost of low RVP

gasoline and El Paso would be subjected

to VOC emissions from Juarez based on

gasoline with an RVP of slightly more

than 7.0 psi. Contrarily, the State

concluded that the higher cost of RFG

would likely result in Juarez requesting

conventional gasoline from the El Paso

refineries, with an RVP of 9.0 psi or

higher, rather than RFG. Because the

low RVP gasoline is more likely to be

accepted in Juarez, it is expected to

generate additional reductions that will

be needed for attainment of the NAAQS

for ozone in El Paso beyond those

reductions generated by an RFG

program. In a letter to the Chairman of

the Texas Natural Resource

Conservation Commission from the

Director of the EPA’s Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards, dated

June 23, 1995, the EPA indicated the

State could, with conditions, use the
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 1996 / Proposed Rules 2755

expected emission reductions from

Juarez to meet the requirements of the

15 Percent SIP. In a future submittal,

Texas will need to substantiate and

quantify the expected reductions from

the Juarez area as a result of the Low

RVP Program.

El Paso is also a Carbon Monoxide

nonattainment area and Texas has

implemented an Oxygenated Fuel

Program with a control period from

September 1 of one year to March 31 of

the next. The monitoring and

enforcement of the program has been

delegated to the El Paso City/County

Health and Environmental District

(District). The District has dedicated

resources, personnel and equipment, to

this program. The State also intends to

delegate the monitoring and

enforcement of the Low RVP Program to

the District. Since the Oxygenated Fuel

Program is a winter program and the

Low RVP Program is a summer program

the District will be able to utilize the

same resources in both programs

resulting in a savings of administrative

costs. Thus the State is implementing

strategies specific to their pollution

abatement needs; an Oxygenated Fuel

Program in the winter months and a

Low RVP Program during the high

ozone period of the summer.

For the reasons stated above, the EPA

believes the State has satisfied the

requirements of section 211(c)(4)(C) to

demonstrate that the Low RVP Program

is necessary to achieve the NAAQS for

ozone in the El Paso area. The State has

demonstrated that all other reasonable

and available sources of VOC reductions

have been considered and used; and

that the only other alternative available

for VOC emissions reductions, the RFG

Program, will not yield VOC reductions

in Juarez that will be needed for the

eventual attainment of the NAAQS of

ozone in the El Paso area. The EPA is

proposing limited approval of the

State’s Low RVP Program. The EPA

agrees with the projected emission

reductions, in the El Paso area from the

Low RVP program. However, if the State

wishes to credit emission reductions

occurring in the Jaurez area, due to the

low RVP program, as outlined in the

EPA’s June 23, 1994 letter; Texas will,

in future SIP revisions, need to

substantiate and quantify the expected

reductions from the Juarez area as a

result of the Low RVP Program.

Tier I Federal Motor Vehicle Control

Program

The EPA promulgated standards for

1994 and later model year light-duty

vehicles and light-duty trucks (56 FR

25724, June 5, 1991). Since the

standards were adopted after the CAA

amendments of 1990, the resulting

emission reductions are creditable

toward the 15 percent reduction goal.

The EPA agrees with the State’s

projected emission reductions.

Transportation Control Measures (TCM)

The State has included several TCM’s

such as high occupancy vehicle lanes,

traffic signal and intersection

improvements in the plans that result in

emission reductions in the Dallas/Fort

Worth, Houston, and El Paso

nonattainment areas. The emission

reductions from TCM’s are

approximately 6.94 tons/day for Dallas/

Fort Worth, 0.30 tons/day for El Paso,

and 0.10 tons/day for the Houston area.

In addition, TNRCC has adopted a set of

TCM rules which were submitted under

separate cover as a SIP revision for the

EPA’s approval. The TCM rules will be

supplementing the control strategy SIPs

in order to assure implementation of the

TCM’s. The EPA has reviewed the

TCM’s included in the 15 Percent Rate

of Progress plans and agrees with the

projected reductions. The EPA is not,

however, taking action at this time on

the TCM rules. The EPA will be taking

action on the TCM rules in a separate

Federal Register notice.

Small Gas Utility Engines

Texas calculated emission reductions

that were expected to result from a State

rule requiring that cleaner burning small

gas utility engines be manufactured for

sale in Texas. The State has since

revised the rule to allow for a later

compliance date. This could have

resulted in a loss of projected emission

reductions. The EPA, however, believes

that the expected emission reductions

still occurred during 1994 and 1995 and

will occur during 1996, as a result of

small engine modifications made by the

industry’s major manufacturers. These

reductions are the result of actions taken

by the industry in advance of the

Federal Emission Standards for New

Non-road Spark-Engines at or below 25

Horsepower (Phase I) that will take

effect in the 1997 model year. To

demonstrate that reductions have

occurred, the industry has provided

sufficient Texas specific sales data and

engine specification information to the

EPA demonstrating that significant

emission reductions are expected to

occur during the 1994, 1995, and 1996

calendar years. The EPA agrees these

emission reductions will occur. The

EPA is taking no action on Texas’ small

engine rule because it now largely

duplicates already promulgated Federal

requirements.

