[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 16 (Tuesday, January 26, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3841-3850]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-1650]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[TX86-1-7351a; FRL-6207-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Texas; Reasonably Available Control Technology for Emissions of
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this action, EPA is approving demonstrations submitted by
Texas on January 10, 1996, that Reasonably Available Control Technology
(RACT) is in place on sources in the following source categories:
Plastic Parts Coating in the Dallas/Fort Worth area, Volatile Organic
Liquid (VOL) Storage and Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry (SOCMI) Reactor and Distillation Processes. Also, EPA is
approving revisions to the Texas Rules for the control of VOC emissions
that the State submitted between 1995 and 1997. Finally, for most of
the measures given limited approval in the May 22, 1997 Federal
Register (62 FR 27964),
[[Page 3842]]
this approval action converts the limited approval to a full approval.
The implementation of these measures will help ensure the attainment of
the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone as required
by the Clean Air Act (Act) as amended in 1990.
DATES: This direct final rule is effective on March 29, 1999 unless EPA
receives adverse comments by February 25, 1999. If EPA receives such
comments, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule
in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not
take effect.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to Mr.
Thomas Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), at the EPA Region 6
Office listed below.
Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available for
public inspection during normal business hours at the following
locations. Interested persons wanting to examine these documents should
make an appointment with the appropriate office at least two working
days in advance.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, Dallas, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Texas 75202-2733, telephone: (214) 665-7214.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, 12100 Park 35 Circle,
Austin, Texas 78711-3087.
Documents which are incorporated by reference are available for
public inspection at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Guy R. Donaldson, Air Planning
Section (6PD-L), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202-2733, telephone: (214) 665-7242.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Background of VOC RACT Requirements
Section 172(c) of the Act, entitled Nonattainment Plan Provisions,
requires that States implement RACT rules for stationary sources of VOC
in ozone nonattainment areas. Reasonably Available Control Technology
is defined as the lowest emission limitation that a particular source
is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is
reasonably available, considering technological and economic
feasibility as defined in 44 Federal Register (FR) 53761 (September 17,
1979). In accordance with section 108 of the Act, EPA publishes Control
Technique Guideline (CTG) documents to help the States develop RACT
rules for source categories. The CTGs provide information on available
air pollution control techniques and provide recommendations on what
EPA considers the ``presumptive norm'' for RACT.
Section 182(b)(2) of the Act requires States to adopt RACT rules
for three general groups of stationary sources of VOCs in ozone
nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above. The first group
consists of sources covered by a CTG issued after the enactment of the
amended Act of 1990. These CTGs are referred to as ``post-enactment''
CTGs. The second group consists of sources covered by an existing CTG,
i.e., a CTG issued before the enactment of the amended Act of 1990. The
third group consists of major sources not covered by a CTG. These
sources are referred to as ``non-CTG'' sources.
In areas with a moderate classification, Section 302(j) defines a
major source as one emitting or having the potential to emit 100 tons/
year or more. For serious areas, major sources are defined in section
182(c) as those that emit or have the potential to emit at least 50
tons/year and in severe areas major sources are defined in section
182(d) as those that emit or have the potential to emit 25 tons/year or
more. Texas currently has four ozone nonattainment areas; Beaumont/Port
Arthur (moderate), Dallas/Fort Worth (serious 1), El Paso
(serious), and Houston (severe).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Dallas/Fort Worth was reclassified to serious on February
18, 1998(63 FR 8128). Texas will have to affirm in a future SIP
revision that RACT is being implemented on sources that emit or have
a potential to emit 50 tons/year or more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under section 183, Federal Ozone Measures, the Act requires EPA to
issue CTGs for 13 source categories by November 15, 1993. Section 183
lists two specific source categories, Aerospace coatings and solvents,
and Shipbuilding operations. The other 11 categories are listed in 57
FR 18077 (April 28, 1992), and are as follows:
1. SOCMI distillation
2. SOCMI Reactors
3. wood Furniture
4. plastic parts business machines
5. plastic parts coating (other)
6. offset lithography
7. industrial wastewater
8. auto refinishing
9. SOCMI batch processing
10. VOL storage tanks
11. clean up solvents
To date, EPA has published CTGs for five of the 13 source
categories: SOCMI distillation, SOCMI reactors, wood furniture,
aerospace coatings and solvents, and shipbuilding. As described in a
January 20, 1994, memorandum from John Seitz, Director of Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, EPA made available Alternative Control
Technology (ACT) documents for the CTG source categories for which CTG
documents have not yet been published. These ACT documents provide much
of the same information as the CTG documents, however, instead of
establishing a presumptive norm for RACT rule, these documents provide
options for control. For the major sources in categories where EPA
issued an ACT instead of CTG, the ACT provides information to determine
if RACT is being implemented as required for ``non-CTG'' sources.
For post-enactment CTGs, the Act requires States to submit RACT
rules according to the schedule specified in the corresponding CTG
document. In Appendix E of the ``General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,''
published on April 28, 1992, in 57 FR 18077, EPA interpreted the Act to
allow a State to submit a non-CTG rule by November 15, 1992, or to
defer submittal of a RACT rule for sources that the State anticipated
would be covered by a post-enactment CTG based on the list of expected
CTGs in Appendix E. Pursuant to Appendix E of the General Preamble, if
EPA fails to issue a CTG by November 15, 1993 (which it did for 11
source categories), the responsibility shifts to the State to submit a
non-CTG RACT rule for those sources by November 15, 1994.
A March 2, 1995, policy memorandum from the Assistant Administrator
for Air, Mary Nichols, explained a policy to allow phased submittals of
attainment demonstration. Under this policy, States were to submit a
Phase I submittal by December 31, 1995, which would include RACT
requirements, Rate of Progress (ROP) reductions, and commitments to
complete the attainment demonstration by mid-1997.
