82 FR 33026 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Reasonably Available Control Technology for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 137 (July 19, 2017)
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 137 (July 19, 2017)
| Page Range | 33026-33030 | |
| FR Document | 2017-15165 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 19, 2017)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 33026-33030] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-15165] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0496; FRL-9964-11-Region 6] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Reasonably Available Control Technology for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to conditionally approve revisions to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) addressing Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX ) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for the Martin Marietta (formerly, Texas Industries, Inc., or TXI) cement manufacturing plant in Ellis County. We are proposing to fully approve revisions to the Texas SIP addressing NOX RACT for all other affected sources in the ten county Dallas Fort Worth (DFW) 2008 8-Hour ozone nonattainment area. We are also proposing to approve NOX RACT negative declarations (a finding that there are no emission sources in certain categories) for the DFW 2008 8-Hour ozone nonattainment area. The DFW 2008 8-Hour ozone nonattainment area consists of Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, Tarrant, and Wise counties. The RACT requirements apply to major sources of NOX in these ten counties. DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 18, 2017. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR- 2015-0496 or via email to shar.alan@epa.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. [[Page 33027]] The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact Alan Shar, (214) 665-6691, shar.alan@epa.gov. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the 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). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Alan Shar (6MM-AA), (214) 665- 6691, shar.alan@epa.gov. To inspect the hard copy materials, please contact Alan Shar. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to EPA. Outline I. Background A. What is RACT, and what are the RACT requirements relevant for this action? II. Evaluation A. What is the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality's (TCEQ) approach and analysis to RACT? B. Is Texas' RACT determination for NOX sources approvable? C. Are there negative declarations for categories of NOX sources within this nonattainment area? D. RACT and Cement Manufacturing Plants E. Ellis County Cement Manufacturing Plants F. What is a conditional approval? III. Proposed Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background A. What is RACT and what are the RACT requirements relevant for this action? Section 172(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA, 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).'' 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 September 17, 1979 (44 FR 53761). Section 182(b)(2) of the Act requires states to submit a SIP revision and implement RACT for major stationary sources in moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas. For a Moderate, Serious, or Severe area a major stationary source is one that emits, or has the potential to emit, 100, 50, or 25 tons per year (tpy) or more of VOCs or 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 Control Technique Guidelines (CTG) and Alternative Control Techniques (ACT) documents. See http://www.epa.gov/airquality/ozonepollution/SIPToolkit/ctgs.html (URL dating August 17, 2014) for a listing of EPA-issued CTGs and ACTs. The DFW nonattainment area was designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-Hour ozone standard and classified as Moderate with an attainment deadline of June 15, 2010. See January 14, 2009 (74 FR 1903). The DFW area was later reclassified to Serious on December 20, 2010 (75 FR 79302) because it failed to attain the 1997 8-Hour standard by its attainment deadline of June 15, 2010. Thus, per section 182(c) 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 . The EPA approved NOX RACT for the DFW area classified as Serious under the 1997 8-Hour Ozone standard on March 27, 2015 (80 FR 16291). The EPA designated the DFW area as nonattainment for the 2008 8- Hour ozone NAAQS with a moderate classification. The designated area for the 2008 standard includes Wise County, which was not included as part of the nonattainment area for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone standard. See May 21, 2012 (77 FR 30088), 40 CFR 