Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Control of Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides From Stationary Sources in the Houston/ Galveston Ozone Nonattainment Area

Related Material

Other Related Documents

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: November 14, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 220)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 57230-57247]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14no01-13]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[TX-134-8-7532; FRL-7092-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Control
of Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides From Stationary Sources in the Houston/
Galveston Ozone Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving revisions to the Texas State
Implementation Plan (SIP). This rulemaking covers five separate
actions. First, we are approving revisions to the Texas Nitrogen Oxides
(NO_X) rules for point sources of NO_X in the
Houston/Galveston (H/GA) ozone nonattainment area of Texas as submitted
to us by the State on December 22, 2000. These new limits for point
sources of NO_X in the H/GA will contribute to attainment of
the 1-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) in the
H/GA 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. Second, we are approving an
exclusion, from the federally-approved SIP, of carbon monoxide (CO) and
ammonia emission limits ancillary to the NO_X standards for
post combustion controls found in Title 30 of the Texas Administrative
Code (TAC), Chapter 117. Third, we are approving, by parallel
processing, revisions to the Texas NO_X rules for stationary
diesel engines or stationary dual-fuel engines in the H/GA 1-hour ozone
nonattainment area. Fourth, we are approving, through parallel
processing, revisions made to the Texas SIP concerning compliance
schedules for utility electric generation and Industrial, Commercial,
and Institutional (ICI) sources in the H/GA area. Fifth, we are
approving, through parallel processing, revisions made to the Texas SIP
concerning lean-burn and rich-burn engines. The EPA is approving the
SIP revisions described as actions number one, two, three, four, and
five to regulate emissions of NO_X as meeting the
requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (the Act).

DATES: This rule will be effective on December 14, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents about this action including the
Technical Support Document, are available for public inspection during
normal business hours at the following locations. Persons interested in
examining these documents should make an appointment with the
appropriate office at least 24 hours before the visiting day.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite
700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Office of Air
Quality, 12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Alan Shar, Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733,
telephone (214) 665-6691, and Shar.Alan@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

1. What actions are we taking in this document?
2. Did we receive written comments on these proposed actions?
3. When did the public comment period for our proposal on these
actions expire?
4. Who submitted comments to us?
5. How do we respond to the submitted written comments?
6. What are the NO_X emission specifications for point
sources of NO_X, in the H/GA area based upon the December
22, 2000, SIP revision, that we are approving?
7. What is the compliance schedule for point sources of
NO_X, in the H/GA area based upon the December 22, 2000,
SIP revision, that we are approving?
8. What are the NO_X emissions reductions for point
sources of NO_X, in the H/GA area based upon the December
22, 2000, SIP revision, that we are approving?
9. What are the NO_X emissions specifications, for
stationary diesel engines or stationary dual-fuel engines, that we
are approving?
10. What is the compliance schedule date for stationary diesel
engines in the H/GA area based on the proposed May 30, 2001, SIP
revision, that we are approving?
11. What are the NO_X emissions reductions for stationary
diesel engines in the H/GA area based on the May 30, 2001, SIP
revision, that we are approving?
12. What are the NO_X emissions specifications for point
sources of NO_X in the H/GA area based on the May 30,
2001, SIP revision, that we are approving?
13. What is the compliance schedule for utility electric generation
point sources of NO_X in the H/GA area based on the May
30, 2001, SIP revision, that we are approving?
14. What are the NO_X emissions specifications in the ICI
source category for attainment demonstration within the H/GA area,
based on the May 30, 2001, SIP revision, that we are approving?
15. What is the compliance schedule for affected ICI sources of
NO_X in the H/GA area based on the May 30, 2001, SIP
revision that we are approving?
16. What are the NO_X emissions reductions based on the
May 30, 2001, SIP revision, that we are approving?
17. When did the State adopt the final version of the rule for point
sources of NO_X in the H/GA area?
18. Is there a substantial difference between the State's proposed
and final versions of the rule for point sources of NO_X
in the H/GA area?
19. What are NO_X?
20. What is a nonattainment area?
21. What are definitions of major sources for NO_X?
22. What is a State Implementation Plan?
23. What is the Federal approval process for a SIP?
24. What areas in Texas will be affected by the stationary diesel
engines or stationary dual-fuel engines rule, that we are approving
based on the May 30, 2001, SIP revision?
25. What areas in Texas will be affected by the rule for point
sources of NO_X, that we are approving based on the May
30, 2001, SIP revision?

Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' means EPA.

1. What Actions Are We Taking in This Document?

On December 22, 2000, George W. Bush, then Governor of Texas,
submitted rule revisions to 30 TAC, Chapter 117, ``Control of Air
Pollution From Nitrogen Compounds,'' as a revision to the SIP for point
sources in the H/GA. The December 22, 2000, submittal required an 89
percent reduction in emissions of NO_X from point sources in
the H/GA area.
As part of a negotiated settlement in the case of BCCA Appeal Group
v. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, No. GN1-00210 (250th
Dist. Ct. Travis County)(complaint filed on January 19, 2001) reached
on May 18, 2001, TNRCC issued a proposal to revise 30 TAC, Chapter 117
on May 30, 2001. On June 15, 2001, Texas Governor Rick Perry submitted
a request letter to us asking to process the May 30, 2001, proposed
rule revisions to 30 TAC, Chapter 117, as a revision to the SIP from
point sources in the H/GA, through parallel processing.
On July 12, 2001 (66 FR 36532), we published a notice of proposed
approval of the December 22, 2000 rules for point sources of
NO_X in the H/GA. We also proposed to approve, through
parallel processing, revisions to the NO_X rules for H/GA
concerning (a) stationary diesel engines or stationary dual-fuel
engines, (b) compliance schedules for utility electric generation and
ICI sources and (c) lean-burn and rich burn engines. We noted, but did
not propose

[[Page 57231]]

for approval, alternate NO_X emissions reductions and
specifications contained in the May 30, 2001 proposed changes to the
Texas rules.
On September 26, 2001, the TNRCC adopted as final rules amendments
to 30 TAC, Chapter 117 proposed on May 30, 2001, with certain
revisions.
On October 4, 2001, Texas Governor Rick Perry submitted a request
letter to us asking us to process the September 26, 2001, final rule
amendments to 30 TAC, Chapter 117, as a revision to the SIP for point
sources in the H/GA area.
The State of Texas submitted this revision to us as a part of the
NO_X reductions needed for the H/GA area to attain the 1-hour
ozone standard. In this document we are taking five separate actions:
(1) We are approving the December 22, 2000, rule revision to the Texas
SIP as proposed at 66 FR 36532 (July 12, 2001). The State of Texas
submitted this revision to us as a part of the NO_X
reductions needed for the H/GA area to attain the 1-hour ozone
standard. These NO_X reductions will assist H/GA to attain
the 1-hour ozone standard. (2) We are approving exclusion of the CO and
ammonia emission limits found in 30 TAC Chapter 117 in conjunction with
NO_X emission limits, from the federally approved Texas SIP.
In our 65 Federal Register 64148 document published on October 26,
2000, and 65 Federal Register 64914 document published on October 31,
2000, we included CO and ammonia emission limits, in addition to the
NO_X emission limits, as a part of the federally approved
Texas SIP. Texas did not originally request their inclusion and
subsequently asked us not to have these limits included as a part of
the federally approved SIP. In today's final rulemaking, we are
excluding the limits on CO and ammonia emissions, resulting from use of
post combustion controls, from the federally approved SIP for Texas as
proposed at 66 FR 36532, 36533. (3) We are approving, through parallel
processing, revisions made to sections of 30 TAC, Chapter 117 that
Texas proposed on May 30, 2001, and submitted to us as final rules on
October 4, 2001, concerning stationary diesel engines or stationary
dual-fuel engines because Texas is relying on these NO_X
reductions to demonstrate attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard in
the H/GA 1-hr ozone nonattainment area. (4) We are approving, through
parallel processing, revisions made to sections of 30 TAC, Chapter 117
that Texas proposed on May 30, 2001, and submitted to us as final rules
on October 4, 2001, concerning NO_X emissions specifications
and compliance schedules for utility electric generation and ICI
sources in the H/GA area. (5) We are approving, through parallel
processing, revisions made to sections of 30 TAC, Chapter 117 that
Texas proposed on May 30, 2001, and submitted to us as final rules on
October 4, 2001, concerning both the lean-burn and rich-burn
reciprocating internal combustion engines.
In this document we are not approving the alternate or less
stringent NO_X emissions specifications and less stringent
emissions reductions that are part of the proposed May 30, 2001, Texas
SIP revision, and submitted to us as final rules on October 4, 2001.
See proposed action number six at 66 FR 66352, published on July 12,
2001.
Table I contains a summary list of the sections of 30 TAC, Chapter
117 that Texas proposed, on May 30, 2001, adopted on September 26,
2001, and submitted to us as final rules on October 4, 2001, that we
are approving (with certain exceptions discussed below) for sources of
NO_X in the H/GA area.

Table I.--Section Numbers and Section Descriptions of 30 TAC, Chapter
117 Affected by the May 30, 2001, Proposed Rule Revision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
117.10........................ Definitions.
117.101....................... Applicability.
117.103....................... Exemptions.
117.105....................... Emission Specifications for Reasonably
Available Control Technology.
117.106....................... Emission Specifications for Attainment
Demonstrations.
117.107....................... Alternative System-wide Emission
Specifications.
117.108....................... System Cap.
117.110....................... System Cap.
117.111....................... Initial Demonstration of Compliance.
117.113....................... Continuous Demonstration of Compliance
117.114....................... Emission Testing and Monitoring for the
Houston/Galveston Attainment
Demonstration.
117.116....................... Final Control Plan Procedures for
Attainment Demonstration Emission
Specifications.
117.119....................... Notification, Recordkeeping, and
Reporting Requirements.
117.121....................... Alternative Case Specific
Specifications.
117.138....................... System Cap.
117.201....................... Applicability.
117.203....................... Exemptions.
117.205....................... Emission Specifications for Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT).
117.206....................... Emission Specifications for Attainment
Demonstrations.
117.207....................... Alternative Plant-wide Emission
Specifications.
117.208....................... Operating Requirements.
117.210....................... System Cap.
117.211....................... Initial Demonstration of Compliance.
117.213....................... Continuous Demonstration of Compliance.
117.214....................... Emission Testing and Monitoring for the
Houston/Galveston Attainment
Demonstration.
117.216....................... Final Control Plan Procedures for
Attainment Demonstration Emission
Specifications.
117.219....................... Notification, Recordkeeping, and
Reporting Requirements.
117.221....................... Alternative Case Specific
Specifications.
117.471....................... Applicability.
117.473....................... Exemptions.
117.475....................... Emission Specifications.
117.478....................... Operating Requirements.
117.479....................... Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
Requirements.
117.510....................... Compliance Schedule for Utility Electric
Generation in Ozone Nonattainment
Areas.