II. State Submittal
On January 10, 1996, the State of Texas submitted to EPA a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision intended to meet the requirements
pertaining to RACT and commitments to complete the air quality plan as
necessary for a Phase I submittal under the March 2, 1995 policy. Texas
in separate submittals has provided SIP
[[Page 3843]]
revisions designed to meet the ROP requirements. In this action, EPA is
approving only the portions of the January 10, 1996, SIP revision
regarding RACT for SOCMI Reactor and Distillation Processes, VOL
Storage, and Plastic Parts coating for the Dallas/Fort Worth area. The
EPA is taking no action on whether RACT is being implemented on other
source categories included in the January 10, 1996, SIP revision,
including industrial wastewater, batch processing, wood furniture
coating, or shipbuilding operations. These categories will be addressed
in future Federal Register actions. The EPA is also taking no action on
other portions of the January 10, 1996, SIP revision submittal
regarding commitments to continue air quality planning.
Also, in this action, EPA is approving revisions to the Texas rules
for the control of VOCs submitted on January 11, 1995, July 12, 1995,
November 10, 1995, March 13, 1996, August 9, 1996, and May 21, 1997.
III. Analysis of State Submittal
A. Plastic Parts Coating
The January 10, 1996, SIP revision explained that there was only
one major source of VOC emissions in the plastic parts coating category
in a nonattainment area in Texas. The facility, Peterbilt Motors
Company is located in the Dallas/Fort Worth nonattainment area. The
facility, which manufactures custom, heavy duty trucks, uses a
catalytic oxidizer to control emissions from their painting operations.
The EPA is approving these controls which are required by TNRCC permit
as RACT.
B. SOCMI Reactor and Distillation Processes
In August 1993, EPA published the CTG document titled Control of
Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Reactor Processes and
Distillation Operations Processes in the Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry. As well as providing considerable information
on emissions, controls, and costs, the CTG provided a model regulation
representing RACT.
Texas rules for control of SOCMI Reactor and distillation processes
are contained in its rules for general vent gas control. Texas Natural
Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) Chapter 115, Section 115.121-
129. Texas revised these rules in November 1993 to include the
requirements of the CTG. It should be noted that these changes were
based on the draft CTG. Then, in January 1995, the State submitted a
SIP revision that revised the language dealing with the ``once in
always in'' concept. Finally, on March 13, 1996, the State again
revised the vent gas rule to allow exemptions for sources covered by
other sections of TNRCC Chapter 115. Also, in the March 13, 1996
submittal, Texas revised the original rule to allow exemptions to be
based on the total resource effectiveness(TRE) as RACT.
The Texas rules generally follow the approach contained in the CTG
and the model rule. One difference between the Texas rule and the model
approach is that Texas allows an exemption for streams of 0.011
standard cubic meters/min versus 0.0085 standard cubic meters/min in
the model rule. This exemption is consistent with the New Source
Performance Standard (NSPS). Another difference is that the Texas rule
requires sources to use the equations contained in the NSPS for
determining exemptions based on TRE rather than the equations contained
in the CTG model rule. The NSPS equations set more stringent exemption
levels than the equations included in the CTG. In combination, the
Texas approach for determining exempt sources is more stringent than
the CTG, so the rules are acceptable as RACT. C: Volatile Organic
Liquid Storage: For this source category, EPA did not issue a CTG.
Instead, EPA issued an Alternate Control Technique Document. An ACT
does not identify a ``presumptive norm'' for RACT but instead provides
cost information about potential control options. For VOL storage, EPA
had previously published two CTGs for storage of petroleum liquids.
These CTGs were:
Storage of Petroleum Liquids in Fixed Roof Tanks (EPA-450/2-77-036),
December 1977.
Petroleum Liquid Storage in External Floating Roof Tanks (EPA-450/2-78-
051), December 1978.
The VOL ACT recommends controls for all volatile organic liquids not
just petroleum liquids. Texas has long regulated emissions from storage
of all volatile organic liquids not just petroleum liquids. To ensure
that the RACT is in place, EPA believes Texas must consider the new
information provided in the ACT to see if additional controls may be
technically or economically reasonable. Texas demonstrated that their
existing rules provide nearly equivalent control to that provided by
the most stringent control provided by the ACT.
Texas followed EPA's 5 percent policy that allows States to deviate
from CTG requirements if the State rule results in nearly the same
amount of control. This policy is articulated in a June 30, 1978,
memorandum from Richard Rhoads, Director Control Programs Development
Division, to Allyn Davis, Director Air and Hazardous Materials
Division, Region IX. Approving a State regulation that differs from the
CTG is possible, if the impact on emissions differs imperceptibly (less
than 5 percent) from that of the CTG.
Texas has included a detailed demonstration that their rules result
in less than a 5 percent difference in emissions from the most
stringent control options included in the ACT. The ACT suggests that
the following upgrades to the Texas rule would be reasonable.
(1) Lowering the vapor pressure exemption to 0.5 or 0.75 psi.
(2) upgrading of vapor mounted primary seals on internal floating
roof tanks.
(3) installation of secondary seals on external floating roof
tanks.
(4) 95 percent control efficiency for add-on control devices.
(5) installation of gasketed seals.
The State submittal addresses each of these requirements in turn
and estimates the increased emissions associated with continued
compliance with the State rule versus compliance with the suggested
additional ACT controls. The EPA has analyzed the State submittal and
agrees that implementing the more stringent requirements of the ACT
will result in less than a 5 percent decrease in the emissions from VOL
storage tanks in Texas. The reason the State can make this
demonstration is that the State rules control some VOL storage tanks
that the ACT does not suggest controlling.
D. Miscellaneous Rule Revisions
The State has submitted several rule revisions during the period
January 1995 to March 1997. What follows is a brief description of the
most significant changes made in these SIP revisions. The Technical
Support Document for this action contains a more detailed evaluation of
these rules.
1. January 11, 1995 Revisions
In this SIP revision, the State made minor revisions to its General
Rules and rules for the control of emissions from storage of VOCs, vent
gas control, industrial wastewater, municipal solid waste landfills,
and loading and unloading of VOCs. The most significant changes were:
Revisions to the rules for storage of VOCs (115.112-115.119) to add
additional methods for determining true vapor pressure to include
American Society for Testing and Materials Test Methods D323-89,
[[Page 3844]]
D2879, D4953, D5190 or D5191. These additional test methods are
acceptable.