81.344; and Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality vs. EPA, No. 12-1309 (D.C. Cir., June 2, 2015) (upholding EPA's inclusion of Wise County in the DFW 2008 8-Hour ozone nonattainment area). Thus, based on the moderate classification of the DFW area for the 2008 ozone standard, under section 182(b) of the CAA, a major stationary source in Wise County is one that emits, or has the potential to emit, 100 tpy or more of VOCs or NOX . II. Evaluation A. What is the TCEQ's approach and analysis to RACT? Sections 182(b)(2)(A) and (B) of the CAA require that states must ensure RACT is in place for each source category for which EPA has issued a CTG, and for any major source not covered by a CTG. The EPA has not issued CTGs for sources of NOX , so the NOX RACT requirement applies to all major sources of NOX . As a part of its July 10, 2015 DFW SIP submittal, TCEQ conducted RACT analyses to demonstrate that the RACT requirements for affected NOX sources in the DFW 2008 8-Hour ozone nonattainment area have been satisfied, relying on the NOX RACT rules EPA had previously approved for the DFW area for its classification as Serious for the 1997 8-Hour ozone standard. See March 27, 2015 (80 FR 16292), and 40 CFR 51.1112. The RACT analysis is contained in Appendix F of the TCEQ July 10, 2015 SIP submittal as a component of the DFW 2008 8-Hour ozone attainment demonstration plan. B. Is Texas' RACT determination for NOX sources approvable? The requirements for RACT are included in 182(b)(2) of the Act and further explained in our ``SIP Requirements Rule'' of March 6, 2015 (80 FR 12279), which explains States should refer to existing CTGs and ACTs as well as all relevant technical information including recent technical information received during the public comment period to determine if RACT is being applied. States may conclude, in some cases, that sources already addressed by RACT determinations to meet the 1- Hour and/or the 1997 8-Hour ozone NAAQS do not need to implement additional controls to meet the 2008 ozone NAAQS RACT requirement. The EPA has previously found that Texas NOX rules meet RACT for the 1-Hour and the 1997 8-Hour standards. See March 27, 2015 (80 FR 16291). Texas adopted new rules for wood-fired boilers in the DFW area, and new rules for major sources in the added county, Wise County, and determined they were RACT. We have reviewed the wood-fired boilers rules and the rules for major sources in Wise County and [[Page 33028]] are proposing that those rules are RACT for the covered sources. In addition, we are proposing to determine that the State's certification that the applicable control requirements Texas has in place for all other affected NOX sources as identified in Table F-4 of the submittal (including the proposed conditional approval for the Martin Marietta cement manufacturing plant in Ellis County) meet the RACT requirement for the 2008 8-Hour ozone standard. See part 3, section 5 of the TSD. Table 1 below contains a list of affected source categories, EPA reference documents, and the corresponding sections of 30 TAC Chapter 117 that TCEQ determined were RACT for sources of NOX in the DFW area for the 2008 NAAQS. See Table F1, Appendix F of the July 10, 2015 DFW SIP submittal. Table 1--Source Categories, EPA reference Documents, and Corresponding Section of 30 TAC Chapter 117 Fulfilling RACT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 30 TAC chapter 117 Source category EPA reference documents fulfilling RACT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Glass Manufacturing........................... NOX Emissions from Glass Manufacturing Sec. 117.400-Sec. (EPA-453/R-94-037, June 1994). 117.456 Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional NOX Emissions from Industrial, Sec. 117.400-Sec. Boilers. Commercial and Institutional Boilers 117.456 (EPA-453/R-94-022, March 1994). Iron and Steel Mills.......................... NOX Emissions from Iron and Steel Mills Sec. 117.400-Sec. (EPA-453/R-94-065, September 1994). 117.456 Process Heaters............................... NOXEmissions from Process Heaters (EPA- Sec. 117.400-Sec. 453/R-93-034, September 1993). 117.456 Stationary Internal Combustion Engines........ NOX Emissions from Stationary Internal Sec. 117.400-Sec. Combustion Engines (EPA-453/R-93-032, 117.456 July 1993, Updated September 2000). Stationary Turbines........................... NOX Emissions from Stationary Sec. 117.400-Sec. Combustion Turbines (EPA-453/R-93-007, 117.456 January 1993). Utility Boilers............................... NOX Emissions from Utility Boilers (EPA- Sec. 117.1300-Sec. 453/R-94-023, March 1994). 