[[Page 57232]]

117.520....................... Compliance Schedule for Industrial,
Commercial, and Institutional
Combustion Sources in Ozone
Nonattainment Areas.
117.534....................... Compliance Schedule for Boilers, Process
Heaters, Stationary Engines, and Gas
Turbines at Minor Sources.
117.570....................... Use of Emissions Credits for Compliance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Did We Receive Written Comments on These Proposed Actions?

Yes, we received written comments on these proposed actions. See
sections 4 and 5 of this document for additional information.

3. When Did the Public Comment Period for Our Proposal on These
Actions Expire?

The public comment period for our proposal on these actions expired
on August 13, 2001.

4. Who Submitted Comments to Us?

We received written comments from Reliant Energy, Inc. (RE);
Environmental Defense (ED) of Austin, Texas; Louisiana-Pacific
Corporation (LPC); Business Coalition for Clean Air Appeal Group
(BCCAAG) represented by Baker Botts, L.L.P. of Dallas, Texas; and Texas
Industries Operations, L.P. (TXI) represented by Jenkens and Gilchrist
of Austin, Texas.

5. How Do We Respond to the Submitted Written Comments?

The summary of the written comments that we received and our
response to those comments are as follows:
Comment #1: RE commented that it supports EPA's approval of the
emissions specifications for the utility boilers (proposed action
number four, section 9, Table VI of 66 FR 36532, published on July 12,
2001).
Response to comment #1: We appreciate the commenter's support in
this regard.
Comment #2: RE commented that it supports the BCCAAG's position on
alternate emission specifications and further adjustments to the
proposed NO_X emissions reductions.
Response to comments #2: A Consent Order filed in BCCA Appeal Group
v. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, No. GN1-00210 (250th
Dist. Ct. Travis County) (complaint filed on January 19, 2001), among
other things, provides for completion of a Science Evaluation to study
the causes of rapid ozone formation events and to identify potential
control measures not found in the H/GA Attainment Demonstration. We can
not act upon the suggested alternate emission specifications and any
further adjustments to the State's NO_X rules without the
completed studies and necessary modeling relevant to the H/GA area.
Neither the State nor EPA has any final scientific data and modeling
results to support a final action that relaxes the NO_X
reductions required presently by the State for the H/GA area. Such an
action is not ripe for EPA's review. Therefore, we acknowledged but did
not propose to approve the BCCAAG's alternate emission reductions and
schedules identified in 66 FR 36532, published on July 12, 2001. At
present there is inadequate information in the record to demonstrate
that the alternate emission specifications and further adjustments to
the federally-approved NO_X emissions reductions would enable
H/GA to attain the NAAQS for ozone.
Comment #3: RE states that it is incorporating its September 25,
2000 comments to TNRCC on the SIP into its present comments on EPA's
proposed approval of the SIP. RE commented that it incorporates the
BCCAAG's comments submitted to the TNRCC by reference in its letter. In
the comments filed by letter of September 25, 2000, with TNRCC, RE
proposed the REI NO_X Emission Reduction Plan, formulated by
the company, as an alternative to the plan proposed by TNRCC. RE
further commented that (a) the TNRCC proposed NO_X emission
rates for gas-fired boilers were technically infeasible and
economically unreasonable; (b) TNRCC underestimated the cost of
controlling NO_X emission from utility boilers and gas
turbines; (c) CO limits for Gas, Oil, and Coal-fired units need
delineation; (d) the baseline heat input for 30-day average limit
calculations should be changed; (e) heavy-duty engine NO_X
reduction technology is not effective on power take off devices on
utility vehicles; (f) REI supports the rule revisions regarding the cap
and trade program filed by the Texas Industry Project (TIP); and (g)
the photochemical modeling forming the basis of the rule is not
simulating meteorological and chemical processes with sufficient
accuracy to quantitatively predict the emission reductions needed to
attain the ozone NAAQS.
Response to comment #3: We will respond to the BCCAAG's comments
that have been incorporated by reference by RE later in this document.
See our responses to comments #21 through #30. We are responding here
only to those comments by RE in September 2000, which are germane to
the present rulemaking adopting the TNRCC revisions to 30 TAC Chapter
117 into the SIP. The TNRCC responded to RE comments in Rule Log No.
2000-011H-117-AI (December, 2000). The Clean Air Act assigns to the
states initial and primary responsibility for formulating a plan to
achieve NAAQS. It is up to the state to prepare state implementation
plans which contain specific pollution control measures. It is clear
from review of the TNRCC's analysis, contained in Rule Log No. 2000-
011H-117-AI, that the issues raised by RE comments were evaluated and
considered by TNRCC during the state rulemaking process.
The EPA's responsibilities under the Act are qualitatively
different from those of the state agency. The EPA is charged with
reviewing and approving or disapproving of enforceable implementation
plans prepared by states and other political subdivisions identified in
the statute. It is not EPA's role to disapprove the State's choice of
control strategies if that strategy will result in attainment of the
one-hour standard and meets all other applicable statutory
requirements. See Union Electric v EPA, 427 U.S. 246 (1976); Train v.
NRDC 421 U.S 60 (1975). The EPA's role in reviewing SIP submittals is
to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the
Clean Air Act. Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of
state action is not allowed under the Clean Air Act (see, Union
Electric Co., v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-266 (1976); 42 U.S.C.
7410(a)(2)) other than for purposes of evaluating the reasonableness
and availability of alternatives for purposes of a waiver of Federal
preemption. The State has submitted information indicating that the
administrative requirements of Texas law have been met. We defer to the
State analysis until such time as a State Court has determined
otherwise. Our review of the

[[Page 57233]]

TNRCC's responses to RE comments, taken together with all the rest of
the information in the administrative record for the SIP, does not lead
to the conclusion that the SIP is inadequate to attain the ozone NAAQS
in the H/GA area.
Comment #4: LPC commented that the NO_X emission
reductions and corresponding emission limits are too low for RACT for
industrial wood-fired boilers.
Response to comment #4: The Emission Specifications for Attainment
Demonstration (ESAD) for wood-fired boilers, taken together with ESADs
for other point sources of NO_X, were developed in order for
the H/GA area to achieve attainment with the ozone NAAQS. The ESADs are
technically feasible standards which represent the level of point
source NO_X controls necessary for the H/GA area to attain
the NAAQS. The EPA recently published an updated version of AP-42
concerning wood-fired boilers, discussed in the next response.
Comment #5: LPC commented that EPA should evaluate the
NO_X RACT on wood-fired boilers, and particularly how it
applies to boilers of differing design, heat input, and wood-fuel. LPC
noted that the California Air Resource Board's 1991 RACT for wood-fired
boilers in certain nonattainment areas was 0.052 lb NO_X/
MMBtu or 40 parts per million (ppm).
Response to comment #5: The AP-42 section 1.6.1 referenced by the
LPC in the commentor's August 10, 2001, comment letter is from the 2/98
or 2/99 version of the AP-42 (older AP-42). The LPC's comment letter is
dated August 10, 2001. On August 21, 2001, EPA released its final
revised version of the AP-42, section 1.6 concerning ``Wood Residue
Combustion in Boilers.'' You can find the latest version of the AP-42,
section 1.6 (8/01 version) concerning ``Wood Residue Combustion in
Boilers'' at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch01/final/c01s06.pdf.
The NO_X emission factor rating in the Table 1.6-2 of the
older AP-42s were of ``C'' and ``D'' rating category. The
NO_X emission factors in the new Table 1.6-2 are not
categorized as being boiler type and heat input (size) specific or
dependent. The NO_X emission factor rating of the new
NO_X emission factor from wood-fired boilers listed in the
new Table 1.6-2 is reported as high as ``A'' rating. The ``A'' rating
of the NO_X emission factor, from wood-fired boilers in the
new AP-42, indicates that differentiation of the boiler type and heat
input may not be as significant as once thought to be. In Texas the
original NO_X RACT rules, 30 TAC Chapter 117, were adopted in
1993 and earlier. As H/GA area continued to be nonattainment for ozone
and photochemical grid modeling indicated that those early
NO_X control measures were not adequate to bring the area
into attainment with the one-hour ozone standard, more source
categories became subject to Chapter 117 rules, and the Chapter 117
requirements and emission limitations became more stringent. The
California Air Resource Board recommended the 0.052 lb NO_X/
MMBtu limitation in a document entitled ``Determination of RACT/BARCT
for Industrial, Institutional, and Commercial Boilers, Steam
Generators, and Process Heaters'' in 1991. The air pollution control
technology is a dynamic and evolving process. Ten years ago, in 1991, a
concentration based NO_X limit in single digit ppm was
impracticable. With today's technology and advancements in process
control techniques, such NO_X limits for combustion sources
are not uncommon. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the State in
its proposed NO_X emission limitation of 0.046 lb
NO_X/MMBtu has taken the boilers of differing type and heat
input into consideration, and this limit is approvable.
Comment #6: LPC recommended that EPA should consider and clarify
potential complications with meeting PM-10 and NO_X emission
limits with multiple and simultaneous controls. In particular, LPC
commented that NO_X control technologies for wood-fired
boilers are unproven, and that it was unable to locate industry-
specific data supporting the proposed limit of 0.046 lb NO_X/
MMBtu.
Response to comment #6: According to section 4.5 of the
``Background Document Report on Revisions to 5th Edition AP-42, Section
1.6, Wood Residue Combustion In Boilers'', dated July 2001, emission
factors for NO_X have been replaced with new factors. The old
(2/99) AP-42 NO_X emission factors separated the data by
boiler configuration. The average NO_X emission factors for
each individual combustor were grouped by fuel type. All of the data
were from boilers that had no NO_X emission controls and were
from boilers burning either dry wood or bark and bark/wet wood. After
analysis of the data, the AP-42 factors were determined by grouping the
data by dry or wet wood regardless of firing configuration. The
following table shows the summary statistics of the data. The old (2/
99) AP-42 factors have been converted to lb/MMBtu for this table. The
units for the minimum and maximum are also lb/MMBtu. The following
table contains NO_X emission factors for wood-fired boilers.