Revisions to Rules for Vent Gas Control (115.121-115.149) to clarify
the applicability requirements to include once-in-always-in
requirements. This means that vents that become subject to the control
requirements remain subject to the control requirements even if the
vent's throughput later falls below the applicability threshold. Texas
has included a provision that a source can become exempt from the rule
if the source institutes a project that would lower emissions below the
level of emissions that would be achieved by control of the vent
stream. It is not sufficient, however to control emissions to just the
level of emissions to applicability level of the rule. The EPA believes
these revisions are acceptable.
Revisions to the rules for the control of Industrial Wastewater to
clarify the rules. These rules were revised to correct cross-references
to other TNRCC rules and to clarify their use as contingency measures
in Beaumont/Port Arthur. The EPA is giving these minor changes limited
approval because they strengthen rules previously given limited
approval.
Revisions to the rule for Control of emissions from Municipal Solid
Waste Landfills to extend the compliance date from May 31, 1995 to
November 15, 1996. These rules were submitted as part of the 15% Rate-
of-Progress Plan. The rules were given limited approval on May 22, 1997
62 FR 27964 as a strengthening of the SIP. The EPA is taking no action
on these revisions in this action. The EPA will determine whether these
rules are fully approvable in its action on the State Plan for
Municipal Waste Landfill emissions control as required by section 111
of the Act and 40 CFR part 60, subparts Cc and WWW.
2. July 12, 1995 Revisions to VOCs Loading and Unloading Rules
(115.212-115.219)
These are revisions to rules that require control of emissions
during the loading of VOCs into tanker trucks and rail cars. Texas
previously revised these rules to prohibit any non-vapor tight
conditions during loading. The revision to the rule allows non-vapor
tight conditions during sampling and gauging provided that the loading
of VOCs is discontinued. The EPA believes that this revision is an
acceptable change that with the conditions imposed by the State will
result in only minor emissions and will facilitate operations.
3. November 10, 1995 Revisions to Requirements for Wastewater
Separators
The State revised these rules that control emissions from oil/water
separators to provide consideration for oil/water separators at oil and
gas productions facilities. The revision provides an exemption for oil/
water separators at oil and gas facilities that emit less than 18 tons/
year (100 pounds/day). The exemption is necessary because these
facilities are at remote locations often without existing flare systems
so the installation of controls is not considered cost effective.
The State required controls at oil and gas production facilities
when the State made revisions required by 182(b)(2) which required
existing RACT controls to be extended to the newly designated
nonattainment counties. The extension of the rules to the counties
surrounding the Houston/Galveston areas affected many oil and gas
production facilities. Previously, when these measures applied only in
the urban areas, most of the wastewater separators were located at
refinery or chemical plants where flare systems to control emissions
were available.
The EPA issued a pre-enactment CTG ``Control of Refinery Vacuum
Systems, Wastewater Separators and Process Unit Turnarounds'' on which
the Texas Wastewater Separator rules are based. The CTG only applies to
separators at refineries. Therefore, the CTG does not cover oil/water
separators at oil and gas productions facilities. Further, by requiring
oil/water separators that emit more than 100 pounds/day be controlled,
Texas is ensuring that RACT is implemented at major sources. One
hundred pounds/day translates to a maximum of about 18 tons/year which
is well under the 25 tons/year major source definition in the Houston
area. Finally, Texas has not projected emission reductions at oil and
gas production facilities in its 15% plansor attainment plans. For the
above reasons, this revision to the SIP is acceptable.
4. March 13, 1996 Revisions
This SIP revision includes revisions adopted by the TNRCC on
December 6, 1995, and February 14, 1996.
On December 6, 1995, TNRCC adopted revisions to its rules for
control of emissions from consumer and commercial products (115.612).
The change deletes the VOC content limits for Insect-Repellents-
Aerosols. The previous requirements had not gained widespread consumer
acceptance. The deletion of the requirements makes the regulations in
Texas consistent with other States' consumer products rules, and the
final national consumer product rule (63 FR 48819). Texas used EPA
estimates of the amount of emission reductions from the national rule
to project emissions reductions from the State consumer/commercial
product rules. Therefore, since this rule change is consistent with the
national rulemaking, the EPA still expects the projected reductions to
be achieved.
On February 14, 1996, Texas adopted changes to several of its rules
for VOC control. The most significant are described below.
The State revised its definition of VOC to exclude acetone,
parachlorobenzotriflouride, and volatile methyl siloxanes. The EPA has
ruled that these compounds have negligible photochemical reactivity and
thus do not contribute to the formation of urban ozone (59 FR 50693 and
60 FR 31633). These changes to the definition of VOC make the TNRCC
definition consistent with the Federal definition.
The State also clarified that a tank with a self-supporting fixed
roof (typically a bolted aluminum geodesic dome) is considered to be an
internal floating roof storage tank. These self-supporting roofs are
effective in controlling emissions because support poles do not
penetrate the floating cover.
The State revised its storage tank rules to establish separate
inspection requirements for internal and external floating roof tanks.
They also establish a repair schedule where repairs of tank controls
will take place within 60 days of discovery. The modifications clarify
that facilities that are exempt from control because they store low
vapor pressure materials are not exempt from maintaining records of the
vapor pressure of the materials stored to show that they qualify for
the exemption.
The State revised its vent gas control rules (Sections 115.121-129)
to clarify that these rules were designed to control vents from
processes that were not otherwise controlled by the Texas VOC control
rules. This clarifies a long standing interpretation of the rule.
The State revised its rules to control emissions from Volatile
Organic Compound Transfer Operations (115.212 to 115.219)to delete the
requirement for vacuum assisted vapor collection systems on gasoline
loading racks. The TNRCC adopted this requirement because EPA proposed
it to be part of the Maximum Available Control Technology standard for
gasoline terminals. The EPA dropped the requirement in the final MACT
rule because it does not result in meaningful
[[Page 3845]]
additional emission reductions. The EPA estimated that installing the
technology results in only 1.3 percent improvement in capture
efficiency. Thus, the emission reduction potentially lost by not
installing this technology is considered to be negligible. In addition,
vacuum assisted vapor collection systems are not called for by the CTG
for gasoline loading operations so this requirement is not necessary
for the rule to be acceptable as RACT.
The State revised the rules for control of emissions from
Degreasing Processes (115.412-419) to remove the requirement for
control of acetone, because this chemical has been added to the list of
substances that are not considered photochemically reactive (June 15,
1995, 60 FR 31633).