Off-Road Reformulated Gasoline

The use of reformulated gasoline will

also result in reduced emissions from

off-road engines such as outboard

motors for boats and lawn mower

engines. The EPA agrees with the

reductions projected in the plans for offroad engines utilizing reformulated

gasoline.

Tier III Jet Engine Standards

Aircraft are required by Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) rules to

have engines that meet Tier III

standards. These standards result in

engines designed to be both quieter and

less polluting. These rules contain a

phase in schedule with full compliance

required by the year 2000. The EPA

agrees with the projected emission

reductions contained in the State

submittal.

Benzene National Emission Standards

for Hazardous Air Pollutants

(NESHAPS)

In January 1993, the EPA promulgated

40 CFR 61 subpart FF, National

Emission Standard for Benzene Waste

Operations. Texas has quantified the

VOC reductions that will result from

these rules in the Beaumont area. The

EPA agrees that these reductions will

occur.

Measures Achieving Less Than the

Projected Emission Reductions

For the following control measures,

the EPA believes that the amount of

emission reduction that has been

claimed in the State submittals is not

appropriate or is inadequately

documented. The EPA does not agree

with the projected emission reductions

that are in excess of those which the

EPA believes will actually occur.

Architectural and Industrial

Maintenance Coatings (AIM)

Emission reductions have been

projected for AIM coatings due to the

expected promulgation by the EPA of a

national rule. In a memo dated March

22, 1995, the EPA provided guidance on

the expected reductions from the

national rule. It is expected that

emissions would be reduced by 20

percent. Texas has taken 25 percent

reduction credit in its plan. This was

based on previous guidance from the

EPA that 25 percent reductions would

occur. Since the 20 percent more

accurately reflects the emission

reductions that will occur in practice,

the EPA does not agree with the

reductions projected in excess of 20

percent.
2756 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 1996 / Proposed Rules

Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/

M)

The plans in each of the four areas

relied on revised vehicle I/M programs

that were developed by the State of

Texas and submitted to the EPA on

November 12, 1993, and on March 9,

1994. The EPA evaluated these

programs and approved them into the

SIP on August 22, 1994. Texas began

implementing these programs in

January, 1995. The Texas legislature

enacted a bill on May 1, 1995, giving the

governor authority to develop a revised

program. During the interim, the

legislation reinstated the I/M programs

in existence prior to January 1, 1995. In

June 1995, the TNRCC adopted

emergency rules to reinstate the pre1995 programs. As a result of these

actions, the emission reductions that

were expected to result cannot be

expected to be achieved. Thus, the EPA

cannot agree with the projected

emission reductions for vehicle

inspection and maintenance.

Employee Commute Options

On March 7, 1995 (60 FR 12442), the

EPA approved a revision to the Texas

SIP incorporating an Employee

Commute Options/Employer Trip

Reduction Program. The program is

required in all severe and extreme ozone

nonattainment areas. For Texas, this

affects the Houston/Galveston

nonattainment area. On April 18, 1995,

the Governor of Texas signed legislation

which suspended the program for 180

days and allowed additional 45 day

suspensions of the program at the

discretion of the Governor. The TNRCC

is in the process of restructuring the

program. Due to the suspension of the

program, the 1.81 tons per day of

emission reductions claimed for the

Houston/Galveston nonattainment area

cannot be expected to be achieved.

Thus, the EPA cannot agree with the

emission reductions projected for this

program in the Houston/Galveston 15

Percent Rate of Progress Plan.

Marine Vessel Loading

These rules are designed to reduce

emissions that result from the loading of

VOC’s into marine vessels in the

Houston area. The rules control sources

that emit more than 100 tons/year. The

EPA believes that the rules will result in

enforceable emission reductions toward

the 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plan for

Houston. The EPA is therefore,

proposing to approve these rules as a

strengthening of the SIP.