Table II.--NO_X Emission Factors for Wood-Fired Boilers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New AP-42 NO_X
Fuel Firing configuration 2/99 AP-42 NO_X Factor (lb/ Count Minimum Maximum
Factor (lb/MMBtu) MMBtu)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bark/Wet Wood................................ All............................. 0.042/0.16/0.22 0.22 82 0.023 1.281
Dry Wood..................................... All............................. 0.042/0.16/0.22 0.22 8 0.187 0.863
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The use of one emission factor for all firing configurations, 82
different counts of data, NO_X emission factors as low as
0.023 lb/MMBtu, all together indicate that the proposed limitation of
0.046 lb NO_X/MMBtu by adoption of combustion control and/or
post combustion controls is practicable. Section 5 of the ``Background
Document Report on Revisions to 5th Edition AP-42, Section 1.6, Wood
Residue Combustion In Boilers' dated July 2001, contains a listing of
72 references used to develop this report. You can find a copy of this
report at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch01/bgdocs/b01s06.pdf
On the issue of multiple controls, it is not uncommon to see a
series of different control devices serving one combustion source. For
example, a quick search of the California Air Resource Board's
Clearinghouse reveals that for wood fired boilers, thirteen years ago,
a 216 MMBtu/hr fluidized bed combustion boiler fired with pelletized
wood waste (even smaller than LPC's 249 MMBtu/hr boiler) was permitted
to use ammonia injection (thermal de-NO_X) to control
NO_X emissions, limestone injection to control sulfur oxides
(SOx) emissions, and multiclone and baghouse, to reduce particulate
matter (PM) emissions. The permit A310-300-88, for this source was
issued on 09/30/1988. This existing source is only one example of many

[[Page 57234]]

other wood-fired boilers that employ multiple control devices to reduce
emissions of different pollutants without jeopardizing compliance with
regulations whether proposed/promulgated by the State or EPA. The
record supports that use of multiple controls in association with
operation of a wood fired boiler has been successfully practiced
elsewhere and is technically feasible in the H/GA area.
Comment #7: LPC commented that EPA should evaluate the negative
impacts associated with a forced change from a sustainable and waste
minimizing energy source to other energy alternatives.
Response to comment #7: Based on the background information
discussed above concerning wood-fired boilers, EPA disagrees that the
ESAD for this equipment in the Texas SIP approved today will
necessitate a forced change of fuel source. There may be instances in
which it may be practical or economically advantageous for an
individual facility to effect such changes. On this issue as with
others, the state has the initial and primary responsibility of
formulating plans to attain the NAAQS.
Comment #8: LPC expressed its concern over introducing ammonia in
its plywood mill that employs 400 people.
Response to comment #8: We can understand and do appreciate LPC's
concern about safety of its employees due to potential introduction of
ammonia into its plywood plant. Historically many facilities in Europe,
Japan, and the United States have used injection of this reagent as a
method of control to reduce NO_X or SOx emissions from their
combustion sources. As material contained in the docket indicates if
control equipment is properly operated, there would be no excess
ammonia emissions. Once again, we are of the opinion that LPC's
expressed concern, over introduction of a harsh compound at its mill,
can be alleviated by proper training of its operators, implementing
safe and good housekeeping/maintenance practices, and actively
preparing employees for possible emergency episodes. As a regulatory
safeguard, the 30 TAC, Chapter 117 does set short term emission limits
for ammonia associated with operation of combustion sources and their
associated control devices. See 117.105(j), 117.106(d)(1)(B)(2),
117.205(g), and 117.206(e)(2). Additionally, Chapter 117 allows for
operational flexibility and emission cap and trading as viable options
to a source or operator. We believe that LPC can safely introduce
ammonia or other reagent to reduce NO_X emissions from its
wood-fired boiler, but that LPC can also come into compliance by other
means if it chooses to do so.
Comment #9: TXI commented that its lightweight aggregate kilns in
Fort Bend County, Texas are the only such kilns in the H/GA area and
thus are unfairly targeted. TXI states that NO_X emissions
from its kilns account for only 0.02% of the NO_X reductions
from point sources and the NO_X reduction technique has not
been demonstrated.
Response to comment #9: The EPA has reviewed the TNRCC's response
to this and other comments, and generally agrees with the TNRCC's
analysis. The logic for including lightweight aggregate kilns as a part
of the control strategy to reduce its NO_X emissions is due
to several factors. NO_X emissions from these kilns have been
uncontrolled previously. The TXI plant in Fort Bend is a major source
of NO_X. The photochemical grid modeling indicates that
additional NO_X reductions are needed to bring the H/GA area
into attainment with the one-hour ozone standard. The fact that large
amounts of NO_X reductions are needed to bring the H/GA area
into attainment constitutes grounds to require NO_X emissions
reductions from a major and uncontrolled source of NO_X, as
is the case with the TXI's Fort Bend operation, in a severe ozone
nonattainment area, even though the source's NO_X emissions
are a small percentage of the area's total NO_X emissions.
Advances in air pollution control technology combined with the Chapter
117 rules' operational flexibility, and emission cap/trading as
available options to the source or operator should enable the commenter
to comply with the proposed emission limitation of 117.206(c)(13). The
H/GA area's control strategy requires other sources with even lower
NO_X emissions to reduce their emissions at much higher
rates. An 11 hp stationary diesel engine emits less NO_X per
day and year than TXI's plant in Fort Bend County. Under the proposed
requirements, this 11 hp stationary diesel engines will have to reduce
its emissions from 11.0 grams NO_X/hp-hr to 5.0 grams
NO_X/hp-hr. This degree of reduction for stationary diesel
engines in excess of 50% is far more than the degree of reduction
required of TXI's lightweight aggregate kilns in Fort Bend County.
Therefore, we disagree with the TXI's position that NO_X
emissions from its lightweight aggregate kilns in Fort Bend County are
small, that it has been unfairly targeted by the State, and that a
reasonable NO_X control technique for the Fort Bend plant is
not feasible.
Comment #10: TXI comments that the proposed Chapter 117 rule is a
``major environmental rule'' and potentially subject to the
requirements of Texas Government Code section 2001.0225 (25 Texas
Register of August 25, 2000). As a result, a cost, benefit and economic
analysis to comply with the control strategy for TXI's lightweight
aggregate plant should have been performed by the TNRCC.
Response to comment #10: As stated previously, EPA's role in
reviewing SIP submittals is to approve state choices, provided that
they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Federal inquiry into the
economic reasonableness of state action is not allowed under the Clean
Air Act (see, Union Electric Co., v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-266 (1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)) other than for purposes of evaluating the
reasonableness and availability of alternatives for purposes of a
waiver of Federal preemption. The State has submitted information
indicating that the administrative requirements of Texas law have been
met. We defer to the State analysis until such time as a State Court
has determined otherwise. Federal inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of state action is not allowed under the Clean Air Act
(see, Union Electric Co., versus EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-266 (1976) and
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)) other than for purposes of evaluating the
reasonableness and availability of alternatives for purposes of a
waiver of Federal preemption. The State has submitted information
indicating that the administrative requirements of Texas law have been
met. We defer to the State analysis until such time as a court of
competent jurisdiction determines otherwise.
Comment #11: TXI commented that mobile sources are the cause of
nonattainment, that major cities of the State have expanded, and that
point sources need not to be further controlled.
Response to comment #11: We do agree that mobile sources are a
major source of air pollution in major cities in the States and mobile
source emissions need to be controlled to help bring the nonattainment
areas into attainment with the ozone standards. The State has proposed
and adopted many measures to reduce emissions associated with on-road
and off-road mobile source. However, as TNRCC noted in its response to
this comment, while mobile sources contribute a significant share of
the ozone-forming pollutants in H/GA, modeling analyses show that
reducing mobile source emissions alone will not be sufficient to bring
the area into attainment. The Texas SIP must

[[Page 57235]]