The State has revised its rules for the control of emissions from
Surface Coating Processes to change the units of the emission limits
from pounds VOC/gallon of solids to pounds VOC/gallon of coating. While
this change is acceptable, it is important that all equivalency
calculations for sources using improved transfer efficiency or add-on
control devices be made on a solids basis. Texas included provisions in
its rule to make this clear, including formulas to translate VOC
content to a solids basis.
Texas also included a revision to provide for registration of an
innovative product just before its introduction into the Texas market.
Innovative products are those that due to some characteristic of the
product formulation, design, delivery systems, or other factors, the
use of the product will result in equal or less VOC emissions as
compared to products that comply with the VOC limits in the rule.
Registration is a departure from the approach of requiring approval of
the innovative product by the State and/or EPA before marketing. Texas
has included in the rules a considerable deterrent to facilities
marketing noncompliant innovative products. A company will be required
to provide VOC emission reduction in each nonattainment area equivalent
to twice the excess emissions determined to have occurred in the
respective nonattainment area due to the marketing of the non-compliant
product. The manufacturer will be required to reformulate or withdraw
the noncompliant product.
The innovative product waiver procedure provides for alternate
means of compliance with the SIP with less review than EPA would
generally find acceptable. Generally, EPA only approves provisions in
SIPs for alternate methods of compliance which include a replicable
procedure that will insure emission reductions equivalent to the
underlying SIP provision. The EPA believes that the innovative product
waiver procedure is acceptable, in this instance, because of the
national rule for control of consumer product emissions (63 FR 48819).
The national rule contains a procedure for obtaining innovative product
waivers very similar to the procedure contained in the Texas Rule.
Under the national rule, those regulated entities that have received
innovative product waivers under State Regulations may submit the
factual basis for the waiver to EPA as part of the documentation to
receive an innovative product waiver from EPA. Also, the Texas rules
provide for innovative product waivers from the Texas rules in a
situation where the EPA has approved the waiver and the Federal
standard is as stringent as the State. The TNRCC Executive Director
will provide these waivers within 45 days of receipt.
5. August 9, 1996, Revisions to VOC Loading/Unloading (115.212-115.219)
and Consumer Products Rules (115.616)
The State revised the requirement for quarterly instrument
inspections for fugitive leaks at gasoline terminals to be replaced
with monthly inspections using audio-visual-olfactory (AVO) methods.
The requirement for instrument monitoring for fugitive leaks at
gasoline terminals was originally added to achieve emission reductions
as part of the State's 15% ROP plans. The State revised the rule to be
consistent with Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) rules
(December 14, 1994, 59 FR 64303). The State referenced an American
Petroleum Institute (API) study that showed that monthly AVO
inspections at gasoline terminals achieved essentially the same amount
(no statistical difference) of emission reductions as an instrument
monitoring program. The EPA used this study in the issuance of the MACT
standard. Based on the API study and the adopted MACT standard, these
changes to the Texas rule are considered acceptable because the same
emission reductions toward the 15% ROP plans should be achieved. The
CTG for gasoline terminals does not require monitoring for fugitive
leaks. Therefore, allowing AVO monitoring instead of instrument
monitoring is acceptable to meet RACT requirements.
Texas also modified its consumer products rules to revise the
labeling requirement to provide an option that rather than including
the date of manufacture, the producer can put on the product label a
statement that the product was manufactured after a certain day, month,
and year, so long as that date is after the compliance date of the rule
of January 1, 1996. This change is acceptable because sufficient
information is still available to determine if a product is subject to
the rules.
6. May 21, 1997, Vent Gas, Fugitives and Miscellaneous Revisions to the
VOC Rules
The State made a variety of changes to its rules for the control of
VOC emissions. Most of the changes were minor clarifications. The most
notable changes are:
Updating the definition of VOC to be consistent with EPA definition of
VOC by adding three compounds (HCFC-225ca, HCFC-225cb and HFC 43-10mee)
to the list of exempt chemicals because they have negligible
photochemical reactivity. This action is consistent with EPA's
definition (61 FR 52847, October 8, 1996).
The State revised the rules for the control of emissions from Marine
Vessel Loading. These rules previously allowed only vessels certified
as leak free to be loaded. Because many vessels, particularly from
foreign ports could not provide the required certification, the State
added the following alternatives: VOCs shall be loaded into the marine
vessel with the vessel product tank at negative pressure; leak testing
shall be performed using Method 21 during the final 20 percent of
loading, or documentation of leak testing conducted during the last 12
months by Method 21. The above alternatives are consistent with the
Marine Vessel Loading MACT, and should serve to limit leaks during the
loading of VOCs to Marine Vessel loading operations.
The State deleted the requirement that repair of valves be accompanied
by the simultaneous use of an organic vapor analyzer. This is known as
directed maintenance. This requirement was added as part of the new
leak detection and repair rules developed as part of the 15% ROP plan.
Directed maintenance is not required by any CTG, so it is not needed to
insure that RACT is in place. The State also did not project additional
emission reductions because of the inclusion of directed maintenance,
and there is some question whether additional emission reductions occur
by requiring this practice. Therefore it is acceptable to remove this
provision.
[[Page 3846]]
V. Final Action
By this action, EPA is approving the revisions to the Texas SIP
submitted on January 10, 1996, concerning RACT for VOCs for the
following source categories: plastic parts coating in the Dallas/Fort
Worth area, SOCMI distillation processes, SOCMI reactor processes and
VOL storage.
With the approval of these rules, the applicable requirements
relating to RACT for eight of the 13 CTG source categories have been
met. No action has been taken with respect to whether RACT has been
implemented for the industrial wastewater, batch processing, wood
furniture, ship building operations, or aerospace coatings categories.
Texas submitted rules for the control of emissions from wood
coating operations as part of their November 13, 1993, SIP revision.
The EPA granted these rules limited approval on May 22, 1997. Texas has
submitted revised rules to control emissions from wood furniture
coating and new rules for ship building operations on April 13, 1998.