117.1356 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On April 13, 2016 (81 FR 21747), we approved revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 117 (NOX rules) for control of NOX emissions for affected sources in the DFW area as part of the SIP, but did not make the determination whether these rule revisions met RACT at 81 FR 21747. See docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0497 at www.regulations.gov. We have reviewed the emission limitations and control requirements for the above source categories, Table 1, in 30 TAC Chapter 117, and compared them against EPA's ACT documents, available technical information, and guidelines. Based on our review and evaluation we found the emission limitations and control requirements in 30 TAC Chapter 117 for the above source categories to be consistent with our guidance and ACT documents, and based upon available technical information that the corresponding sections in 30 TAC Chapter 117 provide for the lowest emission limitation through application of control techniques that are reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility. For more information, see part 3, section 6 of the TSD prepared in conjunction with this action. Also, see part 4 of the TSD for the March 27, 2015 (80 FR 16291) at www.regulations.gov, docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0804. We are proposing to find that the control requirements for the source categories identified in Table 1 are RACT for all affected sources in the ten County DFW area under the 2008 8-Hour ozone NAAQS. See part 3, sections 5-7 of the TSD. C. Are there negative declarations for categories of NOX sources within this nonattainment area? States are not required to adopt RACT limits for source categories for which no sources exist in a nonattainment area and can submit a negative declaration to that effect. Texas has reviewed its emissions inventory and determined that there are no nitric and adipic acid manufacturing operations in the DFW area. See Table F-1, page 8 of the Appendix F, titled ``State Rules Addressing NOX RACT Requirements in ACT Reference.'' We are also unaware of any such facilities operating in the DFW nonattainment area, and thus we are proposing to approve the negative declarations made for the nitric and adipic acid manufacturing operations in the ten County DFW area under the 2008 8-Hour ozone NAAQS. D. RACT and Cement Manufacturing Plants As detailed in Table 2 below, EPA has issued guidance on NOX emissions from Cement Manufacturing Plants and Texas has adopted rules for the control of NOX emissions from Cement Manufacturing Plants codified at 30 TAC Chapter 117. The rules establish NOX emissions by adopting a NOX cap on each of the cement manufacturing plants in the area. Table 2--Cement Manufacturing, EPA Reference Documents, and Corresponding Section of 30 TAC Chapter 117 Fulfilling RACT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 30 TAC chapter 117 Source category EPA reference documents fulfilling RACT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cement Manufacturing.......................... NOX Emissions from Cement Manufacturing Sec. 117.3100--Sec. (EPA-453/R-94-004, 1994/03); and NOX 117.3145 Control Technologies for the Cement Industry: Final Report (EPA-457/R-00- 002, 2000/09). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The source cap provision is a NOX emission limitation expressed in tons per day (tpd) for cement kilns in Ellis County (thereafter, Cap8hour , cap). The Cap8hour was established based on a formula that included average annual tons of clinker produced for the three-year period of 2003, 2004, and 2005 plus one standard deviation. See 30 TAC Sec. 117.3123. The addition of one standard deviation to the average annual clinker production rates was intended to provide further operational flexibility for the sources as they calculated their production rates for the wet and dry [[Page 33029]] kiln systems, ``NW '' and ``ND '', in order for TCEQ to determine a tpd numerical value for the Cap8hour emission limitation. See Equation 117.3123(b). The formula for establishing the Cap8hour includes an emission factor of 3.4 lbs of NOX /ton of clinker produced for wet kilns, and an emission factor of 1.7 lbs of NOX /ton of clinker produced for dry kilns. Compliance with the 30-day rolling average cap must be shown starting March 31st of each calendar year, and the NOX cap limitation in section 117.3123 applies from March 1st through October 31st of each calendar year. See part 4, sections 8 and 9 of the TSD for more information. Each cement manufacturing plant in Ellis County has been allocated a specific value in tons per day as its cap. Once established based on 2003, 2004, and 2005 production rates the calculated emission rate is not changed. We approved this rule on January 14, 2009 (74 FR 1927) as part of the DFW SIP, and as meeting the NOX