therefore also regulate point sources of NO_X. The 1996
emission inventory of NO_X sources in the H/GA area indicates
that 54% (672.05 of total 1250.16 tpd) of emissions are from stationary
sources, while on-road mobile sources account for 24% (302.04 of the
total 1250.16 tpd) of the emissions. See http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/
air/aqp/ei/rsumhg.htm#nox.
Further, the State has shown that even if it controlled all of the
mobile source emissions to zero, the H/GA area would still be in
nonattainment. Therefore, the record shows that both mobile and
stationary sources need to be controlled simultaneously to achieve the
ozone attainment goal.
Comment #12: TXI commented that the State did not have any
technical justification for a 30% reduction in NO_X emissions
from lightweight aggregate kilns. TXI contended the reduction
requirement is arbitrary and has no scientific basis.
Response to comment #12: The TNRCC based the 30% reduction in
NO_X emissions on availability of combustion modification,
combustion control, mid-kiln firing, 30-day rolling average, and the
emission cap and trading options to the source or operator. The
available technologies, operational flexibilities, and the emission cap
and trading allowed for in Chapter 117 rules, should accommodate a
source to obtain 30% reduction in its NO_X emission as
compared to the source's 1997 baseline emissions. The 30% reduction in
NO_X emissions from a kiln is consistent with EPA's
publication number ``EPA-453/R-94-004,'' entitled ``Alternate Control
Techniques for Cement Plants.'' Therefore, we believe that the State's
record supports the 30% reduction requirement, is technically feasible,
and based on a sound scientific basis.
Comment #13: ED commented that the proposed rule for stationary
diesel engines fails to provide sufficient emissions limitations.
Response to comment #13: As stated in section six of 66 FR 36532,
published on July 12, 2001, Texas had not proposed any regulations in
the SIP limiting NO_X emissions from stationary diesel
engines or stationary dual-fuel engines prior to May 30, 2001. After
the State adopted and submitted its December 2000 attainment
demonstration SIP for the H/GA area, and based upon Texas' proposed
Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) review, the State
determined that this particular source category should be controlled in
the H/GA area to meet the Act's RACM requirements. Adopting these
emission limitations will only strengthen the existing federally-
approved Texas SIP and further supports the H/GA area's attainment of
the ozone NAAQS. This was our basis for proposing to approve the rule
revision. The proposed emission specifications for stationary diesel
engines or stationary dual-fuel engines are based on 40 CFR 89.112(a),
Table I. For the H/GA area, the State has shown that the chosen
emission limitations are technically and economically feasible and
further reductions would not benefit the H/GA area's environment.
Comment #14: ED commented that the TNRCC should establish the same
requirements for new and existing stationary diesel engines in the H/GA
area that are not used exclusively during infrequent emergency or
backup situations.
Response to comment #14: The TNRCC has adopted Chapter 117
regulations for control of NO_X emissions from stationary
diesel engines or stationary dual-fuel engines. The emission
specifications for stationary diesel engines or stationary dual-fuel
engines are based on 40 CFR 89.112(a), Table I. We understand Texas has
adopted even more stringent standards for new engines getting standard
permits. We believe it is reasonable for existing engines to have less
stringent standards than new engines because it is generally more
feasible to achieve cleaner operation when starting from an initial
design rather than retrofitting an older engine. Furthermore, the
emissions of NO_X and CO from combustion sources are
interrelated. Requiring further reductions in NO_X emissions
from existing engines could potentially result in increases of CO
emissions, and must be approached carefully. The State received a
similar comment. In their response they explained that based on
information in the emissions inventory and contact with diesel engine
vendors and others familiar with the stationary diesel engines in the
H/GA area, the State is unaware of any existing stationary diesel
engines that are being operated in situations other than generation of
electricity in emergency situations or operation for maintenance and
testing. The TNRCC believes and EPA agrees that few existing engines
will be moved from emergency service to routine or peak shaving
operations for the following reasons. Any existing engines at a site
with a collective design capacity to emit (from units with chapter 117
emission limits) greater than ten tpy of NO_X are subject to
the Chapter 101 mass emissions cap and trade program if they choose to
increase their operation to 100 hours per year or more (based on a
rolling 12-month average) and, in addition to having to comply with the
Chapter 117 rules, will only be issued NO_X emissions
allocations based on their historical activity level which would be
much lower than 100 hrs/year. Existing engines theoretically could be
switched to peak shaving service up to 100 hours/year but in reality
only about 40 hours/year would be available for this type of operation.
The remaining time would have to be used for normal routine testing of
the engines. It is unlikely that the profit from sale of electricity
would justify the cost of the modifications to the switching system for
only about 40 hours of operation. EPA concludes that additional control
beyond the existing program is not reasonable.
Comment #15: ED comments that potential emissions from stationary
diesel engines are significant and refers to an electricity management
and consulting firm that is marketing the concept of linking these
emergency diesel back up generators together as a mid-size peaking unit
through a virtual power plant.
Response to comment #15: It is unclear how many or which of these
emergency back up generators in the H/GA area could conceivably
participate in such a virtual power plant marketing plan. Should the
NO_X emissions and number of emergency back up generators
participating in this virtual power plant market or otherwise operating
in H/GA area grow to such a degree that they prove to be significant
for purposes of attaining the ozone NAAQS, we will work with the State
to evaluate this concern in the mid-course review process. Presently,
neither the State nor we have the information whether this type of
control is feasible for the H/GA area. Additional control measures will
be required as necessary to achieve the NAAQS as expeditiously as
practicable but no later than November 2007. This will allow
adjustments to be made should a source category grow at an unexpectedly
large rate.
Comment #16: ED commented that EPA should require the TNRCC to make
``one-date'' as the effective date for compliance with the
NO_X emission limitations for the stationary diesel engines
or dual-fuel stationary engines instead of the Tier 1, 2, or 3
approach.
Response to comment #16: The phased-in approach or the Tier 1, 2,
or 3 compliance date method has been proven to work in practice at the
Federal level (40 CFR 89.112(a)), and we have decided to adopt this
approach for practical reasons. We are of the opinion

[[Page 57236]]

that the phased-in approach is a proper and practical method of
phasing-in new emission limitations where a large range of engine sizes
and various engine ages are involved. We disagree with the ED's
position to have the TNRCC replace the effective compliance date of
NO_X emission limitations for the stationary diesel engines
or dual-fuel stationary engines from the proposed Tier 1, 2, or 3
method to a ``one-date'' for all.
Comment #17: ED commented that EPA should significantly strengthen
the NO_X emission requirements for the existing small backup
electric generating units.
Response to comment #17: As stated earlier, the emission
specifications for stationary diesel engines or stationary dual-fuel
engines are based on 40 CFR 89.112(a), Table I. Currently, we are not
aware of any other State program that has adopted more stringent
emission specifications for stationary diesel engines or stationary
dual-fuel engines. Although it is possible that existing emergency
diesel generators could be converted to a peak shaving use, and
consequently contribute to ozone exceedances due to operation on high
electricity demand during summer days and conditions that are conducive
to formation of more ozone, these diesel units are normally equipped
with a timer that operates the engines for one-half to one hour weekly
for testing and maintenance purposes. To demonstrate continuous
compliance, subsection 117.213(i) requires engines to operate with an
elapsed run time meter and further states that the installed run time
meters shall be ``non-resettable.''
52 weeks per year x \1/2\ hour to 1 hour per week for maintenance
and testing =26 to 52 hours per year for maintenance and testing. Due
to the fact that the 100 hours per year limit includes the testing and
maintenance times also, the remaining (100 hours per year - 26 to 52
hours per year for maintenance and testing = 74 to 48 hours per year
for peak shaving) 48 to 74 hours per year would be too short a time to
economically justify the expense of telemetry interconnect equipment in
order to generate and supply power to a grid system. These inherent
difficulties will serve as hurdles/reasons in discouraging an operator
from converting its emergency backup generators to peak shaving units.
Furthermore, by converting these backup generators the source or
operator would always run the risk of not having power available to
itself when a true emergency situation arises at its own site. As
stated earlier, should the NO_X emissions and number of
emergency back up generators participating in this virtual power plant
market actually prove to be significant, we will work with the State to
evaluate this concern in the mid-course review process.
Comment #18: ED commented that EPA must reject efforts to relax the
control measures on the books before the identified shortfall in
emission reductions is eliminated.
Response to comment #18: The Supreme Court has consistently held
that under the Act, initial and primary responsibility for deciding
what emissions reductions will be required from which sources is left
to the discretion of the States. Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass'ns, 531
U.S. 457 (2001); Train v. NRDC, 421 U.S. 60 (1975). This discretion
includes the continuing authority to revise choices about the mix of
emission limitations. Train at 79. Therefore, EPA believes that it is
appropriate and authorized under the Act for a State to continue to
update its growth projections, inventories, modeling analyses, control
strategies, etc., and submit these updates as a SIP revision based on
newly available science and technology.
However, Section 110(l) of the Act (added by the 1990 Amendments to
the Act) governs EPA's review of a SIP revision from a state that
wishes to make changes to its approved SIP. This section provides that
EPA may not approve a SIP revision if it will interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress or any other applicable requirement of the Act. The Supreme
Court under the 1970 CAA, observed that EPA's judgment in determining
the approval of a SIP revision is to ``measure the existing level of
pollution, compare it with the national standards, and determine the
effect on this comparison of specified emission modifications.'' Train
at 93. Therefore, if we receive an attainment demonstration SIP
revision from Texas that contains relaxed control measures or the
replacement of existing control measures, we would consider the revised
plan's prospects for meeting the current attainment requirements and
other applicable requirements of the Act. See, the Act section
110(k)(3), Union Electric v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246 (1976) and Train v.
NRDC, 421 U.S. at 79.
In summary, the State may choose to submit a SIP revision in 2002
or 2003 as it has suggested it may do. If we receive a SIP revision
that meets our completeness criteria, we will review it against the
statutory requirements of section 110(l). Further, the Act requires us
to publish a notice and to provide for public comment on our proposed
decision. The EPA believes that it is in the context of that future
rulemaking, not EPA's current approval, that the commenter's concern
regarding the appropriateness of any replacement measures adopted by
the State should be considered.
Comment #19: ED commented that EPA should not approve the
NO_X reduction proposal of 90% for electric power plants, but
should instead require the electric power plants to meet the 93%
NO_X reduction.
Response to comment #19: The NO_X control strategy of
December 22, 2000, SIP revision called for 595 tons per day reduction.
See Table V, section 8 of this document. The revised NO_X
control strategy of the May 30, 2001, calls for 588 tons per day
reduction. See Table XI, section 16 of this document. Although ED is
correct in stating that the amount of NO_X reduction from
electric power plants has been reduced, the NO_X emissions
reductions from recent State Legislative actions requiring some
grandfathered sources to reduce their emissions by about 50% offsets
and counter balances the power plant's NO_X emission
reduction adjustment. Therefore, the NO_X emissions in east
and central Texas (regional strategy) will be less than what the State
SIP had called for in the December 22, 2000 SIP revision. In terms of
cost per ton of overall NO_X removed, the modified
NO_X emission limitations of the May 30, 2001 state proposal
would be more cost effective than the December 22, 2000, control
strategy scenario for the H/GA area. We disagree with the ED's position
to reject the revised May 30, 2001 reduction proposal for the electric
power plants.
Comment #20: ED commented that the compliance schedule under action
number four of the proposal 66 FR 36532, (July 12, 2001) is not as
expeditious as practicable.
Response to comment #20: The compliance schedule under action
number four of the proposal 66 FR 36532, (July 12, 2001) was needed to
allow affected sources more planning time and choices to put in place
the NO_X emissions reductions. Action number four requires
utility electric generation and ICI sources to adopt a phased-in
approach (year by year) and incremental method (percent NO_X
reduction required each year) for compliance purposes. According to
this approach the ultimate compliance date of 2007 will remain
unchanged. In our proposal published on July 12, 2001, we made it very
clear that the final compliance date to attain compliance with the one-
hour ozone standard in the H/GA area will remain the same and