The EPA will take action on these revisions and new rules in separate
Federal Register notices. Also, the EPA has issued a CTG for aerospace
coating. Texas is beginning the process of developing rules based on
the aerospace CTG. Finally, Texas proposed in their January 10, 1996,
SIP revision that existing TNRCC rules represented RACT for industrial
wastewater and batch processing. For batch processing, the State
claimed that the existing vent gas rule represented RACT for batch
processing. The EPA will evaluate the State's demonstrations for
industrial wastewater and batch processing in future Federal Register
actions.
In addition, EPA is approving as RACT revisions to the Texas rules
for the control of VOCs submitted on January 11, 1995 (except for the
industrial wastewater revisions and the municipal solid waste landfill
revisions), July 12, 1995, November 10, 1995, March 13, 1996, August 9,
1996, and March 21, 1997. No action is being taken on the revisions to
the municipal solid waste landfill rules. See the following discussion
for EPA action on the revisions to the industrial wastewater rules.
Limited Approval of VOC Control Measures
On November 13, 1993, May 9, 1994, and August 3, 1994, Texas
submitted a number of revisions to its rules for VOC control as part of
its plan to meet the 15% ROP requirements of the Act. On May 22, 1997
(62 FR 27964), EPA published a limited approval of these control
measures in the Texas 15% ROP plan. The EPA gave these rules limited
approval because they strengthened the SIP. The rules could not receive
full approval because the rules had not been demonstrated to meet the
underlying requirements of the Act, such as the requirement to
implement RACT. In this action, the limited approval of rules in the
November 13, 1993, May 9, 1994, and August 3, 1994 submittals is
converted to a full approval with the exception of the rules for the
control of emissions from industrial wastewater, wood furniture,
municipal waste landfills, and bakeries which retain their limited
approval. These latter rules status as RACT will be addressed in
separate actions.
Also, in today's action, the EPA is giving limited approval to the
revisions to the industrial wastewater rules submitted on Janaury 11,
1995, because the rules strengthen the SIP by clarifying the
requirements.
The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comment. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments
are filed. This rule will be effective on March 29, 1999 without
further notice unless we receive adverse comment by February 25, 1999.
If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in
the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take
effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so
at this time.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and
regulatory requirements.
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
B. Regulatory Flexibility
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq.,
generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility
analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking
requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. This final rule will
not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities
because SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the
Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements
that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP
approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-
State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility
analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of state action. The Act forbids EPA to base its actions
concerning SIPs on such grounds. See Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA,
427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
C. Unfunded Mandates
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995,
signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact
statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or
tribal governments in the aggregate; or to private sector, of $100
million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-
effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203
requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small
governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
The EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does
not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves
preexisting requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
[[Page 3847]]
D. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
E. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership
Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local, or
tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to
develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of State, local, and tribal governments ``to provide
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals
containing significant unfunded mandates.'' Today's rule does not
create a mandate on State, local or tribal governments. The rule does
not impose any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not apply to this rule.
F. Executive Order 13084 Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments or EPA consults with those
governments. If the EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to develop an
effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.'' Today's rule
does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian
tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of
E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.
G. Executive Order 13045
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not involved
decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.
H. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by March 29, 1999. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. See section 307(b)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: December 10, 1998.
Sam Becker,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation of part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart SS--Texas
2. Section 52.2270 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(105) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.2270 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(105) Revisions to the Texas State Implementation Plan, submitted
to EPA in letters dated January 11, 1995; July 12, 1995; November 10,
1995; January 10, 1996; March 13, 1996; August 9, 1996 and May 21,
1997. Sections 115.122(a)(3), 126(a)(4), 126(a)(5), 127(a)(5) and
129(2)-129(5) pertaining to bakeries, 115.140-115.149 pertaining to
Industrial Wastewater, 115.421(a)(13) pertaining to wood coating, and
115.152-115.159 pertaining to municipal waste landfills retain their
limited approval as revised in these SIP revisions because they
strengthen the SIP. All other sections of these SIP revisions receive
full approval.
(i) Incorporation by Reference
(A) Revisions to the General Rules as adopted by the Texas Natural
Resources Conservation Commission (Commission) on January 4, 1995,
effective January 27, 1995, Section 101.10(a)(1).
(B) Revisions to Regulation V, as adopted by the Commission on
January 4, 1995, effective on January 27, 1995, Sections 115.112(c),
115.112(c)(2)(A), 115.112(c)(3), 115.113(a), 115.113(b), 115.113(c),
115.115(a)(7), 115.115(b)(7), 115.116(a)(2), 115.116(a)(2)(A)-
115.116(a)(2)(J), 115.117(c), 115.119 introductory paragraph,
115.121(b), 115.122(a)(4)(B), 115.123(a)(1), 115.127(a)(5)(C),
115.127(b)(2)(A), 115.127(b)(2)(B), 115.143 introductory paragraph,
115.147(6), 115.149(a), 115.149(b), 115.159(a), 115.219(c).
[[Page 3848]]
(C) Certification dated January 4, 1995 that copies of revisions to
General Rules and Regulation V adopted by the Commission on January 4,
1995, and submitted to EPA on January 11, 1995, are true and correct
copies of documents on file in the permanent records of the Commission.
(D) Revisions to Regulation V, as adopted by the Commission on May
24, 1995, effective June 16, 1995, Sections 115.212(a)(1),
115.212(a)(2), 115.212(a)(5)(A)(i), 115.212(a)(5)(A)(ii),
115.212(a)(5)(C), 115.212(a)(5)(C)(i), 115.212(a)(5)(C)(ii),
115.212(a)(5)(D), 115.212(a)(10)(C), 115.212(a)(10)(C)(i),
115.212(a)(10)(C)(ii), 115.212(a)(12)(B), 115.212(b)(1),
115.212(b)(3)(A), 115.212(b)(3)(A)(i), 115.212(b)(3)(A)(ii),
115.212(b)(3)(C), 115.212(c)(1), 115.212(c)(2), 115.212(c)(3)(A),
115.212(c)(3)(A)(i), 115.212(c)(3)(A)(ii), 115.212(c)(3)(C),
115.213(a), 115.213(b), 115.213(c), 115.214(a)(3), 115.214(a)(4),
115.214(a)(4)(A)-115.214(a)(4)(E), 115.214(a)(5), 115.215(a)(7),
115.215(b)(7), 115.216(a)(3)(A), 115.215(a)(3)(B), 115.216(a)(4)(A),
115.216(a)(4)(B), 115.216(a)(5)(A), 115.216(a)(6)(C), 115.217(a)(3),
115.217(a)(4), 115.217(a)(6)(A)-115.217(a)(6)(D), 115.217(b)(2),
115.217(b)(4), 115.217(b)(4)(D), 115.217(b)(5)(C), 115.217(c)(2),
115.217(c)(4)(D), 115.217(c)(5)(C), 115.219 introductory paragraph,
115.219(1), 115.219(2), 115.219(3), 115.219(4), 115.219(5).
(E) Certification dated May 24, 1995, that the copy of revisions to
Regulation V adopted by the Commission on May 24, 1995, and submitted
to EPA on July 12, 1995, is a true and correct copy of the document on
file in the permanent records of the Commission.
(F) Revisions to Regulation V, as adopted by the Commission on
October 25, 1995, effective November 20, 1995, Sections 115.131(a),
115.131(c), 115.132(c), 115.133(a), 115.133(b), 115.133(c), 115.135(a),
115.135(a)(5), 115.135(b), 115.135(b)(5), 115.137(a)(1), 115.137(a)(2),
115.137(a)(3), 115.137(c), 115.137(c)(4), 115.139 introductory
paragraph.
(G) Certification dated October 25, 1995, that the copy of
revisions to Regulation V adopted by the Commission on October 25,
1995, and submitted to EPA on November 10, 1995, is a true and correct
copy of the document on file in the permanent records of the
Commission.
(H) Revisions to Regulation V, as adopted by the Commission on
December 6, 1995, effective December 28, 1995, Section 115.612(a)(1)
(Table III).
(I) Certification dated December 6, 1995, that the copy of
revisions to Regulation V adopted by the Commission on December 6,
1995, and submitted to EPA on March 13, 1996, is a true and correct
copy of the document on file in the permanent records of the
Commission.
(J) Revisions to the General Rules as adopted by the Texas Natural
Resource Conservation Commission on February 14, 1996, effective March
7, 1996, Section 101.1, definitions of Automotive basecoat/clearcoat
system (used in vehicle refinishing (body shops)), Automotive precoat
(used in vehicle refinishing (body shops)), Automotive pretreatment
(used in vehicle refinishing (body shops)), Automotive primer or primer
surfacers (used in vehicle refinishing (body shops)), Automotive
sealers (used in vehicle refinishing (body shops)), Automotive
specialty coatings (used in vehicle refinishing (body shops)),
Automotive three-stage system (used in vehicle refinishing (body
shops)), Automotive wipe-down solutions (used in vehicle refinishing
(body shops)), Cold solvent cleaning, Conveyorized degreasing, Gasoline
bulk plant, Gasoline terminal, High-bake coatings, Low-bake coatings,
Mechanical shoe seal, Open-top vapor degreasing, Remote reservoir cold
solvent cleaning, Vehicle refinishing (body shops), Volatile organic
compound.
(K) Revisions to Regulation V, as adopted by the Commission on
February 14, 1996, effective March 7, 1996, Section 115.1, definitions
of Automotive basecoat/clearcoat system (used in vehicle refinishing
(body shops)), Automotive precoat (used in vehicle refinishing (body
shops)), Automotive pretreatment (used in vehicle refinishing (body
shops)), Automotive primer or primer surfacers (used in vehicle
refinishing (body shops)), Automotive sealers (used in vehicle
refinishing (body shops)), Automotive specialty coatings (used in
vehicle refinishing (body shops)), Automotive three-stage system (used
in vehicle refinishing (body shops)), Automotive wipe-down solutions
(used in vehicle refinishing (body shops)), Cold solvent cleaning,
Conveyorized degreasing, External floating roof, Gasoline bulk plant,
Gasoline terminal, High-bake coatings, Internal floating cover, Low-
bake coatings, Mechanical shoe seal, Open-top vapor degreasing, Remote
reservoir cold solvent cleaning, Vehicle refinishing (body shops),
Volatile organic compound, sections 115.112(a)(2), 115.112(a)(2)(A),
115.112(a)(2)(B), 115.112(a)(2)(D), 115.112(b)(2), 115.112(b)(2)(A),
115.112(b)(2)(B), 115.112(b)(2)(D), new 115.114, 115.116(a)(1),
115.116(b)(1), 115.117(a)(1), 115.117(a)(4), 115.117(a)(6),
115.116(a)(6)(A), 115.117(a)(7), 115.117(a)(7)(A), 115.117(b)(1),
115.117(b)(4), 115.117(b)(6)(A), 115.117(b)(7)(A), 115.117(c),
115.117(c)(1), 115.121(a)(1)-115.121(a)(4), 115.121(c), 115.122(a)(1)-
115.122(a)(3), 115.122(a)(3)(C), 115.122(a)(3)(D), 115.122(c),
115.123(c), 115.126(a)(1), 115.126(a)(5), 115.126(a)(5)(A),
115.127(a)(1), 115.127(a)(2), 115.127(a)(2)(A)-115.127(a)(2)(E),
115.127(a)(3), 115.127(a)(3)(A)-115.127(a)(3)(C), 115.127(a)(4),
115.127(a)(4)(A)-115.127(a)(5)(E), 115.127(a)(5), 115.127(a)(6),
115.127(a)(7), 115.127(b)(2), 115.127(b)(3), 115.127(b)(4), 115.127(c),
115.127(c)(2)(B), 115.127(c)(3), 115.127(c)(4), 115.129(1)-115.129(5),
115.212(a)(11), 115.219 introductory paragraph, 115.219(5),
115.219(5)(A)-115.219(5)(C), 115.412(a), 115.413(a), 115.413(b),
115.416(a), 115.417(a)(3), 115.417(a)(4), 115.417(b)(5), 115.419
introductory paragraph, 115.421(a), 115.421(a)(1)-115.421(a)(8),
115.421(a)(8)(B), 115.421(a)(8)(B)(i)-115.421(a)(8)(B)(ix),
115.421(a)(8)(C), 115.421(a)(9)(A)(i)-115.421(a)(9)(A)(v),