Texas, however, projected reductions

from both points (defined as greater

than 25 tons per year) and area (less

than 25 tons per year) sources, when the

rule only applies to 100 ton/year or

greater sources. The smaller area

sources, those that emit less than 25

tons per year, would remain

uncontrolled. The EPA cannot ascertain

what portion of the emission reductions

claimed from the point source inventory

are from sources that emit between 25

and 100 tons/year but expects that this

is a relatively small amount. Therefore,

the EPA can agree with the emission

reductions associated with marine

vessel loading operations contained in

the point source inventory only with the

understanding that before a final action,

the State will demonstrate that no

emission reductions are being projected

for sources in the 25–100 ton/year

emissions range. The EPA cannot agree

with the projected emission reductions

associated with area source marine

vessel loading operations.

The EPA is aware that Texas now

believes that all of the marine vessel

loading emissions are covered in the

point source inventory and that the area

source inventory is zero. If this is the

case, future SIP revisions should reflect

this adjustment and the projected

emission reductions should be adjusted

accordingly.

Industrial Wastewater

Texas has adopted rules for control of

emissions from industrial wastewater.

These rules were based on a draft

Control Technique Guideline for the

control of emissions from wastewater.

The TNRCC rule applies to VOC

emissions from wastewater from the

organic chemicals, plastics, and

synthetic fibers manufacturing industry

(Standard Industrial Classification codes

2821, 2823, 2824, 2865 and 2869),

pesticide manufacturing industry,

petroleum refining industry,

pharmaceutical manufacturing industry,

and hazardous waste treatment, storage,

and disposal facilities. The essential

concept in the TNRCC rule is to

suppress VOC emissions from all

wastewater streams that have either

greater than 10,000 ppm VOC at any

flow rate or 1000 ppm VOC and a flow

rate greater than 10 liters/minute. The

rule encourages facilities to remove the

VOC’s from the stream before they are

emitted to the air. The 15 Percent Rate

of Progress plans claim a 90 percent

overall control efficiency for this

measure.

In contrast, the EPA expects that the

overall reductions expected from

control of wastewater streams using the

exemption cutoffs in the Texas rule are

43 percent for the organic, chemicals,

plastics and synthetic fibers industry,

and 41 percent control for the petroleum

refining industry. This assumes that the

State rule is based on a control program

as effective as the wastewater emission

control program in the National

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants (NESHAP) for the Synthetic

Organic Chemical Manufacturing

Industry (40 CFR 63.100). This rule is

generally referred to as the Hazardous

Organic NESHAP (HON). The Texas

rule, however, is not as stringent in its

control requirements when compared to

requirements expected in the draft CTG

or the HON. Chief among the differences

is that the Texas rule merely requires

that streams be treated to remove VOC

down to a concentration of 1000 ppm.

In contrast, the HON requires that the

VOC concentration in any stream with

a concentration greater than 1000 ppm,

must be reduced to the level that can be

achieved by a steam stripper. This level

can be far lower than 1000 ppm. Even

if the Texas control program were

similar to the program in the HON for

the control of hazardous air pollutants,

it would be expected to get less than the

90 percent emission reductions

projected by the State because of the

exemption levels that were chosen.

The EPA is proposing limited

approval of the Texas rules for control

of wastewater emissions as a

strengthening of the SIP that will result

in emission reductions. The EPA cannot

agree with all of the emission reductions

that have been projected. From the

information provided, the EPA cannot

ascertain what the actual emission

reductions from this program will be.

The EPA, perhaps, could agree to

emission reductions based on a control

efficiency of 42 percent drawn from an

average of the petroleum refinery and

Synthetic Organic Chemical

Manufacturing Industry emission

reduction estimates in the draft CTG.

However, the Texas wastewater rules

could result in less control than

contemplated in the draft CTG. To

assure creditable emissions reductions,

before the EPA’s final action, the State

should document the actual emission

reductions that can be expected from

the State rule.

Other Coatings

Reductions are projected in this

category in the El Paso area but there are

no rules or documentation in the plan.

Therefore, EPA cannot agree with these

projected emission reductions.

Acetone Substitution

These rules are designed to limit

emissions from cultured (synthetic)

marble and fiber reinforced plastic

(FRP) operations in the Dallas/Fort

Worth, El Paso, and Houston areas.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 1996 / Proposed Rules 2757

These operations typically used large

quantities of acetone as a cleaning

solvent. These rules limit the use of

acetone or require the use of substitute

materials with a low vapor pressure.

The EPA added acetone to the list of

non-reactive compounds on June 16,

1995 (60 FR 31633). Therefore, the EPA

will take no action on these rules. As a

result, the EPA cannot agree with the

use of these projected emission

reductions toward the 15 Percent Rate of

Progress Plan.