[[Page 57237]]

unchanged and that any control strategy will have to achieve attainment
with the federal one-hour ozone standard by 2007. The essential and
resulting final compliance date will remain the same; the distinction
is the route and method of approach used to reach the same end point.
Therefore, we are of the opinion that compliance requirements under
action number four of the July proposal are as expeditious as
practicable.
Comment #21: BCCAAG commented that most of the NO_X
emission limitations have been developed with a less than complete
analysis of economic and technical feasibility or possible economic or
environmental dis-benefits. It further stated that the TNRCC's 90%
NO_X control approach is arbitrary and circumvents the intent
established in the Texas Clean Air Act.
Response to comment #21: We do not believe that reducing
NO_X and thus controlling ozone in the H/GA area will
constitute an environmental dis-benefit.
This action merely approves state law as meeting federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Because this rule approves preexisting
requirements under state law and does not impose any enforceable duty
beyond that required by state law and hence does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, an analysis
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Sec. 601 et seq.) is not
required.
Details on the State's assessments of financial impact and
technical feasibility can be found throughout the record generated by
the TNRCC for the SIP (``SIP documents''). The EPA's role in reviewing
SIP submittals is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the
criteria of the Clean Air Act. Federal inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of state action is not allowed under the Clean Air Act
(see, Union Electric Co., v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-266 (1976); 42
U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)) other than for purposes of evaluating the
reasonableness and availability of alternatives for purposes of a
waiver of Federal preemption. The State has submitted information
indicating that the administrative requirements of Texas law have been
met. We defer to the State analysis until such time as a State Court
has determined otherwise.
Comment #22: BCCAAG commented that point sources control technology
has advanced in recent years but there is no one demonstrated retrofit
technology application to achieve 90% NO_X reduction from
point sources.
Response to comment #22: We agree with the statement that
NO_X point source control technology has advanced in recent
years. In fact, levels of NO_X emissions control that can be
achieved have advanced to degrees that may not have been practicable a
decade or so ago. Pollution control technology is a dynamic and
evolving field. The domain of reference for NO_X retrofit
technology is not limited to this country. It is technologically
feasible to accomplish the degree of control that the rule calls for;
the issue becomes cost and economic feasibility rather than technical
infeasibility. We also refer the commenter to 26 Texas Register 524,
published on January 12, 2001, for a detailed explanation by the TNRCC
of the level of NO_X control. We responded to comments on the
cost and economic feasibility of the control requirements in our
response to comment #22 of this document.
Comment #23: BCCAAG commented that not enough time (year-end 2004)
has been allowed in the rule to implement the required NO_X
reductions from point sources.
Response to comment #23: In Texas the original NO_X RACT
rules, 30 TAC Chapter 117, were adopted in 1993 and earlier. As the H/
GA area continued to remain nonattainment for ozone and it became
evident that earlier NO_X control measures were not adequate
to bring the area into attainment with the one-hour ozone standard,
more source categories became subject to the Chapter 117 rules, and the
Chapter 117 requirements and emission limitations became more
stringent. Historical revisions to the Chapter 117 rules, including the
additional NO_X control from point sources in the H/GA area,
have not been introduced by the State without active participation of
the stakeholders. We believe that the majority of the affected sources
have been aware, involved, and actively participating in the regulatory
development arena of Chapter 117 rules over the last decade. The H/GA
area is classified as a severe-17 ozone nonattainment area according to
the federal Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C., Sec. 7401 et seq., and will need
to attain the one-hour ozone standard by November 15, 2007. Under 42
U.S.C., Sec. 7511a(d) the State of Texas is required to develop and
submit to EPA a SIP revision that will bring the H/GA area into
attainment with the one-hour ozone standard. To be classified as
attainment with the one-hour ozone standard by EPA, three complete
calendar years of ozone monitoring data are needed (Appendix H to 40
CFR Part 50--Interpretation of The 1-Hour Primary and Secondary
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone). Reading 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 7511a(d) and 40 CFR 50 Appendix H together, as a practical matter,
the year-end 2004 deadline will effectively become an initial
compliance deadline; otherwise the H/GA area will not be able to comply
with the compliance deadline of November 15, 2007. Thirty plus years of
ozone nonattainment in the H/GA area warrants no more delays. We fully
support the State's proposed implementation deadline and therefore
disagree with the commenter's position on insufficiency of time allowed
to implement the required NO_X control measures.
Comment #24: BCCAAG commented that 90% reduction effectively
eliminates the ability to create surplus credits under the cap and
trade program and will cause regional economic impacts that would lead
to a ``no future growth'' situation.
Response to comment #24: We want to emphasize that it is not within
the scope of this rulemaking to forecast on the region's future
business growth and expansions. The Mass Emissions Cap and Trade
Program (30 TAC Chapter 101, Subchapter H, Division 3) is being
approved in an action published separately in this issue of the Federal
Register. The emission credits under the mass emissions cap and trade
program will have to be actual, surplus, real, enforceable, and
certifiable. These rules will bring more flexibility and financial
incentives to reduce air pollution, promote technological innovations,
and encourage creative methods of pollution control over the old
command and control approach for each individual source. The Chapter
117 rules do not limit or stop future economic expansion and growth.
Generally, environmental regulations do not limit growth; they enhance
sustainable growth. We do not believe that Southern California
experienced no growth under its Regional Clean Air Incentives Market
(RECLAIM) program. In fact, one cannot dispute the business expansions
and economic prosperity of Southern California in the years following
the adoption of its RECLAIM program. We disagree with the BCCAAG's
position in this regard.
Comment #25: BCCAAG commented that according to their forecast for
the 2000-2004 time frame, resource supply and demand for construction
labor, design engineering staff, specialized labor, and Selective
Catalytic Reduction (SCR) catalyst supply for the H/GA area exceed
available capacities.
Response to comment #25: It is not within the scope of this
rulemaking to forecast resource and market demand availability of a
certain industrial sector. However, historically the market develops
additional supply when there

[[Page 57238]]

is increased demand. Regulated units in the H/GA area can come into
compliance in several ways, not all of which rely on physical
installation of additional controls. Moreover, the TNRCC has extended
the compliance deadlines for certain units, which is expected to
mitigate any potential inadequate capacity problems. For objectivity
and public record purposes, it appears that surveys cited as reference
by the commenter are conducted or sponsored, in part, by the industry
groups.
We refer the commenter to 26 Texas Register 524, published on
January 12, 2001, for a detailed explanation of the level of
NO_X control. The EPA's role in reviewing SIP submittals is
to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the
Clean Air Act. Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of
state action is not allowed under the Clean Air Act (see, Union
Electric Co., v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-266 (1976); 42 U.S.C.
7410(a)(2)) other than for purposes of evaluating the reasonableness
and availability of alternatives for purposes of a waiver of Federal
preemption. The State has submitted information indicating that the
administrative requirements of Texas law have been met. We defer to the
State analysis until such time as a State Court has determined
otherwise.
Comment #26: BCCAAG commented that the proposed rules will decrease
the production of ethylene and polyethylene plants during the 2003-2004
implementation period and will cause loss of sales/income.
Response to comment #26: We are not aware of any NO_X
rules in the country that have tailored their compliance deadlines or
emissions reduction plans to fit operation of one certain industrial
sector (ethylene and polyethylene plants) or specific plants' long run
maintenance or shutdown schedules. Any such accommodation in the rule
could be interpreted as lowering the bar of emission control or
extending special treatment to those specific plants. What seems to be
missing from the commenter's statement of concern over production/sales
losses from ethylene and polyethylene plants is the health care and
welfare costs associated with failure to install the proposed controls.
The fact that the construction/reconstruction and installation of a
control device may cause temporary delay in production rate does not
constitute grounds for exempting that source or subjecting the source
to a less stringent control requirement than the regulations would
otherwise require. We support the State's proposed implementation
deadline and emission limitations and disagree with the commenter's
position in this regard.
Comment #27: BCCAAG commented that the State has not weighed and
analyzed costs and technical feasibility of the control options for
utility boilers, gas turbines, heaters and furnaces, duct burners,
internal combustion (IC) engines, and ICI boilers. The commenter
proposes a NO_X standard comparable to those deployed in
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).
Response to comment #27: On the subject of technical feasibility
analysis we offer the following: The H/GA area is classified as a
severe-17 ozone nonattainment area and is the largest emitter of
NO_X emissions in the southern part of the country, a larger
emitter in amount than the Los Angeles area. See http://www.epa.gov/
air/data/netemis.html. The ozone control strategy in the H/GA area is
driven more by NO_X control measures than VOC. Although the
SCAQMD is normally the trend-setter in the field of air pollution
control in the States, some of the point source NO_X
standards the commenter refers to were set in the 1988 to 1991 time
era. Air pollution control technology is a dynamic and evolving
process. A decade ago, a concentration based NO_X limit in
single digit ppm was impracticable; while with today's technology and
advancements in process control techniques a concentration based
NO_X limit in single digit ppm has become practicable and
common. What used to be the state-of-art control technique a decade or
so ago, as set by the SCAQMD, may not be so in the air pollution
control industry now. Additionally, operational flexibility and
emission cap and trading provisions built in the NO_X rules
serve as viable options that a source or operator can take advantage
of. We believe that advances in air pollution control technology
combined with the Chapter 117 rule operational flexibility, and with
emission cap/trading, should enable a source or operator to meet the
proposed point source NO_X emission limitations. With regard
to the cost and economic feasibility of the control requirements,
actions such as the approval of a SIP revision which merely approve
state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law are not subject to
economic impact analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.). The EPA's role in reviewing SIP submittals is to approve
state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air
Act. Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action
is not allowed under the Clean Air Act (see, Union Electric Co., v.
EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-266 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)) other than for
purposes of evaluating the reasonableness and availability of
alternatives for purposes of a waiver of Federal preemption. The State
has submitted information indicating that the administrative
requirements of Texas law have been met. We defer to the State analysis
until such time as a State Court has determined otherwise. Furthermore,
we refer the commenter to 26 Texas Register 524, published on January
12, 2001, for a detailed explanation of the level of NO_X
control. We support the State's proposed NO_X emission
limitations and therefore, disagree with the commenter's position on
costs and technical feasibility of the emission controls from point
sources of NO_X.
Comment #28: BCCAAG commented that introduction of post combustion
technology with ammonia usage could increase ammonia emissions and
concentrations in the H/GA area.
Response to comment #28: We can understand and do appreciate
BCCAAG's concern about the potential for increase in ammonia emissions
in the H/GA area. Historically many facilities in Europe, Japan, and
the United States have used injection of this reagent as a method of
control to reduce NO_X or SO_X emissions from their
combustion sources. As material contained in the docket indicates if
control equipment is properly operated, there would be no excess
ammonia emissions. As a regulatory safeguard, 30 TAC Chapter 117 does
set short term emission limits for ammonia associated with operation of
combustion sources and their associated control devices. See
117.105(j), 117.106(d)(1)(B)(2), 117.205(g), and 117.206(e)(2). We
support the State's proposed emission limitations and; therefore,
disagree with the commenter's position in this regard.
Comment #29: BCCAAG commented that storage, handling, and
transportation of ammonia is risky.
Response to comment #29: We can understand and do appreciate
BCCAAG's concern about potential risk associated with the storage and
handling of ammonia in the H/GA area. As a regulatory safeguard, 30 TAC
Chapter 117 does set short term emission limits for ammonia associated
with operation of combustion sources and their associated control
devices. See 117.105(j), 117.106(d)(1)(B)(2), 117.205(g), and
117.206(e)(2). The commenter mentions that annually millions of pounds
of ammonia would have to be transported, handled, stored,

[[Page 57239]]

and used throughout the H/GA area. We want to bring to the commenter's
attention that many more millions of pounds of petroleum related
chemicals are transported, handled, stored, and used throughout the H/
GA area in association with activities related to some of the
commenter's constituents, every year. Using a similar analogy, gasoline
is a volatile, flammable solvent and is composed of potentially
carcinogenic chemicals. Some of the BCCAAG constituents in the H/GA
area are involved in the business of refining and producing gasoline
and petrochemical solvents. Millions of Americans drive gasoline-fueled
engines to and from work/home every day. We do not believe that it
follows that these people will need to cease their daily driving
activities due to the risk associated with the storage and handling of
gasoline. We support the State's proposed emission limitations and
therefore disagree with the commenter's position in this regard.
Comment #30: BCCAAG commented that there will be instances that
shutdown of equipment may have to be considered to meet the desired
NO_X emission reductions.
Response to comment #30: We agree that there may be instances that
the shutdown of marginal (economically speaking) existing equipment
will have to be considered. The surplus credit associated with these
shutdowns could be used in emission trading for financial gains by the
source or operator. The source also has the option to consolidate the
emissions from marginal equipment with other point sources and utilize
a combined control technique, or to obtain emission allowances. Both of
these options have been built into the Chapter 117 rules.

6. What Are the NO_X Emission Specifications for Point
Sources of NO_X, in the H/GA Area Based Upon the December
22, 2000, SIP Revision, That We Are Approving?

This rule revision requires reductions of NO_X emissions
from point sources in the H/GA ozone nonattainment area. The following
table contains a summary of the NO_X emission specifications
for attainment demonstration purposes that we are approving for point
sources in the H/GA.

Table III.--Affected Sources and NO_X Emission Specifications for Attainment Demonstration in the H/GA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source NO_X emission specification for attainment demonstration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utility Boilers........................... 0.010-0.060 lb/MMBtu.
Turbines and Duct Burners................. 0.015-0.150 lb/MMBtu.
Heaters and Furnaces...................... 0.010-0.036 lb/MMBtu.
Internal Combustion Engines............... 0.045-0.133 lb/MMBtu or 0.17-0.50 gram/hp-hr.
Industrial Boilers........................ 0.010-0.030 lb/MMBtu.
Coke-fired Boilers........................ 0.057 lb/MMBtu.
Wood Fuel-fired Boilers................... 0.046 lb/MMBtu.
Rice hull-fired Boilers................... 0.089 lb/MMBtu.
Oil-fired Boilers......................... 2.0 lb/1,000 gallons of oil burned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are approving the above-listed NO_X emissions
specifications for point sources of NO_X in the H/GA as a
part of the Texas 1-hour ozone SIP under Part D of the Act because
Texas is relying on the NO_X control measures to demonstrate
attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard in the H/GA nonattainment area.

7. What Is the Compliance Schedule for Point Sources of
NO_X, in the H/GA Area Based Upon the December 22, 2000,
SIP Revision, That We Are Approving?

The following table contains a summary of the affected sources and
their compliance schedules for attainment demonstration purposes that
we are approving for point sources in the H/GA.

Table IV.--Affected Sources of NO_X and Compliance Schedules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources Compliance schedule Additional information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utility Electric Generation.............. March 31, 2003......................... Investor-owned; first 46% of
total required NO_X
reductions.
Utility Electric Generation.............. March 31, 2004......................... Investor-owned; the next 46%
required NO_X reductions.
Utility Electric Generation.............. March 31, 2007......................... Investor-owned; final
required NO_X reductions.
Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional March 31, 2004......................... First 44% of required NO_X
Combustion Sources. reductions.
Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional March 31, 2005......................... Next 45% of required NO_X
Combustion Sources. reductions.
Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional March 31, 2007......................... Final NO_X reductions.
Combustion Sources.
Boilers, Process Heaters, and Stationary March 31, 2005......................... In cap and trade program.
Engines at Minor Sources.
Boilers, Process Heaters, and Stationary March 31, 2005......................... Not in cap and trade
Engines at Minor Sources. program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are of the opinion that the above listed compliance dates and
time-table combined with the cap and trade provisions of the rule offer
operational flexibility to the affected point sources in the H/GA. We
are approving the above-listed compliance dates for point sources of
NO_X in the H/GA as a part of the Texas 1-hour ozone SIP
under Part D of the Act because Texas is relying on the NO_X
control measures to demonstrate attainment of the 1-hour

[[Page 57240]]

ozone standard in the H/GA nonattainment area.

8. What Are the NO_X Emissions Reductions for Point
Sources of NO_X, in the H/GA Area Based Upon the December
22, 2000, SIP Revision, That We Are Approving?

This rulemaking will control/reduce NO_X emissions in the
H/GA area in two phases or Tiers. We will refer to these two emission
reduction phases as Tier I and Tier II Reductions. You can find a
summary of the affected sources and their NO_X emission
reductions for attainment demonstration purposes, that we are approving
for point sources in the H/GA area, in the following table.

Table V.--Affected Point Sources, 1997 Emissions, and Their Emission
Reductions for the H/GA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 NO_X
emissions, Tier I + Tier
Sources tons per day II reductions,
(tpd) (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utility Boilers......................... 196.44 184
Turbines and Duct Burners............... 155.65 141
Process Heaters and Furnaces............ 110.12 97
Internal Combustion Engines............. 86.37 75
Industrial Boilers...................... 85.98 79
Other................................... 32.99 19
Overall Point Sources................... 667.55 595
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The combined NO_X emission reductions of Tier I and Tier
II in the rulemaking will be 595 tpd or 89 percent, when compared to
the 1997 emission levels. We are approving the overall NO_X
point source reductions in the H/GA as a part of the Texas 1-hour ozone
SIP under Part D of the Act because Texas is relying on the
NO_X control measures to demonstrate attainment of the 1-hour
ozone standard in the H/GA nonattainment area.

9. What Are the NO_X Emission Specifications, for
Stationary Diesel Engines or Stationary Dual-Fuel Engines, That We
Are Approving?

This rule revision requires reductions of NO_X emissions
from stationary diesel engines or stationary dual-fuel engines in the
H/GA area. The following table contains a summary of the NO_X
emission specifications for stationary diesel engines in the H/GA area.

Table VI.--Affected Sources and NO_X Emission Specifications for
Stationary Diesel Engines or Stationary Dual-Fuel Engines in the H/GA
Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source NO_X emission specification
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diesel engines in service after 11.0 gram/hp-hr.
October 1, 2001: not modified,
reconstructed, or relocated on or
after October 1, 2001.
Rated less than 11 hp: modified, 7.0 gram/hp-hr.
reconstructed, or relocated on or
after October 1, 2001, but before
October 1, 2004.
Rated less than 11 hp: modified, 5.0 gram/hp-hr.
reconstructed, or relocated on or
after October 1, 2004.
11 hp £ rated 25 hp: 6.3 gram/hp-hr.
installed, modified,
reconstructed, or relocated on or
after October 1, 2001, but before
October 1, 2004.
11 hp £ rated 25 hp: 5.0 gram/hp-hr.
installed, modified,
reconstructed, or relocated on or
after October 1, 2004.
25 hp £ rated 50 hp: 6.3 gram/hp-hr.
installed, modified,
reconstructed, or relocated on or
after October 1, 2001, but before
October 1, 2003.
25 hp £ rated 50 hp: 5.0 gram/hp-hr.
installed, modified,
reconstructed, or relocated on or
after October 1, 2003.
50 hp £ rated 100 hp: 6.9 gram/hp-hr.
installed, modified,
reconstructed, or relocated on or
after October 1, 2001, but before
October 1, 2003.
50 hp £ rated 100 hp: 5.0 gram/hp-hr.
installed, modified,
reconstructed, or relocated on or
after October 1, 2003.
50 hp £ rated 100 hp: 3.3 gram/hp-hr
installed, modified,
reconstructed, or relocated on or
after October 1, 2007.
100 hp £ rated 175 hp: 6.9 gram/hp-hr.
installed, modified,
reconstructed, or relocated on or
after October 1, 2001, but before
October 1, 2002.
100 hp £ rated 175 hp: 4.5 gram/hp-hr.
installed, modified,
reconstructed, or relocated on or
after October 1, 2002, but before
October 1, 2006.
100 hp £ rated 175 hp: 2.8 gram/hp-hr.
installed, modified,
reconstructed, or relocated on or
after October 1, 2006.
175 hp £ rated 300 hp: 6.9 gram/hp-hr.
installed, modified,
reconstructed, or relocated on or
after October 1, 2001, but before
October 1, 2002.
175 hp £ rated 300 hp: 4.5 gram/hp-hr.
installed, modified,
reconstructed, or relocated on or
after October 1, 2002, but before
October 1, 2005.
175 hp £ rated 300 hp: 2.8 gram/hp-hr.
installed, modified,
reconstructed, or relocated on or
after October 1, 2005.
300 hp £ rated 600 hp: 4.5 gram/hp-hr.
installed, modified,
reconstructed, or relocated on or
after October 1, 2001, but before
October 1, 2005.
300 hp £ rated 600 hp: 2.8 gram/hp-hr.
installed, modified,
reconstructed, or relocated on or
after October 1, 2005.
600 hp £ rated 750 hp: 4.5 gram/hp-hr.
installed, modified,
reconstructed, or relocated on or
after October 1, 2001, but before
October 1, 2005.
600 hp £ rated 750 hp: 2.8 gram/hp-hr.
installed, modified,
reconstructed, or relocated on or
after October 1, 2005.
Rated ³ 750 hp: 6.9 gram/hp-hr.
installed, modified,
reconstructed, or relocated on or
after October 1, 2001, but before
October 1, 2005.

[[Page 57241]]

Rated ³ 750 hp: 4.5 gram/hp-hr.
installed, modified,
reconstructed, or relocated on or
after October 1, 2005.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are of the opinion that these emission specifications are in
agreement with those found in Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title
40, section 89.112, and EPA's Document Number 420-R-98-016 dated August
1998, entitled ``Final Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions
from Nonroad Diesel Engines.'' We are also of the opinion that these
NO_X emission specifications will contribute to the
attainment of the 1-hr ozone standard in the H/GA area. We are
approving these stationary diesel engines or stationary dual-fuel
engines rule revisions under Part D of the Act because Texas is relying
on these NO_X reductions to demonstrate attainment of the 1-
hour ozone standard in the H/GA 1-hr ozone nonattainment area.

10. What Is the Proposed Compliance Schedule Date for Stationary
Diesel Engines in the H/GA Area Based on the May 30, 2001, SIP
Revision?

The compliance date for stationary diesel engines and stationary
dual-fuel engines in the H/GA area is April 1, 2002. See sections
117.520 and 117.534 of the proposed rule. We consider the April 1,
2002, compliance date for stationary diesel engines and dual-fuel
engines, in the H/GA area, to be as expeditious as practicable. We are
approving these stationary diesel engines or stationary dual-fuel
engines compliance schedules under Part D of the Act because Texas is
relying on these NO_X reductions to demonstrate attainment of
the 1-hour ozone standard in the H/GA 1-hr ozone nonattainment area.

11. What Are the NO_X Emissions Reductions for Stationary
Diesel Engines in the H/GA Area Based on the May 30, 2001, SIP
Revision, That We Are Approving?

The estimated NO_X emission reductions attributed to the
stationary diesel engines or stationary dual-fuel engines that we are
approving is 1.00 tpd.

12. What Are the NO_X Emissions Specifications for Point
Sources of NO_X in the H/GA Area Based on the May 30,
2001, SIP Revision, That We Are Approving?

The following table contains a summary of the NO_X
emission specifications for attainment demonstration purposes that we
are approving for point sources in the
H/GA.

Table VII.--Affected Sources and NO_X Emission Specifications for
Attainment Demonstration in the H/GA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO_X Emission Specification for
Source Attainment Demonstration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utility Boilers, Gas-fired..... 0.020 lb/MMBtu.
Utility Boilers, Coal-fired or 0.040 lb/MMBtu.
Oil-fired.
Auxiliary Steam Boilers........ 0.010-0.036 lb/MMBtu.
Stationary Gas Turbines + Duct 0.015-0.150 lb/MMBtu.
Burners in Turbine Exhaust.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are of the opinion that NO_X emission specifications
listed in Table VII will contribute to attainment of the 1-hr ozone
standard in the H/GA area. We are approving the above-listed
NO_X emissions specifications for affected point sources of
NO_X in the H/GA as a part of the Texas 1-hour ozone SIP
under Part D of the Act because Texas is relying on the NO_X
control measures to demonstrate attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard
in the H/GA nonattainment area.

13. What Is the Compliance Schedule For Utility Electric Generation
Point Sources of NO_X in the H/GA Area Based on the May
30, 2001, SIP Revision, That We Are Approving?

The following table contains a summary of the time-table/
compliance schedule for the affected utility electric generation point
sources of NO_X in the H/GA that we are approving.

Table VIII.--Affected Sources of NO_X in the H/GA and Compliance Schedules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources Compliance schedule Additional information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utility Electric Generation.............. March 31, 2003......................... At least 47% of total
required NO_X reductions.
Utility Electric Generation.............. March 31, 2004......................... At least 95% of total
required NO_X reductions.
Utility Electric Generation.............. March 31, 2007......................... Demonstrate compliance with
system cap limits of
117.108.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are of the opinion that the above-listed compliance dates and
time-table for affected sources offer operational flexibility to the
rule. We are approving the above-listed compliance dates for affected
point sources of NO_X in the H/GA as a part of the Texas 1-
hour ozone SIP under Part D of the Act because Texas is relying on the
NO_X control measures to demonstrate attainment of the 1-hour
ozone standard in the H/GA nonattainment area.

[[Page 57242]]

14. What Are the NO_X Emissions Specifications in the ICI
Source Category for Attainment Demonstration Within the H/GA Area,
Based on the May 30, 2001, SIP Revision, That We Are Approving?

You can find proposed NO_X emissions specifications for
the ICI source category within the H/GA for attainment demonstration
purposes in the H/GA in the following table.

Table IX.--Affected Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Combustion Sources and Their NO_X Emission
Specifications for Attainment Demonstration in the H/GA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source NO_X Emission specification for attainment demonstration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary, reciprocating internal 0.60 gram/hp-hr.
combustion engines: gas-fired rich-burn
firing on landfill gas.
Stationary, reciprocating internal 0.17 gram/hp-hr.
combustion engines: gas-fired rich-burn
not firing on landfill gas.
Stationary, reciprocating internal 0.60 gram/hp-hr.
combustion engines: gas-fired lean-burn
firing on landfill gas.
Stationary, reciprocating internal 0.50 gram/hp-hr.
combustion engines: gas-fired lean-burn
not firing on landfill gas.
Dual fuel engines with initial start of 5.83 gram/hp-hr.
operation on or before December 31, 2000.
Dual fuel engines with initial start of 0.50 gram/hp-hr.
operation after December 31, 2000.
Gas-fired boilers........................ 0.010--0.036 lb/MMBtu.
Fluid catalytic cracking units. Includes 13 ppm @ zero percent O₂, dry basis.
CO boilers, CO furnaces, and catalyst
regenerator vents.
Boilers and industrial furnaces.......... 0.015--0.030 lb/MMBtu.
Coke-fired boilers....................... 0.057 lb/MMBtu.
Wood fuel-fired boilers.................. 0.046 lb/MMBtu.
Rice hull-fired boilers.................. 0.089 lb/MMBtu.
Oil-fired boilers........................ 2.0 lb/1,000 gallons of oil burned.
Process heaters.......................... 0.010--0.036 lb/MMBtu.
Stationary gas turbines.................. 0.015--0.15 lb/MMBtu.
Duct burners in turbine exhaust ducts.... 0.015 lb/MMBtu.
Pulping liquor recovery furnaces......... 0.050 lb/MMBtu or 1.08 lb/ADTP.
Lime kilns............................... 0.66 lb/ton of CaO.
Lightweight aggregate kilns.............. 0.76 lb/ton of product.
Metallurgical heat treat furnaces........ 0.087 lb/MMBtu.
Metallurgical reheat furnaces............ 0.062 lb/MMBtu.
Incinerators............................. 0.030 lb/MMBtu.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15. What Is the Compliance Schedule for Affected ICI Sources of
NO_X in the H/GA Area Based on the May 30, 2001, SIP
Revision That We Are Approving?

This rule revision offers a phased-in approach concerning the
emission reductions and compliance schedule for point sources of
NO_X in the H/GA area. The following table contains a summary
of the time-table/compliance schedule for the affected ICI sources of
NO_X in the H/GA area.

Table X.--Affected ICI Sources of NO_X in the H/GA Area and Compliance
Schedules
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance Additional
Sources schedule information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICI sources..................... March 31, 2004.... At least 39% of
total required
NO_X reductions.
ICI sources..................... March 31, 2005.... At least 67% of
total required
NO_X reductions.
ICI sources..................... March 31, 2006.... At least 78% of
total required
NO_X reductions.
ICI sources..................... March 31, 2007.... Demonstrate
compliance with
system cap limits
of 117.210.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are approving the above-listed compliance dates for affected ICI
sources of NO_X in the H/GA as a part of the Texas 1-hour
ozone SIP under Part D of the Act because Texas is relying on the
NO_X control measures to demonstrate attainment of the 1-hour
ozone standard in the H/GA nonattainment area.

16. What Are the NO_X Emissions Reductions Based on the
May 30, 2001, SIP Revision, That We Are Approving?

This rulemaking will control/reduce NO_X emissions in the
H/GA area in two phases or Tiers. We will refer to these two emission
reduction phases as Tier I and Tier II Reductions. The following Table
contains a summary of the 1997 NO_X emissions and the May 30,
2001, emission reductions for each point source category in the H/GA
area that we are approving.

[[Page 57243]]

Table XI.--Affected Point Sources, 1997 Emissions, and Proposed Emission
Reductions for the H/GA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 NO_X
emissions, Tier I + Tier
Sources tons per day II reductions,
(tpd) (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utility Boilers......................... 196.44 176
Turbines and Duct Burners............... 155.65 141
Process Heaters and Furnaces............ 110.12 97
Internal Combustion Engines............. 86.37 77
Industrial Boilers...................... 85.98 79
Other................................... 32.99 19
Overall Point Sources................... 667.55 588
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The combined NO_X emission reductions of Tier I and Tier
II in this SIP revision will be 588 tpd or 88 percent, when compared to
the 1997 emission levels. The change in overall point sources
NO_X reductions in Table XI, as compared with that of Table V
in this document, is due to revisions to the requirements of
subsections 117.106(c)(1) and 117.206(c)(9)(D).

17. When Did the State Adopt the Final Version of the Rule for
Point Sources of NO_X in the H/GA Area?

The State adopted the final version of the rule for point sources
of NO_X in the H/GA area on September 26, 2001.

18. Is There a Substantial Difference Between the State's Proposed
and Final Versions of the Rule for Point Sources of NO_X
in the H/GA Area?

For parallel processing purposes, there is no substantial
difference between the State's proposed and final versions of the rule
for point sources of NO_X in the H/GA area with regard to
actions number three, four, and five of this document. We did not
review actions number one and two through the parallel processing
mechanism. There is no substantial difference between the State's
proposed and final versions of the rule for point sources of
NO_X in the H/GA area with regard to actions number one and
two of this document.

19. What Are NO_X?

Nitrogen oxides belong to the group of criteria air pollutants. The
NO_X result from burning fuels, including gasoline and coal.
Nitrogen oxides react with volatile organic compounds (VOC) to form
ozone or smog, and are also major components of acid rain.

20. What Is a Nonattainment Area?

A nonattainment area is a geographic area in which the level of a
criteria air pollutant is higher than the level allowed by Federal
standards. A single geographic area may have acceptable levels of one
criteria air pollutant but unacceptable levels of one or more other
criteria air pollutants; thus, a geographic area can be attainment for
one criteria pollutant and nonattainment for another criteria pollutant
at the same time.

21. What Are Definitions of Major Sources for NO_X?

Section 302 of the Act generally defines ``major stationary
source'' as a facility or source of air pollution which emits, when
uncontrolled, 100 tons per year (tpy) or more of air pollution. This
general definition applies unless another specific provision of the Act
explicitly defines major source differently.
According to section 182(d) of the Act, a major source in a severe
nonattainment area is a source that emits, when uncontrolled, 25 tpy or
more of NO_X. The H/GA area is a severe ozone nonattainment
area, so the major source size for the H/GA area is 25 tpy or more,
when uncontrolled. This rulemaking will regulate NO_X
emissions from major stationary sources in the H/GA area.

22. What Is a State Implementation Plan?

Section 110 of the Act requires States to develop air pollution
regulations and control strategies to ensure that State air quality
meets the NAAQS that EPA has established. Under section 109 of the Act,
EPA established the NAAQS to protect public health. The NAAQS address
six criteria pollutants. These criteria pollutants are: carbon
monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur
dioxide.
Each State must submit these regulations and control strategies to
us for approval and incorporation into the federally enforceable SIP.
Each State has a SIP designed to protect air quality. These SIPs can be
extensive, containing State regulations or other enforceable documents
and supporting information such as emission inventories, monitoring
networks, and modeling demonstrations.

23. What Does Federal Approval of a SIP Mean to Me?

A State may enforce State regulations before and after we
incorporate those regulations into a federally approved SIP. After we
incorporate those regulations into a federally approved SIP, both EPA
and the public may also take enforcement action against violators of
these regulations.

24. What Areas in Texas Will the Stationary Diesel Engines or
Stationary Dual-Fuel Engines Rule Affect That We Are Approving
Based on the May 30, 2001, SIP Revision Affect?

The following table contains a list of counties affected by this
SIP revision concerning the stationary diesel engines or dual-fuel
engines that we are parallel processing for approval.

Table XII.--Rule Log Number and Affected Areas for Texas NO_X SIP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule log Affected areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001-007B-117-AI Stationary diesel engines Brazoria, Chambers, Fort
and dual-fuel engines provisions. Bend, Galveston, Harris,
Liberty, Montgomery, and
Waller counties.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you are in one of these Texas counties, you should refer to the
Texas NO_X rules to determine if and how today's action will
affect you.

25. What Areas in Texas Will Be Affected by the Rule for Point
Sources of NO_X, That We Are Approving Based on the May
30, 2001, SIP Revision?

The following table contains a list of counties affected by this
SIP revision concerning point sources of NO_X that we are
parallel processing for approval.

[[Page 57244]]

Table XIII.--Rule Log Number and Affected Areas for Texas NO_X SIP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule log No. Affected areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001-007B-117-AI ICI and electric utility Brazoria, Chambers, Fort
sources. Bend, Galveston, Harris,
Liberty, Montgomery, and
Waller counties
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This
proposed action merely approves state law as meeting federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et. seq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements
under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty
beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as
described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-
4). For the same reason, this rule also does not significantly or
uniquely affect the communities of tribal governments, as specified by
Executive Order 13084 (63 FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This rule 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,
as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999),
because it merely approves a state rule implementing a federal
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule
also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), because it is not economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. The rule does not
involve special consideration of environmental justice related issues
as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February
7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation,
and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. The EPA has
complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by
examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the
``Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk
and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings.'' This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Nitrogen
oxides, Nonattainment, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: October 15, 2001.
Gregg A. Cooke,
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 for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart SS--Texas

2. In Sec. 52.2270 the entry for Chapter 117 in the table in
paragraph (c) is amended as follows:
a. Under Subchapter A, revising the entry for section 117.10;
b. Under Subchapter B, revising the entries for sections 117.101,
117.103, 117.105, 117.106, 117.107, 117.108, 117.111, 117.113, 117.116,
117.119, 117.121, 117.138, 117.201, 117.203, 117.205, 117.206, 117.207,
117.208, 117.211, 117.213, 117.216, 117.219, and 117.221, and adding
new entries for sections 117.110, 117.114, 117.210, and 117.214;
c. Under Subchapter D, adding new entries for sections 117.471,
117.473, 117.475, 117.478, and 117.479;
d. Under Subchapter E, revising entries for sections 117.510,
117.520, and 117.570, and adding a new entry for section 117.534. The
revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec. 52.2270 Identification of plan.

* * * * *
(c) * * *

EPA Approval Regulations in the Texas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
State citation Title/subject submittal/ EPA approval Explanation
approval date date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 117 (Reg 7)--Control of Air Pollution From Nitrogen Compounds
Subchapter A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 117.10.................... Definitions.......... 09/26/2001 [Insert 11-14- .....................
01 Federal
Register
cite.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 57245]]

Subchapter B--Division 1--Utility Electric Generation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 117.101................... Applicability........ 09/26/2001 [Insert 11-14- .....................
01 Federal
Register
cite.]
Section 117.103................... Exemptions........... 09/26/2001 [Insert 11-14- .....................
01 Federal
Register
cite.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 117.105................... Emission 09/26/2001 [Insert 11-14- .....................
Specifications. 01 Federal
Register
cite.]
Section 117.106................... Emission 09/26/2001 [Insert 11-14- .....................
Specifications for 01 Federal
Attainment Register
Demonstrations. cite.]
Section 117.107................... Alternative System- 09/26/2001 [Insert 11-14- .....................
Wide Emission 01 Federal
Specifications. Register
cite.]
Section 117.108................... System Cap........... 09/26/2001 [Insert 11-14- .....................
01 Federal
Register
cite.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 117.110................... Change Ownership-- 09/26/2001 [Insert 11-14- New.
System Cap. 01 Federal
Register
cite.]
Section 117.111................... Initial Demonstration 09/26/2001 [Insert 11-14- .....................
of Compliance. 01 Federal
Register
cite.]
Section 117.113................... Continuous 09/26/2001 [Insert 11-14- .....................
Demonstration of 01 Federal
Compliance. Register
cite.]
Section 117.114................... Emission Testing and 09/26/2001 [Insert 11-14- New.
Monitoring for the 01 Federal
Houston Galveston Register
Attainment cite.]
Demonstration.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 117.116................... Final Control Plan 09/26/2001 [Insert 11-14- .....................
Procedures for 01 Federal
Attainment Register
Demonstration cite.]
Emission
Specifications.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 117.119................... Notification, Record 09/26/2001 [Insert 11-14- .....................
keeping, and 01 Federal
Reporting Register
Requirements. cite.]
Section 117.121................... Alternative Case 09/26/2001 [Insert 11-14- .....................
Specific 01 Federal
Specifications. Register
cite.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 117.138................... System Cap........... 09/26/2001 [Insert 11-14- .....................
01 Federal
Register
cite.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 117.201................... Applicability........ 09/26/2001 [Insert 11-14- .....................
01 Federal
Register
cite.]

[[Page 57246]]

Section 117.203................... Exemptions........... 09/26/2001 [Insert 11-14- .....................
01 Federal
Register
cite.]
Section 117.205................... Emission 09/26/2001 [Insert 11-14- .....................
Specifications for 01 Federal
Reasonably Available Register
Control Technology cite.]
(RACT).
Section 117.206................... Emission 09/26/2001 [Insert 11-14- .....................
Specifications for 01 Federal
Attainment Register
Demonstrations. cite.]
Section 117.207................... Alternative Plant- 09/26/2001 [Insert 11-14- .....................
Wide Emission 01 Federal
Specifications. Register
cite.]
Section 117.208................... Operating 09/26/2001 [Insert 11-14- .....................
Requirements. 01 Federal
Register
cite.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 117.210................... System Cap........... 09/26/2001 [Insert 11-14- New.
01 Federal
Register
cite.]
Section 117.211................... Initial Demonstration 09/26/2001 11-14-01 .....................
of Compliance.
Section 117.213................... Continuous 09/26/2001 [Insert 11-14- .....................
Demonstration of 01 Federal
Compliance. Register
cite.]
Section 117.214................... Emission Testing and 09/26/2001 [Insert 11-14- New.
Monitoring for the 01 Federal
Houston Galveston Register
Attainment cite.]
Demonstration.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 117.216................... Final Control Plan 09/26/2001 [Insert 11-14- .....................
Procedures for 01 Federal
Attainment Register
Demonstration cite.]
Emission
Specifications.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 117.219................... Notification, 09/26/2001 [Insert 11-14- .....................
Recordkeeping, and 01 Federal
Reporting Register
Requirements. cite.]
Section 117.221................... Alternative Case 09/26/2001 [Insert 11-14- .....................
Specific 01 Federal
Specifications. Register
cite.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 117.471................... Applicability........ 09/26/2001 [Insert 11-14- New.
01 Federal
Register
cite.]
Section 117.473................... Exemptions........... 09/26/2001 [Insert 11-14- New.
01 Federal
Register
cite.]
Section 117.475................... Emission 09/26/2001 [Insert 11-14- New.
Specifications. 01 Federal
Register
cite.]
Section 117.478................... Operating 09/26/2001 11-14-01 New.
Requirements.
Section 117.479................... Monitoring, 09/26/2001 [Insert 11-14- New.
Recordkeeping, and 01 Federal
Reporting Register
Requirements. cite.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 57247]]

* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 117.510................... Compliance Schedule 09/26/2001 [Insert 11-14- .....................
for Utility Electric 01 Federal
Generation in Ozone Register
Nonattainment Areas. cite.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 117.520................... Compliance Schedule 09/26/2001 [Insert 11-14- .....................
for Industrial, 01 Federal
Commercial, and Register
Institutional, cite.]
Combustion Sources
in ozone
Nonattainment Areas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 117.534................... Compliance Schedule 09/26/2001 [Insert 11-14- New.
for Boilers, Process 01 Federal
Heaters, Stationary Register
Engines, and Gas cite.]
Turbines at Minor
Sources.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 117.570................... Use of Emissions 09/26/2001 [Insert 11-14- .....................
Credits for 01 Federal
Compliance. Register
cite.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 01-27584 Filed 11-13-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-5-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Control of Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides From Stationary Sources in the Houston/ Galveston Ozone Nonattainment Area

Related Material

Local Navigation