115.421(a)(12)(A), 115.421(a)(12)(A)(i), 115.421(a)(12)(A)(ii),
115.421(b), 115.421(b)(1)-115.421(b)(8), 115.421(b)(8)(A),
115.421(b)(8)(A)(i)-115.421(b)(8)(A)(iv), 115.422(1), 115.422(2),
115.423(a)(1), 115.423(a)(2), 115.423(b), 115.423(b)(1), 115.423(b)(2),
115.423(b)(4), 115.425(a)(1)(C), 115.425(b)(1)(C), 115.426(a)(1)(B),
115.427(a)(1)(A)-115.427(a)(1)(D), 115.427(a)(3), 115.427(a)(5),
115.427(b)(2), 115.427(b)(2)(B)-115.427(b)(2)(D), 115.427(b)(3),
115.429(a), 115.429(b), 115.433(a), 115.433(b), 115.435(a)(5),
115.435(b)(5), 115.436(a), 115.436(b), 115.437(a)(1), 115.437(a)(2),
115.439(b), 115.439(c), 115.442(1)(F)(i), 115.422(1)(F)(ii), 115.443
introductory paragraph, 115.445(5), 115.446(7), 115.512(1), 115.512(2),
115.513 introductory paragraph, 115.517(1), 115.541(a)(2)(C),
115.541(2)(E), 115.541(b), 115.541(b)(5), 115.542(a)(1), 115.542(a)(2),
115.542(a)(5), 115.542(b), 115.542(b)(1), 115.542(b)(2), 115.542(b)(4),
115.543 introductory paragraph, 115.546(1)(A), 115.547 introductory
paragraph, 115.547(2), 115.547(4), 115.547(5), 115.549(a)-115.549(c),
115.600 introductory paragraph and definitions of Consumer product,
Pesticide, Sections 115.614(a), 115.614(c), 115.614(c)(1),
115.614(c)(1)(A)-115.614(c)(1)(F), 115.614(c)(2),
[[Page 3849]]
115.614(c)(2)(A)-115.614(c)(2)(F), 115.614(d), 115.614(e), 115.614(f),
115.617(h).
(L) Certification dated February 14, 1996, that copies of revisions
to General Rules and Regulation V adopted by The Commission on February
14, 1996, and submitted to EPA on March 13, 1996, are true and correct
copies of documents on file in the permanent records of the Commission.
(M) Revisions to Regulation V, as adopted by the Commission on July
24, 1996, effective August 16, 1996, Sections 115.214(a)(4),
115.214(a)(4)(E), 115.214(a)(5), 115.216(a), 115.216(a)(7),
115.216(a)(7)(A)-115.216(a)(7)(G), 115.616(a), 115.616(a)(1)-
115.616(a)(3).
(N) Certifications dated July 24, 1996, that the copy of revisions
to Regulation V adopted by the Commission on July 24, 1996, and
submitted to EPA on August 9, 1996, is a true and correct copy of the
document on file in the permanent records of the Commission.
(O) Revisions to the General Rules as adopted by the Commission on
April 30, 1997, effective May 22, 1997, Section 101.1, introductory
paragraph and definitions of Component, Leak, Synthetic Organic
Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) batch distillation operation,
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) batch
process, Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI)
distillation operation, Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry (SOCMI) distillation unit, Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) reactor process, Tank-truck tank,
Vehicle refinishing (body shops), Volatile organic compound
(introduction paragraph).
(P) Revisions to Regulation V, as adopted by the Commission on
April 30, 1997, effective May 22, 1997, Section 115.10, introductory
paragraph and definitions of Fugitive emission, Leak, Synthetic Organic
Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) batch distillation operation,
Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) batch
process, Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI)
distillation operation, Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
Industry (SOCMI) distillation unit, Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) reactor process, Tank-truck tank,
Vehicle refinishing (body shops), Volatile organic compound
(introduction paragraph), and Sections 115.112(a)(2), 115.112(a)(2)(F),
115.112(b)(2), 115.112(b)(2)(F), 115.114(a), 115.114(a)(1),
115.114(a)(2), 115.114(a)(4), 115.114(b), 115.114(b)(1), 115.114(b)(2),
115.114(a)(4), 115.114(c), 115.114(c)(1), 115.114(c)(2), 115.115(a)(6),
115.115(b)(6), 115.116(a)(5), 115.116(b)(5), 115.119(a), 115.119(b),
115.121(a)(1), 115.121(a)(2), 115.121(a)(2)(A)-115.121(a)(2)(E),
115.121(a)(3), 115.121(b), 115.121(c), 115.121(c)(1), 115.121(c)(2),
115.121(c)(3), 115.121(c)(4), 115.122(a)(1), 115.122(a)(1)(A),
115.122(a)(1)(B), 115.122(a)(1)(C), 115.122(a)(2), 115.122(a)(2)(A),
115.122(a)(2)(B), 115.122(a)(3), 115.122(a)(4), 115.122(a)(4)(A),
155.122(a)(4)(B), 115.122(b), 115.122(b)(1), 115.122(b)(2),
115.122(b)(3), 115.122(c), 115.122(c)(1), 115.122(c)(1)(A)-
115.122(c)(1)(C), 115.122(c)(2), 115.122(c)(2)(A), 115.122(c)(2)(B),
115.122(c)(3), 115.122(c)(3)(A), 115.122(c)(3)(B), 115.122(c)(4),
115.122(c)(4)(A), 115.122(c)(4)(B), 115.123(a)(1), 115.123(b),
115.123(c), 115.126(a), 115.126(a)(3), 115.126(a)(4)(A),
115.126(a)(4)(B), 115.126(a)(4)(C), 115.126(a)(5)(A)-115.126(a)(5)(C),
115.126(b), 115.126(b)(3), 115.127(a)(2), 115.127(a)(2)(C),
115.127(a)(2)(D), 115.127(a)(2)(E), 115.127(a)(3), 115.127(a)(4),
115.127(a)(4)(A)-115.127(a)(4)(E), 115.127(a)(5), 115.127(c),
115.127(c)(1), 115.127(c)(1)(A)-115.127(c)(1)(C), 115.127(c)(2),
115.129(1)-115.129(5), 115.132(a)(1), 115.132(a)(4)(A),
115.132(a)(4)(B), 115.132(b)(1), 115.132(c), 115.132(c)(1),
115.136(a)(4), 115.136(b)(4), 115.137(a)(3), 115.137(b)(5), 115.137(c),
115.137(c)(4), 115.146(5), 115.147(5)(A), 115.147(5)(B), 115.147(5)(C),
115.149(b), 115.153 introductory paragraph, 115.156(3)(E)(i),
115.159(a), 115.159(b), 115.159(c), 115.211(a)(1), 115.211(a)(3),
115.212(a)(1), 115.212(a)(2), 115.212(a)(3), 115.212(a)(3)(A),
115.212(a)(3)(A)(i), 115.212(a)(3)(A)(ii), 115.212(a)(3)(B),
115.212(a)(3)(C), 115.212(a)(3)(C)(i), 115.212(a)(3)(C)(ii),
115.212(a)(3)(D), 115.212(a)(4), 115.212(a)(5), 115.212(a)(6),
115.212(a)(6)(A), 115.212(a)(6)(B), 115.212(a)(6)(C), 115.212(a)(7),
115.212(a)(7)(A)-115.212(a)(7)(D), 115.212(a)(8), 115.212(a)(8)(A),
115.212(a)(8)(B), 115.212(a)(8)(B)(i), 115.212(a)(8)(B)(ii),
115.212(a)(8)(B)(iii), 115.212(a)(8)(C), 115.212(a)(8)(C)(i),
115.212(a)(8)(C)(ii), 115.212(a)(9), 115.212(a)(10), 115.212(a)(10)(A),
115.212(a)(10)(B), 115.214(a)(4), 115.214(a)(4)(E), 115.214(a)(5),
115.215(a)(8), 115.216(a), 115.216(a)(1), 115.216(a)(6), 115.216(b),
115.216(b)(1), 115.217(a)(1), 115.217(a)(2), 115.217(a)(3),
115.217(a)(4), 115.217(a)(4)(A), 115.217(a)(4)(B), 115.217(a)(5),
115.217(a)(6), 115.217(a)(6)(A)-115.217(a)(6)(D), 115.217(a)(7),
115.217(a)(7)(A)-115.217(a)(7)(E), 115.217(a)(8), 115.217(a)(8)(A)-
115.217(a)(8)(C), 115.217(a)(9), 115.217(b)(2), 115.217(b)(4)(A)-
115.217(b)(4)(D), 115.217(b)(5), 115.217(c)(2), 115.217(c)(4),
115.217(c)(4)(A)-115.217(c)(4)(D), 115.217(c)(5), 115.219(1),
115.219(4), 115.221 introductory paragraph, 115.222(7), 115.223
introductory paragraph, 115.226 introductory paragraph, 115.226(1),
115.253 introductory paragraph, 115.256 introductory paragraph,
115.311(a)(1), 115.311(a)(2), 115.311(b)(1)-115.311(b)(2),
115.312(a)(2), 115.312(a)(2)(A)-115.312(a)(2)(C), 115.312(b)(2)
115.312(b)(2)(A)-115.312(b)(2)(C), 115.313(a), 115.313(b), 115.319
introductory paragraph, 115.322 introductory paragraph, 115.322(1)-
15.322(5), 115.323 introductory paragraph, 115.323(1), 115.323(2), new
115.324, 115.325 introductory paragraph, 115.325(1)-115.325(3), 115.326
introductory paragraph, 115.326(1), 115.326(2), 115.326(2)(A)-
115.326(2)(I), 115.326(3), 115.324(4), 115.327 introductory paragraph,
115.327(1), 115.327(1)(A)-115.327(1)(C), 115.327(2)-115.327(6), 115.329
introductory paragraph, 115.352(1), 115.352(2), 115.352(9), 115.353
introductory paragraph, 115.354(1)(C), 115.354(4)-115.354(7),
115.354(7)(A), 115.354(7)(B), 115.354(8), 115.356(1)(I), 115.356(3),
115.357(2), 115.357(8), 115.421(a), 115.421(a)(13)(A), 115.422(3)(A),
115.422(3)(B), 155.424(a)(1), 115.424(a)(2), 115.424(b)(1),
115.426(a)(1)(D), 115.426(a)(2)(C), 115.426(b)(1)(D), 115.426(b)(2)(C),
115.427(a)(5), 115.427(a)(6), 115.442(1)(B)-115.422(1)(D), 155.446(8),
115.449(a), 115.449(b), 115.449(c), 115.532(a)(5), 115.532(a)(5)(A),
115.532(a)(5)(B), 115.533(a), 115.533(b), 115.536(a)(5), 115.536(b)(5),
115.537(a)(5), 115.539 introductory paragraph, 115.552(b)(1),
115.522(b)(2), 115.533 introductory paragraph, 115.559(a)-115.559(d),
and repeal of Sections 115.332, 115.333, 115.334, 115.335, 115.336,
115.337, 115.339, 115.342, 115.343, 115.344, 115.345, 115.346, 115.347,
115.349.
(Q) Certification dated April 30, 1997, that copies of revisions to
General Rules and Regulation V adopted by the Commission on April 30,
1997, and submitted to EPA on May 21, 1997, are true and correct copies
of documents on file in the permanent records of the Commission.
[[Page 3850]]
(R) Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission order adopting
amendments to the SIP; Docket Number 95-1198-RUL, issued December 19,
1995.
(ii) Additional Material
(A) TNRCC certification letter dated December 13, 1995, and signed
by the Chief Clerk, TNRCC that the attached are true and correct copies
of the SIP revision adopted by the Commission on December 13, 1995.
(B) The following portions of the SIP narrative entitled Post-1996
Rate of Progress Plan for the Beaumont/Port Arthur and Houston/
Galveston Ozone Nonattainment Areas Dated December 13, 1995: The
section pertaining to Storage Tanks (pp. 17-37), the section pertaining
to SOCMI Reactor and Distillation (p. 40), the Section pertaining to
Plastic Parts Coating (pp. 54-55).
[FR Doc. 99-1650 Filed 1-25-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