Stage II in El Paso

In the SIP revision, Texas assumed an

in-use efficiency of 88 percent for Stage

II in El Paso. In the other three areas,

Texas assumed an 81 percent in-use

efficiency. The EPA believes that 81

percent in-use efficiency is appropriate

based on the number of inspections

being performed and the percentage of

exempted stations. Therefore, the

emission reductions from the higher inuse efficiency were not documented and

cannot be credited toward the rate of

progress plan for El Paso. The EPA can

agree with emission reductions based on

an 81 percent in-use efficiency. The

EPA cannot agree with the emission

reductions resulting from estimates of

an in-use efficiency in excess of 81

percent.

Shortfall

Tables 2 through 5 summarize the

proposed creditable and noncreditable

reductions.

TABLE 2.—SUMMARY OF CREDITABLE

AND NONCREDITABLE EMISSION REDUCTIONS: DALLAS/FORT WORTH

(TONS/DAY)

Required Reduction .................................. 145.93

Creditable Reductions:

RACT Catch-up ..................................... 4.19

Stage II .................................................. 18.19

Aircraft Stage III ..................................... 0.60

Other VOC storage, transport ............... 0.05

FMVCP Tier I ......................................... 1.83

Bakeries ................................................. 0.12

Auto Refinishing .................................... 4.51

Municipal Landfills ................................. 3.49

Carswell Fire Training Pit Closure ......... 1.20

RE Improvements .................................. 4.77

Gas Utility Engines ................................ 6.53

Reform:

On-Road ................................................ 33.18

Off-Road ................................................ 3.17

TCM’s ........................................................ 6.94

Consumer/Commercial Products .............. 3.45

Gasoline Terminals ................................... 2.17

Fugitives .................................................... 0.07

Wood Furniture ......................................... 1.35

AIM ............................................................ 6.22

Total ................................................ 102.03

Noncreditable Reductions:

AIM ........................................................ 1.09

Inspection & Maintenance ..................... 43.79

TABLE 2.—SUMMARY OF CREDITABLE

AND NONCREDITABLE EMISSION REDUCTIONS: DALLAS/FORT WORTH

(TONS/DAY)—Continued

Acetone Replacement ........................... 0.29

Total noncreditable ......................... 45.17

Short fall .................................................... 43.90

TABLE 3.—SUMMARY OF CREDITABLE

AND NONCREDITABLE EMISSION REDUCTIONS: EL PASO (TONS/DAY)

Required Reduction .................................. 21.38

Creditable Reductions:

RACT Catch-up ..................................... 0.71

Stage II .................................................. 1.87

Aircraft Stage III ..................................... 0.02

FMVCP Tier I ......................................... 0.25

Auto Refinishing .................................... 1.13

Offset Printing ........................................ 0.56

Vessel Loading ...................................... 0.32

Fugitives ................................................ 1.13

RE Improvements .................................. 0.61

Gas Utility Engines ................................ 0.84

TCM’s .................................................... 0.30

Architectural Coatings ........................... 1.05

Consumer/Commercial Products ........... 0.61

Municipal Landfills ................................. 0.21

Industrial Wastewater ............................ 0.27

Bulk Gasoline Terminals ........................ 0.82

Outdoor Burning .................................... 0.40

Wood Furniture ...................................... 0.04

RVP (on-road) ....................................... 2.61

RVP (off-road) ....................................... 0.09

Total ................................................ 13.84

Noncreditable Reductions:

AIM ........................................................ 0.37

Inspection & Maintenance ..................... 6.72

Stage II .................................................. 0.16

Other Coatings ...................................... 0.30

Total Noncreditable ........................ 7.55

Short fall .................................................... 7.54

TABLE 4.—SUMMARY OF CREDITABLE

AND NONCREDITABLE EMISSION REDUCTIONS: BEAUMONT/PORT ARTHUR (TONS/DAY)

Required Reduction .................................. 47.68

Creditable Reductions:

RACT Catch-up ..................................... 18.84

Benzene NESHAP ................................. .28

TSDF ..................................................... .04

Stage II .................................................. 1.94

FMVCP Tier I ......................................... .22

Vessel Cleaning/Degassing ................... 0.02

Fugitive Controls .................................... 15.61

RE Improvements .................................. 5.98

Gas Utility Engines ................................ 1.05

AIM ........................................................ 0.59

Consumer/Commercial Products ........... 0.33

Total ................................................ 44.90

Noncreditable Reductions:

AIM ........................................................ 0.21

Inspection & Maintenance ..................... 3.16

TABLE 4.—SUMMARY OF CREDITABLE

AND NONCREDITABLE EMISSION REDUCTIONS: BEAUMONT/PORT ARTHUR (TONS/DAY)—Continued

Total noncreditable ......................... 3.37

Short fall .................................................... 2.78

TABLE 5.—SUMMARY OF CREDITABLE

AND NONCREDITABLE EMISSION REDUCTIONS: HOUSTON/GALVESTON

(TONS/DAY)