RACT requirement for cement kilns operating in the DFW 1997 8-Hour ozone nonattainment area. Since that time, there are no longer any wet kilns in the area. E. Ellis County Cement Manufacturing Plants Currently, three companies operate four cement kilns in Ellis County. Below we evaluate whether RACT is in place for these plants. Ash Grove Cement Company (Ash Grove) operated three kilns in Ellis County. A federally enforceable 2013 consent decree, not a part of this SIP submittal, required by September 10, 2014 shutdown of two kilns and reconstruction of kiln #3 with Selective Noncatalytic Reduction (SNCR) with an emission limitation of 1.5 pounds of NOX per ton of clinker produced (lb NOX /ton of clinker), and a 12-month rolling tonnage limit for NOX of 975 tpy. A May 11, 2016 letter from Ash Grove to TCEQ confirms decommissioning of the kilns # 1 and 2. We have made this letter available in docket for this action. The reconstructed kiln #3 is a dry kiln subject to the 1.5 lb NOX /ton of clinker emission standard per 40 CFR 60 subpart F (New Source Performance Standard--NSPS) for Portland Cement Plants. A review of NOX emission limits in place across the country is included with the TSD for this action, and it can be seen that this limit is well within the range of the most stringent controls currently in place. This NOX emission limit is the lowest emission limitation through application of control techniques (SNCR) that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility, and therefore the NSPS satisfies RACT for Ash Grove in Ellis County. The TCEQ has the delegated authority to enforce this federal standard through the agency's general NSPS delegation. The TCEQ air permit for this plant is available in the docket for this action. Further, we are proposing to remove our approval of the cap rules as being RACT for Ash Grove and finding that the NSPS applicable to Ash Grove meets RACT for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Holcim U.S., Inc. (Holcim) currently has two dry preheater/ precalciner kilns equipped with SNCR. There has not been a long wet cement kiln associated with the Holcim operations in Ellis County. The current section 117.3123 source cap is established at 5.3 tpd NOX for Holcim. As discussed above this cap was established based on an emission factor of 1.7 lbs/ton of clinker. Again such an emission rate is among the most stringent emission rates in place across the country. We believe the NOX emission limitation established by the section 117.3123 cap is the lowest emission limitation through application of control techniques (SNCR) that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility for this source, and therefore it satisfies RACT for Holcim. Consequently, we are retaining the cap rules as meeting RACT for Holcim for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Martin Marietta (MM) currently operates one dry preheater/ precalciner kiln #5. The existing section 117.3123 source cap allocated to this kiln is set at 7.9 tpd NOX . The permitted capacity of this kiln is 2,800,000 tons of clinker per year, and it has a permitted emissions limitation of 1.95 lb NOX /ton of clinker. According to TCEQ, the kiln #5 typically operates well below the source cap, at an average emission factor below 1.5 lbs/ton of clinker. While the NOX limit of 1.95 lbs/ton of clinker is somewhat higher than the limits in place at other cement plants in Ellis County, it is still among the most stringent limits in the country. We believe that it is reasonable for the limit to be less stringent than Ash Grove's limit because Ash Grove (kiln #3) is a new source and new sources generally can achieve a lower emission rate than existing sources that must be retrofitted. We also believe it is reasonable that MM's limit be somewhat higher than the emission factor (1.7 lbs/ton of clinker) used to establish the emission cap at Holcim because the emission cap allows for operational flexibility to balance emissions between the two Holcim kilns. We are proposing to conditionally approve 1.95 lbs/ton of clinker as RACT for MM following the State's written commitment to EPA. The commitment letter states that through an agreed order between TCEQ and MM, certain conditions of MM's air permit, concerning the NOX emission limitation of 1.95 lb/ton of clinker produced from kiln #5, will be incorporated into a future revision to the Texas SIP. That particular future SIP revision will be submitted to EPA per timeline described in section F below. We have reviewed the emission limitations and control requirements for the source category listed in Table 2 above, the corresponding sections in 30 TAC Chapter 117, and the Appendix F of the July 10, 2015 DFW SIP submittal, and compared them against EPA's ACT documents and guidelines. Based on our review and evaluation we found the emission limitations and control requirements in 30 TAC Chapter 117 and the Appendix F of the July 10, 2015 DFW SIP submittal for the above source category to be consistent with our guidance and ACT documents. We have also found these limits are among the most stringent in place in the country, at this time. As such, we are proposing that they provide for the lowest emission limitation through application of control techniques that are reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility. For more information, see parts 2 and 4 of the TSD prepared in conjunction with this action. F. What is a conditional approval? Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act the Administrator may approve a plan revision based on a commitment of the State to adopt specific enforceable measures by a date certain, but not later than 1 year after the date of approval of the plan revision. Any such conditional approval shall be treated as a disapproval, if the State fails to comply with such commitment. If the State does not meet its commitment within the specified time period by 1) not adopting and submitting measures by the date it committed to, 2) not submitting anything, or 3) EPA finding the submittal incomplete, the approval will be converted to a disapproval. The Regional Administrator would send a letter to the State finding that it did not meet its commitment or that the submittal is incomplete and that the SIP submittal was therefore disapproved. The 18-month clock for sanctions and the two-year clock for a Federal Implementation Plan would start as of the date of the letter. Subsequently, a notice to that effect would be published in the Federal Register, and appropriate language inserted in the CFR. [[Page 33030]] III. Proposed Action We are proposing to conditionally approve revisions to the Texas SIP addressing NOX RACT for the Martin Marietta (formerly, Texas Industries, Inc., or TXI) cement manufacturing plant in Ellis County. We are proposing to approve revisions to the Texas SIP addressing NOX RACT for all other affected sources in the ten County DFW 2008 8-Hour ozone nonattainment area. We are also proposing to approve NOX RACT negative declarations for the DFW area under the 2008 8-Hour ozone NAAQS. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders. A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those imposed by state law. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will result from this action. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, because the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental justice in this rulemaking. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: July 11, 2017. Samuel Coleman, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. [FR Doc. 2017-15165 Filed 7-18-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![33026
Proposed Rules Federal Register
Vol. 82, No. 137
Wednesday, July 19, 2017
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contents located outside of the primary ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
contains notices to the public of the proposed submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or AGENCY
issuance of rules and regulations. The other file sharing system). For
purpose of these notices is to give interested 40 CFR Part 52
additional submission methods, please
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final contact the person identified in the FOR [EPA–R06–OAR–2015–0496; FRL–9964–11–
rules. FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Region 6]
For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia Approval and Promulgation of
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION submissions, and general guidance on Implementation Plans; Texas;
AGENCY making effective comments, please visit Reasonably Available Control
http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ Technology for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone
40 CFR Part 52 commenting-epa-dockets. National Ambient Air Quality Standard
[EPA–R01–OAR–2017–0023; A–1–FRL– AGENCY: Environmental Protection
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
9965–09–Region 1] Agency (EPA).
David L. Mackintosh, Air Quality
Air Plan Approval; ME; Consumer Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental ACTION: Proposed rule.
Products Alternative Control Plan Protection Agency, EPA New England
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean
Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square—
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Air Act (CAA or Act), the
Suite 100, (Mail Code OEP05–2), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Agency (EPA).
