Document ID: EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0332-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: TX101.01 Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approval and Promulgation; Texas; Reasonably Available Control Technology for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard, Proposed Rule. 4 pages u3c
Posted Date: 2014-03-12T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 12, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13963-13966]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05384]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0332; FRL-9907-74-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; 
Reasonably Available Control Technology for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone 
National Ambient Air Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve rule revisions to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) for 
the Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) 
category for Offset Lithographic Printing, including the Reasonably 
Available Control Technologies (RACT) requirements for this CTG 
category for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) and the Dallas-Fort-
Worth (DFW) 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas. This rulemaking 
addresses the 2006 CTG entitled, ``Lithographic Printing Materials and 
Letterpress Printing Materials,'' as well as the corresponding RACT 
analysis for both the HGB and DFW 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment 
areas. This action is in accordance with sections 110, 172(c) and 182 
of the federal Clean Air Act (the Act, CAA).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 11, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. [EPA-R06-OAR-
2010-0332], by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions.
     Email: Mr. Guy Donaldson at donaldson.guy@epa.gov. Please 
also send a copy by email to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section below.
     Mail or delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning 
Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, 
Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. [EPA-R06-OAR-
2010-0332]. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the 
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit information 
through http://www.regulations.gov or email, if you believe that it is 
CBI or otherwise protected from disclosure. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which 
means that EPA will not know your identity or contact information 
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email 
comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured 
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket 
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic 
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact 
information in the body of your comment along with any disk or CD-ROM 
submitted. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical 
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be 
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of 
special characters and any form of encryption and should be free of any 
defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public 
docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available 
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 6, 
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the 
docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly 
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), 
and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI). 
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment with 
the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph 
below or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-7253.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Ellen Belk, Air Planning Section 
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 
Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-2164, fax 
(214) 665-6762, email address belk.ellen@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and 
``our'' refer to EPA.

Outline

I. Background
    A. What actions are we proposing?
    B. What is RACT?
II. Evaluation
    A. Which CTG source category is addressed in this action, and 
how do Texas' Rule Revisions compare to the CTG?
    B. What is Texas' approach and analysis for RACT for HGB and DFW 
for this CTG source category, and do the Revisions meet RACT 
Requirements?
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. What actions are we proposing?

    The three submittals sent to the EPA from the TCEQ which are 
addressed in this action are: (a) VOC CTG Update: CTG Category Offset 
Lithographic Rulemaking, submitted April 5, 2010, (b) the 2010 HGB 
Attainment Demonstration SIP Revision for the 1997 8-hour Ozone 
Nonattainment Area, RACT Analysis for this CTG Category, submitted 
April 6, 2010, and (c) the 2010 DFW RACT, Rule, and Contingency SIP 
Revision for the 1997

[[Page 13964]]

8-hour Ozone Nonattainment Area, RACT Analysis for this CTG Category, 
submitted April 6, 2010.
    The April 5, 2010 rulemaking submittal provides revisions to 30 
TAC, Chapter 115 Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic 
Compounds, Subchapter E, Division 4, ``Offset Lithographic Printing.'' 
In this action, we are proposing to approve Texas' 2010 rule revisions 
for Offset Lithographic Printing. These rules apply to the HGB area 
(Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery 
and Waller counties) and DFW area (Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, 
Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, and Tarrant counties).
    In addition, we are proposing to approve the portions of two 
separate submittals that contain Texas' RACT assessment for the Offset 
Lithographic Printing source category for the HGB and DFW 8-hour ozone 
nonattainment areas. These two submittals are: The 2010 HGB Attainment 
Demonstration SIP Revision, and the 2010 DFW RACT, Rule, and 
Contingency SIP Revision, each dated April 6, 2010. Based on our review 
and evaluation of Texas' assessment in the HGB AD SIP Revision, 
including Appendix D ``Reasonably Available Control Technology 
Analysis'' containing a RACT assessment for Offset Lithographic 
Printing for the HGB area, we are proposing to find that Texas has met 
the RACT requirements for Offset Lithographic Printing for the HGB 8-
hour ozone nonattainment area under section 182(b). Also, based on our 
review and evaluation of Texas' assessment in the DFW RACT, Rule, and 
Contingency SIP Revision, including Section 4 and Appendix A containing 
a RACT assessment for Offset Lithographic Printing for the DFW area, we 
are proposing to find that Texas has met the RACT requirements for 
Offset Lithographic Printing for the DFW 1997 8-hour ozone 
nonattainment area under section 182(b).

B. What is RACT?

    Clean Air Act (CAA) section 172(c)(1) provides that SIPs for 
nonattainment areas must include reasonably available control measures 
including RACT for sources of emissions. The EPA has defined RACT as 
the lowest emissions limitation that a particular source is capable of 
meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably 
available, considering technological and economic feasibility. See 44 
FR 53761, September 17, 1979. Section 172(c)(1) of the Act requires 
that SIPs for nonattainment areas ``provide for the implementation of 
all reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as 
practicable (including such reductions in emissions from existing 
sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a 
minimum, of reasonably available control technology) and shall provide 
for attainment of the primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
(NAAQS).''
    Section 182(b)(2) of the Act requires states to submit a SIP 
revision and implement RACT for moderate and above ozone nonattainment 
areas. For a Moderate, Serious, or Severe Area, a major stationary 
source is one which emits, or has the potential to emit, 100, 50, or 25 
tons per year (tpy) or more of VOCs or nitrogen oxides 
(NOX), respectively. See CAA sections 182(b), 182(c), and 
182(d). The EPA provides states with guidance concerning what types of 
controls could constitute RACT for a given source category through the 
issuance of CTG and Alternative Control Techniques (ACT) documents. See 
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/ctg_act/index.htm (URL dating May 
23, 2012) for a listing of EPA-issued CTGs and ACTs for VOC.
    Under CAA section 183(b), EPA is required to periodically review 
and, as necessary, update CTGs. For the offset lithographic printing 
source category, on November 8, 1993, EPA published a draft CTG for 
offset lithographic printing (58 FR 59261). After reviewing comments on 
the draft CTG and soliciting additional information to help clarify 
those comments, EPA published an ACT document in June 1994 that 
provided supplemental information for states to use in developing rules 
based on RACT for offset lithographic printing. In 2006, 2007 and 2008, 
EPA issued a number of CTGs, including one for Offset Lithographic 
Printing and Letterpress Printing which provided recommendations for 
RACT for these sources.
    In accordance with the 2006, 2007 and 2008 CTGs, Texas revised its 
Chapter 115 regulations to address these VOC RACT control measures. The 
revisions to Chapter 115 regulations that correspond to the 2006 EPA-
issued CTG for Offset Lithographic Printing and the related RACT 
analysis for both HGB and DFW are the subject of this rulemaking 
action. In this action, we consider that consistency with the CTG 
represents RACT. See the Technical Support Document (TSD) for further 
discussion of CTGs and RACT.
    The HGB Area was designated as Severe for the 1997 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS. See 73 FR 56983, October 1, 2008. Thus, per section 182(d) of 
the CAA, a major stationary source in the HGB Area is one which emits, 
or has the potential to emit, 25 tpy or more of VOCs or NOX.
    On April 30, 2004, the EPA designated the DFW area as a moderate 
nonattainment area under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, with an 
attainment date of June 15, 2010 (see 69 FR 23858). However, the DFW 
area failed to attain the 1997 ozone standard by June 15, 2010, and was 
therefore reclassified as a serious ozone nonattainment area (see 75 FR 
79302, December 20, 2010).\1\ Thus, per section 182(d) of the CAA, a 
major stationary source in the DFW Area is one which emits, or has the 
potential to emit, 50 tpy or more of VOCs or NOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On April 30, 2012, the EPA promulgated designations under 
the 2008 ozone standard (see 77 FR 30088, published May 21, 2012). 
In that action, the EPA designated Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, 
Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, Tarrant and Wise counties as a 
moderate ozone nonattainment area. This action does not address the 
nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Evaluation

A. Which CTG source category is addressed in this action, and how do 
Texas' Rule Revisions compare to the CTG?

    Table 1 below shows the VOC CTG source category and the 
corresponding sections of 30 TAC Chapter 115 which fulfill the 
applicable RACT requirements under section 182(b) of the Clean Air Act.

   Table 1--CTG Source Category and Corresponding Texas VOC RACT Rules
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Chapter 115,
  Source category in HGB Area   CTG reference document   fulfilling RACT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Offset Lithographic Printing..  Control Techniques      Sec.  Sec.
                                 Guidelines for Offset   115.440-449.
                                 Lithographic Printing
                                 and Letterpress
                                 Printing, EPA-453/R-
                                 06-002--September
                                 2006.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 13965]]

    This action addresses changes to Texas' VOC rules affecting offset 
lithographic printing sources in the DFW and Houston Galveston Brazoria 
HGB 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas. These rule revisions reduce 
the VOC content limits on fountain solutions used by sources that were 
subject to the previous Chapter 115 rules. These rules also limit the 
VOC content of fountain and cleaning solutions used by certain sources 
that were exempt from the previous Chapter 115 rules.
    In general, these rule revisions require the owner or operator of 
an affected offset lithographic printing line to reduce the VOC content 
of the fountain solution and the cleaning solution used in the printing 
process. For reducing the VOC content of the fountain solution, these 
rule revisions provide several compliance options including: Reducing 
the alcohol content of the refrigerated solution; further reducing the 
alcohol content of the unrefrigerated solution; or using reformulated 
materials to eliminate alcohol in the solution. For reducing the VOC 
content of the cleaning solution, these rule revisions also provide 
several options, including using low-VOC cleaning solutions; using low-
VOC cleaning solution in conjunction with work practice standards; or 
using low vapor pressure cleaning solutions in conjunction with work 
practice standards.
    Letterpresses. The 2006 CTG recommends controlling VOC emissions 
from letterpress printing. This SIP revision does not include rule 
changes for letterpress printing sources because review of the point 
source emissions inventory, Title V Permits and central registry 
databases did not identify any letterpresses that would be subject to 
the CTG recommended controls.
    Heatset Offset Lithographic Presses. The 2006 CTG recommends 
requiring an add-on air pollution control device on each individual 
heatset web offset-lithographic press with the uncontrolled potential 
to emit at least 25 tpy from ink oils volatilized in the dryer. In 
addition, the CTG recommends increasing the control efficiency 
requirement from 90% to 95% for control devices installed after the 
rule effective date. This SIP revision does not include new rule 
changes for heatset presses because the State found that the existing 
rules are at least as effective or more effective than the 2006 CTG 
recommendations. For control devices installed before the effective 
date of the rule, in the HGB area, the existing Chapter 115 rules 
either meet or exceed EPA's recommendations for control devices 
installed before the effective date of the rule. In the DFW area, the 
existing level of control on heatset presses identified in the area 
either meets or exceeds the CTG recommendation for control devices. For 
control devices installed after the effective date of the rule, the 
2006 CTG recommendation to require a 95% control efficiency was 
determined by the State to be no more stringent than the existing rules 
which require control devices with an efficiency of at least 90% to be 
installed on all heatset offset lithographic presses located on a 
property with combined VOC emissions (when uncontrolled) of at least 50 
tpy in the DFW area and at least 25 tpy in the HGB area. The State 
found that the existing rule ``is effectively more stringent than the 
CTG recommended threshold for installation of control devices based on 
25 tpy of VOC from the dryer because the majority of emissions 
(approximately 75%) come from sources other than the dryer.'' 
Additionally, the 2006 CTG recommends setting the control efficiency 
requirement of the control equipment based on the first installation 
date of the equipment, regardless of the location. The State 
intentionally did not revise its SIP to incorporate this recommendation 
due to a concern that ``such a policy may encourage the installation of 
older less efficient equipment and could also create significant 
practical enforceability issues for commission investigators with 
regard to verifying the first installation date of the control 
equipment.'' Based upon our review, we agree with the State's 
determination for this source category.
    Fountain Solution. The 2006 CTG recommends limiting the fountain 
solution content to 5.0% alcohol substitutes or less by weight and no 
alcohol in the fountain solution. Prior to these revisions, for major 
sources, the previous Chapter 115 rules contained an option limiting 
the fountain solution content to 3.0% alcohol substitutes or less by 
weight and no alcohol in the fountain solution for printing operations 
located on a property in the DFW area with combined VOC emissions of at 
least 50 tpy when uncontrolled and in the HGB area with combined VOC 
emissions of at least 25 tpy when uncontrolled. For these major 
printing sources that were previously subject to this more stringent 
limit, these revisions retain a limit of 3.0% alcohol substitutes or 
less by weight and no alcohol in the fountain solution to avoid 
backsliding. Small businesses were not previously subject to these 
rules. However, in this action, small businesses are now included, and 
this SIP revision offers several options which are as stringent as the 
2006 CTG to help mitigate the financial impact of these regulations. 
These options for smaller sources include the 2006 CTG recommendation 
to limit the fountain solution content to 5% alcohol substitutes or 
less by weight and no alcohol in the fountain solution. Additionally, 
the compliance date for smaller sources was extended to March 1, 2012 
to provide additional time for these facilities to determine the most 
cost-effective compliance strategies and to implement any necessary 
changes.
    Cleaning Solution. The 2006 CTG recommends limiting the VOC content 
of cleaning solutions used in offset lithographic printing operations 
to 70.0% VOC by weight in conjunction with work practice standards. The 
Texas rule revisions require the owner or operator of an affected 
offset lithographic printing line to reduce the VOC content of the 
cleaning solutions used in the printing process and provide several 
options for complying, including the following: Using low-VOC cleaning 
solutions; using low-VOC cleaning solution in conjunction with work 
practice standards; or using low vapor pressure cleaning solutions in 
conjunction with work practice standards. These revisions retain the 
existing Chapter 115 rule requiring a cleaning solution content limit 
of 70% by volume in conjunction with work practice standards as an 
option. Also, these revisions retain the previously existing Chapter 
115 option to limit the cleaning solution content to 50% VOC by volume. 
Because the existing rules were determined by TCEQ to be at least as 
stringent as the 2006 CTG recommendations, TCEQ included these options 
to retain the flexibility afforded to owners and operators subject to 
the previous rules. The 2006 CTG also recommends specific work 
practices for cleaning solutions used by offset lithographic printing 
lines with uncontrolled potential to emit at least 3.0 tpy of VOC. 
These rule revisions include the CTG's recommended work practice 
standards for cleaning solutions.
    Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Testing Requirements. All affected 
sources are required to comply with monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
testing requirements to demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
content limits in these rule revisions.
    Non-Substantive Revisions. In addition to the revisions described 
above to implement RACT for offset lithographic printing, these 
revisions include approvable grammatical, stylistic, and various other 
non-substantive changes to update the rule

[[Page 13966]]

in accordance with current requirements, to improve readability, to 
establish consistency in the rules, and to conform to standards in the 
``Texas Legislative Council Drafting Manual,'' dated September 2008.

B. What is Texas' approach and analysis for RACT for HGB and DFW for 
this CTG source category, and do the revisions meet RACT requirements?

    Under CAA sections 182(b)(2)(A) and (B), states must insure RACT is 
in place for each source category for which EPA issued a CTG. As a part 
of a June 13, 2007 submittal TCEQ conducted a RACT analysis to 
demonstrate that the RACT requirements for CTG sources in the HGB 8-
hour ozone nonattainment Area have been fulfilled. The TCEQ conducted 
its analyses by: (1) Identifying all categories of CTG and major non-
CTG sources of VOC and NOX emissions within the HGB Area; 
(2) Listing the state regulation that implements or exceeds RACT 
requirements for that CTG or non-CTG category; (3) Detailing the basis 
for concluding that these regulations fulfill RACT through comparison 
with established RACT requirements described in the CTG guidance 
documents and rules developed by other state and local agencies; and 
(4) Submitting negative declarations when there are no CTG or major 
Non-CTG sources of VOC emissions within the HGB Area. The TCEQ revised 
its rules for Offset lithographic printers and supplemented its 2007 
analysis in its April 6, 2010 submittals in response, in part, to EPA's 
issuance of the CTG for Offset Lithographic printing.
    We have reviewed these revisions to Chapter 115 for Offset 
Lithographic Printing and have determined that they are in are in 
agreement with EPA's CTG documents listed in Table 1 above. See our TSD 
prepared in conjunction with this document. Because these revisions are 
in agreement with our CTG, we are proposing that they satisfy RACT 
requirements, and by implementing these measures Texas is meeting the 
VOC RACT requirements for this source category in the HGB and DFW 1997 
8-hour ozone nonattainment Areas. In addition, in its April 6, 2010, 
submittals to EPA for HGB and DFW, TCEQ states that it has reviewed the 
HGB and DFW VOC rules for Offset Lithographic Printing and certifies 
that they satisfy RACT requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 
by the application of control technology that is reasonably available 
considering technological and economic feasibility. We are proposing to 
approve these determinations that Texas VOC rules for Offset 
Lithographic Printing sources are in agreement with the CAA's RACT 
requirements and as a result the Texas SIP satisfies the RACT 
requirements for this CTG source category in the HGB and DFW Areas 
under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.

III. Proposed Action

    We are proposing to approve Texas' 2010 rule revisions for the VOC 
CTG source category identified in Table 1, Offset Lithographic 
Printing. In addition, we are proposing to find that for this CTG 
category Texas has RACT-level controls in place for the HGB and DFW 
Areas under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable Federal regulations. If a portion of the plan revision meets 
all the applicable requirements of this chapter and Federal 
regulations, the Administrator may approve the plan revision in part. 
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 
EPA's role is to approve state choices that meet the criteria of the 
Act, and to disapprove state choices that do not meet the criteria of 
the Act. Accordingly, this proposed action approves state law as 
meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional 
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this 
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act;
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); and
     this rule does not have tribal implications as specified 
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the 
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, 
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on 
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: February 25, 2014.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2014-05384 Filed 3-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P