Required Reduction .................................. 232.24

Creditable Reductions:

RACT Catch-up ..................................... 27.09

TSDF ..................................................... .80

Stage II .................................................. 16.89

VOC Storage, Transportation ................ 0.46

Reform Gas:

On Road ................................................ 19.33

Off Road ................................................ 6.53

FMVCP Tier I ............................................ 1.49

Auto Refinishing ........................................ 7.15

Vessel Cleaning/Degassing ...................... 2.74

SOCMI Rct. & Dist. ................................... 5.55

Fugitive Controls ....................................... 34.61

RE Improvements ..................................... 8.56

Gas Utility Engines .................................... 9.08

TCMs ......................................................... .10

Consumer/Commercial Products .............. 3.85

Marine Vessel loading ............................... 1 13.73

Gasoline Terminals ................................... .81

Wood Coating ........................................... .37

Bakeries .................................................... .23

AIM ............................................................ 7.31

Industrial Wastewater ................................ 2 6.20

Total ................................................ 171.88

Noncreditable Reductions:

AIM ........................................................ 1.83

Indust. Wastewater ................................ 7.16

Inspection & Maintenance ..................... 34.49

Marine Vessel Loading .......................... 13.64

Acetone Replacement ........................... 1.43

Employee Commute Options ................. 1.81

Total Noncreditable ........................ 60.36

Short fall .................................................... 60.36

1Texas should demonstrate that emission

reductions are not being shown here for

sources that emit less than 100 tons/year. 2EPA believes these emission reductions

may be overstated. Texas should show a control efficiency of 42 percent is appropriate in

light of control that is less stringent than the

HON. (See the Technical Support Document).

Contingency Measures

Ozone areas classified as moderate or

above must include in their submittals,

under section 172(c)(9) of the CAA,

contingency measures to be

implemented if Reasonable Further

Progress (RFP) is not achieved or if the

standard is not attained by the

applicable date. The General Preamble

to Title I, (57 FR 13498) states that the

contingency measures should, at a

minimum, ensure that an appropriate

level of emissions reduction progress

continues to be made if attainment or

RFP is not achieved and additional
2758 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 1996 / Proposed Rules

planning by the State is needed.

Therefore, the EPA interprets the CAA

to require States with moderate and

above ozone nonattainment areas to

include sufficient contingency measures

in the November 1993 submittal, so that

upon implementation of such measures,

additional emissions reductions of up to

three percent of the adjusted base year

inventory (or a lesser percentage that

will make up the identified shortfall)

would be achieved in the year after the

failure has been identified. States must

show that their contingency measures

can be implemented with minimal

further action on their part and with no

additional rulemaking actions such as

public hearings or legislative review .

Analysis of Specific Contingency

Measures

The following is a discussion of each

of the contingency measures that have

been included in the SIP submittals and

an analysis of their acceptableness.

Degassing or Cleaning of Vessels

As discussed previously, this measure

was adopted as part of the 15 percent

rate of progress plans for the Houston

and Beaumont areas. It was also adopted

as a contingency rule in the El Paso and

Dallas/Fort Worth areas. The EPA

believes the reductions that have been

projected if this measure is needed as a

contingency measure are appropriate.

The EPA proposes limited approval of

these rules as a strengthening of the SIP.

Dry Cleaning Naphtha

These rules adopted at 30 TAC

115.552 as a contingency measure

would call for control of dry cleaners

that use petroleum naphtha. This rule

was adopted as a contingency measure

in the Dallas/Fort Worth, El Paso, and

Houston areas. The EPA has evaluated

this rule and believes that it will

achieve the projected reductions in the

event it must be implemented. The EPA

proposes to give limited approval to

these rules as a strengthening of the SIP.

Offset Printing

As discussed previously, regulation of

emissions from offset printing was

adopted as a 15 percent measure in the

El Paso area. It was also adopted as a

contingency measure in the Houston

and Dallas/Fort Worth areas. The EPA

believes that the emission reductions

that have been projected if it is

necessary to implement these rules are

appropriate. The EPA proposes limited

approval of these rules as a

strengthening of the SIP.

Commercial Bakeries

As discussed previously, Texas

adopted control measures for major

source bakeries in Dallas/Fort Worth

and Houston. Texas also adopted for

Dallas, Houston and El Paso, a

contingency measure for minor source

bakeries to be controlled in the event a

milestone demonstration or attainment

date is missed. The EPA believes the

reductions that are projected if these

rules are implemented are appropriate.

The EPA is proposing limited approval

of these rules as a strengthening of the

SIP.

Transportation Control Measures

In Dallas/Fort Worth and El Paso,

Texas has projected that additional

emission reductions will come from

transportation control measures that

will be implemented in the 1997 time

frame. These additional reductions

serve as a contingency measure if these

areas miss a milestone or fail to attain

the standard. The EPA is proposing

limited approval of these Transportation

Control Measures as a strengthening of

the SIP.

Gas Utility Engines

Texas has relied on emission

reductions from the State small utility

engine rule toward the contingency plan

from new, cleaner, engines placed in

service during 1997. As discussed

previously, the State rule has been

revised to have a later compliance date.

While the EPA believes that the data

provided by the small engine

manufacturers provides the needed

reductions during 1994, 1995 and 1996;

it is unclear whether the necessary

reductions will occur during 1997 to be

creditable in the contingency plans.

Again, the EPA is taking no action on

the State Small utility engine rule.

Texas, in future submittals, will have to

revise its emission reduction estimates

to be consistent with the data provided

by the small engine manufacturers and

subsequent EPA policy.

Automobile Refinishing

As discussed previously, regulations

on emissions from automobile

refinishing were adopted in Dallas/Fort

Worth, El Paso and Houston. These

same rules were adopted as contingency

measures in the Beaumont/Port Arthur

area. The EPA believes that the

projected emission reductions will

occur if it is necessary to implement this

rule. Therefore, the EPA is proposing

limited approval of this rule as a

strengthening of the SIP in the

Beaumont area.

Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance

All of the contingency plans relied to

some extent on reductions from the

previously planned vehicle inspection

and maintenance program. As discussed

previously, these reductions cannot be

expected to occur. In addition, the State

has combined the projected emission

reductions from Tier I FMVCP with the

projected I/M reductions. The EPA

cannot determine what portion of the

combined reductions are attributable to

the Tier I program. Therefore, the EPA

cannot agree with the projected

reductions from the Tier I program.

Pesticide Application

The contingency plan for El Paso

includes reductions from the control of

emissions during pesticide application.

The plan does not include any

supporting documentation for these

reductions or rules for the control of

emissions from pesticide application.

Therefore, the EPA cannot agree with

these reductions toward the contingency

plan.

Tables 6 through 9 summarize the

reductions that the EPA agrees with and

disagrees with in each of the

contingency plans. Because Texas has

submitted measures for each of the four

nonattainment areas that will result in

reductions in emissions if implemented,

the EPA is proposing a limited approval

of the four contingency plans because,

overall, they would strengthen the SIP.

However, none of the contingency plans

will result in the required three percent

reduction. Therefore, the EPA is also

proposing a limited disapproval of the

contingency plans. The EPA is

proposing limited approval of the

control measures in the contingency

plans because they strengthen the SIP.

The control measures cannot be

completely approved because they do

not meet all of the underlying Clean Air

Act requirements.

TABLE 6: SUMMARY OF CREDITABLE

AND NONCREDITABLE CONTINGENCY

MEASURE REDUCTIONS: DALLAS/

FORT WORTH (TONS/DAY)

Required Contingency ............................... 16.28

Creditable Contingency Reductions:

Vessel Cleaning ..................................... 0.20

Dry Cleaning Naphtha ........................... 1.96

Offset Printing ........................................ 0.85

Commercial Bakeries ............................ 0.15

TCMs ..................................................... 2.03

Gas Utility Engines ................................ 1 6.65

Total ................................................ 11.84

Noncreditable Contingency Reductions:

I/M Improvements .................................. 3.83

I/M and Tier I FMVCP ........................... 6.65
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 1996 / Proposed Rules 2759

TABLE 6: SUMMARY OF CREDITABLE

AND NONCREDITABLE CONTINGENCY

MEASURE REDUCTIONS: DALLAS/

FORT WORTH (TONS/DAY)—Continued

Total noncreditable ......................... 10.48

Short fall .................................................... 4.44

1These reductions will need to be reevaluated in light of the emisssion reductions information provided by the small engine manufacturers.

TABLE 7.—SUMMARY OF CREDITABLE

AND NONCREDITABLE CONTINGENCY

MEASURE REDUCTIONS: EL PASO

(TONS/DAY)

Required Contingency ............................... 2.22

Creditable Contingency Reductions:

Vessel Cleaning ..................................... 0.09

Dry Cleaning Naphtha ........................... 0.28

Commercial Bakeries ............................ 0.05

TCMs ..................................................... 0.53

Gas Utility Engines 1997 ....................... 1 0.79

Total ................................................ 1.74

Noncreditable Contingency Reductions:

I/M & Tier I FMVCP ............................... 0.63

Pesticides .............................................. 0.08

Total Noncreditable ........................ 0.71

Short fall .................................................... 0.48

1These reductions will need to be reevaluated in light of the emisssion reductions information provided by the small engine manufacturers.

TABLE 8.—SUMMARY OF CREDITABLE

AND NONCREDITABLE CONTINGENCY

MEASURE REDUCTIONS: BEAUMONT/

PORT ARTHUR (TONS/DAY)

Required Contingency ............................... 9.93

Creditable Contingency Reductions:

Gas Utility Engines ................................ 1 1.05

Auto Refinishing .................................... 0.68

Total ................................................ 1.73

Noncreditable Contingency Reductions:

I/M & Tier I FMVCP ............................... 0.66

Total Noncreditable ........................ 0.66

Short fall .................................................... 8.20

1These reductions will need to be reevaluated in light of the emission reductions information provided by the small engine manufacturers.

TABLE 9—SUMMARY OF CREDITABLE

AND NONCREDITABLE CONTINGENCY

MEASURE REDUCTIONS: HOUSTON/

GALVESTON (TONS/DAY)

Required Contingency ............................... 32.73

Creditable Contingency Reductions:

Municipal Landfills ................................. 3.99

Dry Cleaning-Naphtha ........................... 1.77

Offset Printing ........................................ 2.21

Utility Engines 1997 ............................... ..............

9.20 1

Total ................................................ 17.17

Noncreditable Contingency Reductions:

I/M & Tier I ............................................. 7.80

Total Noncreditable ........................ 7.80

Short fall .................................................... 15.56

1These reductions will need to be reevaluated in light of the emisssion reductions information provided by the small engine manufacturers.

Alternate Means of Control

The EPA is approving Texas’ AMOC

rule contained in 115.901, 910, 911–918

as a strengthening of the SIP.

This rule establishes procedures for a

facility to request use of an AMOC plan

in lieu of complying with control

requirements of Chapter 115, relating to

the control of air pollution from volatile

organic compounds. The rule provides

flexibility for a facility to identify

alternative emission reductions. The

intent is to allow the regulated

community flexibility to control air

pollution through less costly control

strategies while achieving

environmental standards.

The rule contains the nine program

elements required by the EPA’s

Economic Incentive Program (EIP) rules

(59 FR 16690–16717). The program

elements are a Statement of Purpose,

Scope, Baseline, Quantification, Source

Requirements, Uncertainty/

Reconciliation, Implementation,

Administrative System, and

Enforcement. The EPA is proposing

limited approval of the rule under the

two-step process described in the EPA

rule (59 FR 16694), which permits a

State to submit a rule containing the

general framework for the elements and

a specific trade which provides the

regulatory details for similar trades.

Texas submitted the rule to the EPA

Region 6 on August 3, 1994. A proposed

AMOC plan from Du Pont was

submitted to the EPA in a letter dated

September 19, 1995. The EPA believes

that this trade meets the requirements of

the AMOC rule and the EIP rule. Having

received the general framework and a

specific trade providing the regulatory

details, the EPA proposes limited

approval of the AMOC provision as

strengthening of the SIP.

Proposed Action

The EPA has evaluated these

submittals for consistency with the Act,

EPA regulations, and EPA policy. The

15 Percent Plans in these SIP submittals

will not achieve enough reductions to

meet the 15 percent rate of progress

requirements of section 182(b)(1) of the

CAA. In addition, the contingency plans

in these SIP submittals will not achieve

enough emission reductions, if

implemented, to meet the three percent

reduction requirement under 172(c)(9)

of the CAA. In light of this shortfall, the

EPA cannot grant full approval of these

plan revisions under Section 110(k)(3)

and Part D. However, the EPA may grant

a limited approval of the submitted

plans under Section 110(k)(3) and

section 301(a) since the 15 Percent Plans

and the Contingency Plans will result in

a certain percentage of VOC emission

reductions. Thus, the EPA is proposing

a limited approval of Texas’ 15 Percent

Plans and Contingency Plans under

sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the

CAA. The EPA is also proposing a

limited disapproval of the Texas

submittals under sections 110(k)(3) and

301(a) because the submittals do not

fully meet the requirements of section

182(b)(1) of the CAA for the 15 Percent

Rate of Progress Plans, and the plans do

not achieve the required emission

reductions. In addition, the plans do not

meet the requirement of section

172(c)(9) for contingency measures

because the plans will not achieve the

required 3 percent emission reductions,

if implemented.

The EPA is aware that Texas has

undertaken extensive efforts to improve

the accuracy of the 1990 base year

emission inventory and the accuracy of

the emission projections being made for

1996. In addition, the State has

expressed its intention to submit a

revised vehicle I/M program during the

120 day time frame required by the

recently adopted National Highway

System Designation Act of 1995. The

improved emission inventory and

additional reductions from vehicle I/M

may serve to correct the shortfall

identified in this proposed Federal

Register Action. To gain full approval,

Texas will need to submit revised plans

that document changes to the emissions

inventory and the necessary enforceable

reductions, such as those resulting from
2760 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 19 / Monday, January 29, 1996 / Proposed Rules

a revised I/M program, to meet the 15

percent rate of progress requirements

and include sufficient contingency

measures to achieve a 3 percent

reduction.

The EPA believes that approval of the

control measures in these plans will

strengthen the SIP. Therefore, the EPA

is proposing limited approval of the

control measures in the 15 Percent Plans

and Contingency Plans. The EPA is not

addressing whether these control

measures, being approved as a

strengthening of the SIP, meet any other

underlying requirements of the Act such

as the requirement for VOC RACT under

182(b)(2). The EPA will address these

requirements in separate Federal

Register notices.

Under section 179(a)(2), if the

Administrator disapproves a submission

under section 110(k) for an area

designated nonattainment based on the

submission’s failure to meet one or more

of the elements required by the Act, the

Administrator must apply one of the

sanctions set forth in section 179(b)

unless the deficiency has been corrected

within 18 months of such disapproval.

Section 179(b) provides two sanctions

available to the Administrator: highway

funding and the imposition of emission

offset requirements. The 18-month

period referred to in section 179(a) will

begin on the effective date established

in the final limited disapproval action.

If the deficiency is not corrected within

6 months of the imposition of the first

sanction, the second sanction will

apply. This sanctions process is set forth

at 59 FR 39832 (Aug. 4, 1994), to be

codified at 40 CFR 52.31. Moreover, the

final disapproval triggers the federal

implementation plan (FIP) requirement

under section 110(c).

Also, 40 CFR 51.448(b) of the Federal

transportation conformity rules (40 CFR

51.448(b)) state that if the EPA

disapproves a submitted control strategy

implementation plan revision which

initiates the sanction process under

CAA section 179, the conformity status

of the transportation plan and

transportation improvement plan shall

lapse 120 days after the EPA’s limited

disapproval.

Nothing in this proposed rule 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.

Regulatory Process

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this action from review

under Executive Order l2866.

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 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

CAA, preparation of a regulatory

flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of State action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v US EPA,

427 US 246, 256–66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42

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

The EPA’s proposed limited

disapproval of the State request under

section 110 and subchapter I, Part D of

the CAA does not affect any existing

requirements applicable to small

entities. Any pre-existing Federal

requirements remain in place after this

proposed limited disapproval. Federal

disapproval of the State submittal does

not affect its State-enforceability.

Moreover, the EPA’s limited

disapproval of the submittal does not

impose any new Federal requirements.

Therefore, the EPA certifies that this

proposed limited disapproval action

does not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities

because it does not remove existing

requirements, nor does it impose any

new Federal requirements.

Unfunded Mandates

Under sections 202, 203, and 205 of

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995 (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’),

signed into law on March 22, 1995, the

EPA must undertake various actions in

association with proposed or final rules

that include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to the private sector; or to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate.

Through submission of these SIP

revisions which have been proposed for

limited approval in this action, the State

and any affected local or tribal

governments have elected to adopt the

program provided for under section

175A of the CAA. The rules and

commitments given limited approval in

this action may bind State, local and

tribal governments to perform certain

actions and also require the private

sector to perform certain duties. To the

extent that the rules and commitments

being given limited approval by this

action will impose or lead to the

imposition of any mandate upon the

State, local, or tribal governments, either

as the owner or operator of a source or

as a regulator, or would impose or lead

to the imposition of any mandate upon

the private sector; the EPA’s action will

impose no new requirements. Such

sources are already subject to these

requirements under State law.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action. Therefore, the EPA has

determined that this proposed action

does not include a mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate or to the

private sector.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements, Ozone,

Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: December 12, 1995.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator (6RA).

[FR Doc. 96–1543 Filed 1–26–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52 And 81

[OH79–2–7115; FRL–5406–5]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans and Designation

of Areas for Air Quality Planning

Purposes; Ohio

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Denial of comment period

extension on proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This action denies a request

to extend the comment period on the

proposed rule approving the Cleveland/

Akron/Lorain (CAL) ozone

nonattainment area redesignation to