Boston, MA 02109–3912, tel. 617–918– is proposing to conditionally approve
ACTION: Proposed rule. 1584, email Mackintosh.David@epa.gov. revisions to the Texas State
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Implementation Plan (SIP) addressing
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a Final Rules Section of this Federal Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) Reasonably
State Implementation Plan (SIP) Register, EPA is approving the State’s Available Control Technology (RACT)
revision submitted by the Maine SIP submittal as a direct final rule for the Martin Marietta (formerly, Texas
Department of Environmental Protection without prior proposal because the Industries, Inc., or TXI) cement
(Maine DEP). The SIP revision consists Agency views this as a noncontroversial manufacturing plant in Ellis County. We
of an Alternative Control Plan (ACP) for submittal and anticipates no adverse are proposing to fully approve revisions
the control of volatile organic comments. A detailed rationale for the to the Texas SIP addressing NOX RACT
compound emissions from Reckitt for all other affected sources in the ten
approval is set forth in the direct final
Benckiser’s Air Wick Air Freshener county Dallas Fort Worth (DFW) 2008 8-
rule. If no adverse comments are
Single Phase Aerosol Spray, issued Hour ozone nonattainment area. We are
received in response to this action rule, also proposing to approve NOX RACT
pursuant to Maine’s consumer products
rule. This action is being taken in no further activity is contemplated. If negative declarations (a finding that
accordance with the Clean Air Act. EPA receives adverse comments, the there are no emission sources in certain
direct final rule will be withdrawn and categories) for the DFW 2008 8-Hour
DATES: Written comments must be
all public comments received will be ozone nonattainment area. The DFW
received on or before August 18, 2017.
addressed in a subsequent final rule 2008 8-Hour ozone nonattainment area
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
based on this proposed rule. EPA will consists of Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01– not institute a second comment period.
OAR–2017–0023 at http:// Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall,
Any parties interested in commenting Tarrant, and Wise counties. The RACT
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
on this action should do so at this time. requirements apply to major sources of
Mackintosh.David@epa.gov. For
comments submitted at Regulations.gov, Please note that if EPA receives adverse NOX in these ten counties.
follow the online instructions for comment on an amendment, paragraph, DATES: Comments must be received on
submitting comments. Once submitted, or section of this rule and if that or before August 18, 2017.
comments cannot be edited or removed provision may be severed from the ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
from Regulations.gov. For either manner remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt identified by Docket No. EPA–R06–
of submission, the EPA may publish any as final those provisions of the rule that OAR–2015–0496 or via email to
comment received to its public docket. are not the subject of an adverse shar.alan@epa.gov. Follow the on-line
Do not submit electronically any comment. instructions for submitting comments.
information you consider to be For additional information, see the Once submitted, comments cannot be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) direct final rule which is located in the edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
or other information whose disclosure is Rules Section of this Federal Register. The EPA may publish any comment
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
restricted by statute. Multimedia received to its public docket. Do not
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be Dated: July 5, 2017. submit electronically any information
accompanied by a written comment. Deborah A. Szaro, you consider to be Confidential
The written comment is considered the Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New Business Information (CBI) or other
official comment and should include England. information whose disclosure is
discussion of all points you wish to [FR Doc. 2017–15051 Filed 7–18–17; 8:45 am] restricted by statute. Multimedia
make. The EPA will generally not BILLING CODE 6560–50–P submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
consider comments or comment accompanied by a written comment.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:41 Jul 18, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM 19JYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_33163/page/1.svg)
![33030 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 19, 2017 / Proposed Rules
III. Proposed Action E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
We are proposing to conditionally Actions To Address Environmental
This action does not have federalism Justice in Minority Populations and
approve revisions to the Texas SIP implications. It will not have substantial
addressing NOX RACT for the Martin Low-Income Population
direct effects on the states, on the
Marietta (formerly, Texas Industries, The EPA lacks the discretionary
Inc., or TXI) cement manufacturing relationship between the national
authority to address environmental
plant in Ellis County. We are proposing government and the states, or on the justice in this rulemaking.
to approve revisions to the Texas SIP distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
addressing NOX RACT for all other
affected sources in the ten County DFW levels of government. Environmental protection, Air
2008 8-Hour ozone nonattainment area. pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination
We are also proposing to approve NOX Incorporation by reference,
With Indian Tribal Governments
RACT negative declarations for the DFW Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
area under the 2008 8-Hour ozone This action does not have tribal dioxides, Ozone, Reporting and
NAAQS. implications, as specified in Executive recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
Order 13175, because the SIP is not organic compounds.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews approved to apply on any Indian Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
reservation land or in any other area Dated: July 11, 2017.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
where the EPA or an Indian tribe has Samuel Coleman,
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the demonstrated that a tribe has Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
Act and applicable Federal regulations. jurisdiction, and will not impose [FR Doc. 2017–15165 Filed 7–18–17; 8:45 am]
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). substantial direct costs on tribal BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the governments or preempt tribal law.
EPA’s role is to approve state choices, Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
provided that they meet the criteria of apply to this action. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
the CAA. Additional information about AGENCY
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
these statutes and Executive Orders can Children From Environmental Health
be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws- 40 CFR Part 52
Risks and Safety Risks
regulations/laws-and-executive-orders. [EPA–R09–OAR–2016–0740; FRL–9965–07–
The EPA interprets Executive Order Region 9]
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive 13045 as applying only to those
Approval of California Air Plan
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and regulatory actions that concern Revisions; Sacramento Metropolitan
Regulatory Review environmental health or safety risks that Air Quality Management District
the EPA has reason to believe may
This action is not a significant AGENCY: Environmental Protection
regulatory action and was therefore not disproportionately affect children, per
the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory Agency (EPA).
submitted to the Office of Management
action’’ in section 2–202 of the ACTION: Proposed rule.
and Budget (OMB) for review.
Executive Order. This action is not
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
subject to Executive Order 13045 Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
This action does not impose an because it does not impose additional revisions to the Sacramento
information collection burden under the requirements beyond those imposed by Metropolitan Air Quality Management
PRA because this action does not state law. District (SMAQMD) portion of the
impose additional requirements beyond California State Implementation Plan
those imposed by state law. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, (SIP). These revisions concern
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) Distribution, or Use emissions of volatile organic
I certify that this action will not have compounds (VOC) from organic
a significant economic impact on a This action is not subject to Executive chemical manufacturing operations. We
substantial number of small entities Order 13211, because it is not a are proposing to approve a local rule
under the RFA. This action will not significant regulatory action under and a rule rescission to regulate these
impose any requirements on small Executive Order 12866. emission sources under the Clean Air
entities beyond those imposed by state Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking
I. National Technology Transfer and comments on this proposal and plan to
law. Advancement Act (NTTAA) follow with a final action.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act DATES: Any comments must arrive by
(UMRA) Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs
August 18, 2017.
the EPA to use voluntary consensus
This action does not contain any standards in its regulatory activities ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
unfunded mandate as described in unless to do so would be inconsistent identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does OAR–2016–0740 at https://
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSALS
with applicable law or otherwise
not significantly or uniquely affect small www.regulations.gov, or via email to
impractical. The EPA believes that this
governments. This action does not Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office
action is not subject to the requirements
impose additional requirements beyond Chief at Steckel.Andrew@epa.gov. For
those imposed by state law. of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
Accordingly, no additional costs to application of those requirements would follow the online instructions for
State, local, or tribal governments, or to be inconsistent with the CAA. submitting comments. Once submitted,
the private sector, will result from this comments cannot be removed or edited
action. from Regulations.gov. For either manner
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:41 Jul 18, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM 19JYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_33163/page/5.svg)
Document Created: 2017-07-19 06:17:39
Document Modified: 2017-07-19 06:17:39
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule. | |
| Dates | Comments must be received on or before August 18, 2017. | |
| Contact | Mr. Alan Shar (6MM-AA), (214) 665- 6691, [email protected] To inspect the hard copy materials, please contact Alan Shar. | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 33026 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Hydrocarbons; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Nitrogen Dioxides; Ozone; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements and Volatile Organic Compounds |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR