[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 134 (Thursday, July 12, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36656-36673]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-17470]
[[Page 36655]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 52
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: Texas; the Houston/
Galveston Nonattainment Area; Ozone; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 66 , No. 134 / Thursday, July 12, 2001 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 36656]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[TX134-1-7501; FRL-7011-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; the
Houston/Galveston Nonattainment Area; Ozone
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Through parallel processing, the EPA is proposing to approve
the Texas one hour ozone attainment demonstration State Implementation
Plan (SIP) for the Houston/Galveston (HG) severe nonattainment area
based on Texas' commitment to submit by October 1, 2001 a SIP revision
that incorporates enforceable commitments to adopt and submit the
remaining measures necessary to demonstrate attainment of the one hour
standard; that incorporates recent legislation and its effects upon the
proposed control strategy necessary to demonstrate attainment of the
standard; that corrects and modifies the Post 1999 Rate of Progress
(ROP) plans; that adequately demonstrates all Reasonably Available
Control Measures (RACM) have been implemented in the HG area; and that
modifies the attainment Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget (MVEB) to
account for changes in the Heavy Duty Diesel vehicle emissions
projection. In the alternative, if they fail to meet this commitment,
EPA is proposing to disapprove the attainment demonstration for the HG
area.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 13, 2001.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to Mr.
Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), at the EPA Region
6 Office listed below. Copies of documents relevant to this action,
including the Technical Support Document (TSD), are available for
public inspection during normal business hours at the following
locations.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Office of Air
Quality, 12124 Park Circle, Austin, Texas 78753.
Anyone wanting to examine these documents should make an
appointment with the appropriate office at least two working days in
advance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Guy R. Donaldson, Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Telephone Number
(214) 665-7242, E-mail Address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In proposing to approve the attainment
demonstration SIP, the EPA also is proposing the following related
actions:
Approval of the following local measures relied on in the
attainment demonstration: speed limit reduction, voluntary mobile
emission programs (VMEP) and transportation control measures (TCM).
Approval of the Post 1999 ROP plans for the time periods
2000-2002, 2003-2005 and 2006-2007.
Approval of the MVEB contained in the attainment
demonstration SIP and the Post 1999 ROP plans.
Approval of the 15% ROP Plan (Conversion of conditional
interim approval to a full approval).
Approval of the State's enforceable commitment to perform
a mid-course review and submit a SIP revision with recommended mid-
course corrective actions, to the EPA by May 1, 2004.
Approval of the State's enforceable commitment to revise
the MVEB using the MOBILE6 on-road emissions model.
Approval of revisions to the 1990 base year inventory.
Approval of the HG area's SIP as meeting the reasonably
available control measures (RACM) requirement.
Of the above proposed actions, the EPA is proposing to approve
through parallel processing the State's enforceable commitments to
adopt and submit the remaining necessary measures, the revised control
strategy as impacted by recent state legislation, modifications and
corrections to the ROP plans, the RACM analyses, and revisions to the
projected on-road emissions from Heavy Duty Diesel engines, as
submitted by the Governor in a letter dated June 15, 2001. This
proposed action is based on the requirements of the Federal Clean Air
Act (the Act or the CAA) related to ozone demonstrations.
If the State makes significant changes between the versions being
parallel reviewed and the final adopted versions, other than those
changes resulting from issues discussed in this proposed rulemaking,
EPA will issue an additional proposed rulemaking prior to taking final
action. If there are no significant changes to the parallel-processed
versions and Texas submits the final versions by September 2001, the
EPA will proceed with final rulemaking. Final full approval of the
attainment demonstration SIP is contingent on final approval of the
MVEBs, ROP plans, the items being parallel processed, and the rules and
other measures relied upon to demonstrate attainment. Due to an
existing consent decree, by October 15, 2001, EPA must propose a
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) if EPA has not fully approved the
attainment demonstration SIP for the HG area.
Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' means EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Proposed Action
What Actions are We Proposing to Approve?
II. Background
A. Why Control Ozone?
B. How is Ozone Formed?
C. What are the Relevant Clean Air Act Requirements?
D. What are the Components of an Acceptable Attainment
Demonstration?
III. Background of Texas' Attainment Demonstration Submission
A. What are the Contents of the State's Attainment Demonstration
Submittals?
B. What Previous Actions has EPA Taken on the HG Attainment
Demonstration Submittals?
IV. Evaluation of Attainment Demonstration SIP
A. Photochemical Modeling
B. Modeled Control Strategies
C. Modeling Results and Weight of Evidence
D. Additional Control Measures That Have Not Modeled
E. Summary of Control Measures
F. Enforceable Commitments
G. Attainment Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget
H. Reasonably Available Control Measures
I. Impacts of Texas Legislative Action
J. Impacts of Recent State Settlement of Litigation
V. Local Measures
A. Speed Limit Reductions
B. Voluntary Mobile Emission Program (VMEP)
C. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs)
VI. Post 1999 Rate of Progress Plans
A. Proposed Action
B. Calculation of Required Reductions and Summary of Plans
C. Post 1999 ROP MVEBs
VII. 15% Rate of Progress Plan
Proposed Action
VIII. Summary of Related Measures EPA Must Approve Before EPA can
Fully Approve the HG Attainment Demonstration
IX. EPA Guidance
X. Administrative Requirements
I. Proposed Action
What Actions Are We Proposing to Approve?
Through parallel processing, we are proposing to approve the one-
hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP for
[[Page 36657]]
the HG nonattainment area. This demonstration shows through
photochemical modeling and other evidence that a combination of adopted
measures, recent legislation, and commitments to adopt additional
measures that the HG area will attain the one hour ozone standard by
November 15, 2007, the latest date provided under the CAA.
As an integral part of the attainment demonstration we are
proposing approval and adequacy of the associated MVEBs only until
these emission budgets have been revised pursuant to the State's
commitments to use MOBILE6 and to adopt additional measures necessary
for attainment and we have found the revised budgets adequate for the
purposes of transportation conformity.
Before approving an attainment demonstration SIP, we must approve
all of the control measures relied on in the demonstration. The
majority of the control measures relied on in the attainment
demonstration are being approved in other Federal Register documents.
We are proposing to approve in today's action, certain measures relied
upon in the attainment demonstration and which were submitted December
20, 2000: The Speed Limit Reductions, the VMEP ,and the TCMs. We are
also proposing approval of the following SIP submissions: (1) 15% ROP
Plan, (2) the Post 1999 ROP Plans and their associated contingency
measures; (3) a demonstration that all RACM have been adopted for the
HG nonattainment area; and (4) revisions to the 1990 Base Year
Inventory. Revisions to the Post 1999 ROP plans and the RACM analysis
are being parallel processed.
We cannot finalize the proposed approval of the attainment
demonstration SIP and its associated attainment MVEB, unless and until,
we have fully approved all of the control measures relied upon in the
State's attainment demonstration SIP for the HG area. A description of
all of these measures that must be finally approved by EPA before any
final approval of the attainment demonstration SIP and its associated
MVEBs is in section VIII.
In addition, we believe that for the HG area to be successful in
attaining the one-hour ozone standard, the State must be committed to
certain future actions relating to adopting additional measures and to
future evaluations of the inputs to the plan. Therefore, we are
proposing to approve the following State commitments:
The State's enforceable commitment to perform a mid-course
review (including evaluation of all modeling, inventory data, and other
tools and assumptions used to develop this attainment demonstration)
and to submit a mid-course review SIP revision, with recommended mid-
course corrective actions, to the EPA by May 1, 2004.
The State's enforceable commitment to perform new mobile
source modeling for the HG area, using MOBILE6, our on-road mobile
emissions factor computer model, within 24 months of the model's
official release; that if a transportation conformity analysis is to be
performed between 12 months and 24 months after the MOBILE6 official
release, transportation conformity will not be determined until Texas
submits an MVEB which is developed using MOBILE6 and which we find
adequate.
An enforceable commitment to adopt rules that achieve at
least the additional 56 tons/day of NOX emission reductions
that are needed for the area to show attainment of the one-hour ozone
standard and identified potential measures that could achieve the
reductions without requiring additional limits on highway
construction.*
An enforceable commitment to adopt measures to achieve 25%
of the 56 tons/day needed additional NOX reductions and
submit these adopted measures to EPA as a SIP revision by December
2002.*
An enforceable commitment to adopt measures for the
remaining needed additional NOX reductions and submit these
adopted measures to EPA as a SIP revision by May 1, 2004.*
An enforceable commitment that the rules needed for the
additional NOX reductions will be adopted as expeditiously
as practicable and the compliance dates will be expeditious.*
An enforceable commitment to concurrently revise the MVEBs
and submit them to EPA as a revision to the attainment SIP if
additional control measures reduce on-road motor vehicle emissions.
In a letter dated June 15, 2001, the Governor of Texas submitted
several items for parallel processing. These items are: The enforceable
commitments noted above with asterisks; the recent legislative changes
with their impacts on and revisions to the proposed control strategy
for the HG area; the corrections and modifications to the Post 1999 ROP
plans; a demonstration that all RACM have been adopted for the HG
nonattainment area; and a modification to the attainment demonstration
and MVEB to revise the emission projection for Heavy Duty Diesel
vehicles. Parallel processing means that EPA proposes action on a state
rule before it becomes final under state law. Under parallel
processing, EPA takes final action on its proposal if the final,
adopted state submission is substantially unchanged from the submission
on which the proposed rulemaking was based, or if significant changes
in the final submission are anticipated and adequately described in
EPA's proposed rulemaking or result from needed corrections determined
by the State to be necessary through review of issues described in
EPA's proposed rulemaking.
In summary, we cannot finalize action on the attainment
demonstration SIP and its associated MVEBs unless and until the
Governor submits the items we are parallel processing, including the
finally adopted enforceable commitments, the finally adopted control
strategy as revised by the recent legislation, the corrections to the
Post 1999 ROP Plans, the RACM demonstration and the revisions to the
attainment MVEBs. The State has begun its public comment process on
these items. Public hearings are scheduled for June 13, 14 and 15, and
July 2, 2001. Submission is anticipated in September 2001, but not
later than October 1, 2001.
If the EPA cannot fully approve all of the control measures and
commitments relied upon in the attainment demonstration, and the items
proposed for parallel processing, EPA cannot fully approve the
attainment demonstration SIP for the HG area. Under an existing consent
decree, EPA must propose a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) by October
15, 2001, if EPA has not fully approved an attainment demonstration SIP
for the HG area by that day.
II. Background
A. Why Control Ozone?
Ozone is a key component of urban smog. Inhaling even low levels of
ozone can trigger a variety of health problems including chest pains,
coughing, nausea, throat irritation, and congestion. It can worsen
bronchitis, asthma and reduce lung capacity.
The Act requires EPA to establish national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS or standards) for certain widespread pollutants that
cause or contribute to air pollution that is reasonably anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare. CAA sections 108 and 109. In 1979,
we promulgated the one hour (0.12 parts per million (ppm)) ground-level
ozone standard to guard against the health effects discussed above. 44
FR 8202 (Feb. 8, 1979)
The ozone problem in the HG area is one of the most serious in the
country.
[[Page 36658]]
In 2000, the one hour ozone standard was exceeded 44 times in the HG
area, more than anywhere else in the country. The area's peak one hour
reading in 2000 was 225 parts per billion (ppb), almost twice the one
hour NAAQS. This was the highest value recorded in the country.
B. How Is Ozone Formed?
Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly from a smoke stack or
tail pipe. Rather, emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and
volatile organic compounds (VOC) react in the presence of sunlight to
form ground-level ozone. NOX and VOC are referred to as
precursors of ozone.
VOC emissions are produced by a wide variety of sources, including
stationary and mobile sources. Significant stationary sources of VOC
include industrial solvent usage, various coating operations,
industrial and utility combustion units, petroleum and oil storage and
marketing operations, chemical manufacturing operations, personal
solvent usage, etc. Significant mobile sources of VOC include on-road
vehicle usage and off-road vehicle and engine usage, such as farm
machinery, aircraft, locomotives, and motorized lawn care and garden
implements.
NOX emissions are produced primarily through combustion
processes, including industrial and utility boiler use, process heaters
and furnaces, and on-road and off-road mobile sources.
C. What Are the Relevant Clean Air Act Requirements?
The Act, as amended in 1990, required EPA to designate as
nonattainment any area that was violating the one hour ozone standard,
generally based on air quality monitoring data from the 1987 through
1989 period. Clean Air Act section 107(d)(4); 56 FR 56694 (November 6,
1991). The Act further classified these areas, based on the areas'
ozone design values, as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or
extreme. The design value for an area, which characterizes the severity
of the air quality problem, is represented by the highest design value
at any individual ozone monitoring site (i.e., the highest of the
fourth highest one hour daily maximum monitored ozone levels in a given
three-year period with complete monitoring date). Marginal areas were
suffering the least significant ozone nonattainment problems, while the
areas classified as severe and extreme had the most significant ozone
nonattainment problems.
The control requirements and date by which attainment is to be
achieved vary with an area's classification. Marginal areas were
subject to the fewest mandated control requirements and had the
earliest attainment date, November 15, 1993. Severe and extreme areas
are subject to more stringent planning requirements but are provided
more time to attain the standard. Serious areas were required to attain
the 1 hour standard by November 15, 1999, and severe areas are required
to attain by November 15, 2005 or November 15, 2007, depending on the
areas' ozone design values for 1987 through 1989. The HG ozone
nonattainment area was classified as severe-17 (56 FR 56694, November
6, 1991). As such, it has until November 15, 2007 to attain the
standard. The HG ozone nonattainment area is defined (40 CFR 81.314 and
81.326) to contain Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris,
Liberty, Montgomery and Waller Counties in Texas.
The specific requirements of the Act for severe ozone nonattainment
areas are found in part D, section 182(d). Section 172 in part D
provides the general requirements for nonattainment plans. Section
172(c)(6) in part D of the Act and section 110 require SIPs to include
enforceable emission limitations, and such other control measures,
means or techniques as well as schedules and timetables for compliance,
as may be necessary to provide for attainment by the applicable
attainment date. Section 172(c)(1) requires the SIP to provide for
implementation of all RACM as expeditiously as practicable and for
attainment of the NAAQS. Section 182(b)(1)(A) requires the State to
submit for the moderate and above nonattainment areas, a 15% ROP Plan.
Section 182(c)(2)(B) requires the State to submit for the serious and
above nonattainment areas, a plan that will result in emissions
reductions from the baseline emissions equal to at least 3 percent of
the baseline emissions each year averaged over each consecutive 3-year
period, from November 15, 1996, through the attainment date. Section
182(c)(2)(A) requires the State to provide for the serious and above
nonattainment areas, an attainment demonstration based on photochemical
modeling or any other analytical method determined by the
Administrator, in the Administrator's discretion, to be at least as
effective. EPA's ``General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I
of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990'' (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992)
provides the interpretive basis for EPA's rulemakings under the
nonattainment plan provisions of the Act (General Preamble).
D. What Are the Components of an Acceptable Attainment Demonstration?
In general, an attainment demonstration SIP includes a
photochemical modeling analysis and other evidence showing how an area
will achieve the standard by its attainment date and the emission
control measures necessary to achieve attainment.
In our December 16, 1999, proposed approval and proposed
disapproval on one of the State's previously submitted attainment
demonstrations for the HG area, we listed six elements that must be
addressed for one hour ozone attainment plans to be approvable. Five of
these elements apply to the HG area \1\ and are listed below. For a
more detailed discussion see our December 16, 1999, Federal Register
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The sixth element pertains to the NOX SIP call
which does not apply to Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) CAA measures and measures relied on in the attainment
demonstration. This includes adopted and submitted rules for all
previously required CAA mandated measures for the specific area
classification, such as the ROP plans that EPA is proposing to take
action on today. This also includes measures that may not be required
for the area classification but that the State relied upon to
demonstrate attainment. A listing of the control measures that have
been relied upon in the HG attainment demonstration upon which we are
acting can be found in section IV.E. A discussion of the Act's
requirements that apply to the HG area as a severe area can be found in
section VIII. Finally, a list of items that must be finally approved
before we can fully approve the HG attainment demonstration SIP can be
found in section VIII.
(2) Motor vehicle emissions budgets. Motor vehicle emissions
budgets which are consistent with attainment. A description of the
MVEBs can be found at section IV.G.
(3) Tier 2/Sulfur program benefits. As part of factoring in these
benefits in the attainment demonstration, the State must include an
enforceable commitment to revise the attainment MVEB with MOBILE6, our
on-road emissions factor model, within two years of its official
release, and it is necessary for the State to include an enforceable
commitment stating that if a transportation conformity analysis is to
be performed between 12 months and
[[Page 36659]]
24 months after the official release of MOBILE6, transportation
conformity will not be determined until the State submits an MVEB which
is developed using MOBILE6 and which we find adequate. A discussion of
the State's enforceable commitments can be found in section IV.F.
(4) Commitment to a mid-course review. Because of the uncertainty
in long-term projections, EPA believes a viable attainment
demonstration that relies on weight of evidence (as Texas does for the
HG area) should contain provisions for periodic review of monitoring,
emissions, and modeling data to assess the extent to which refinements
to emission control measures are needed. A discussion of the State's
enforceable commitment can be found in section IV.F.
(5) Additional measures to further reduce emissions to support the
attainment test. At the time of the December 1999 proposal, EPA had
proposed that several State plans including Texas's plan for the HG
area, did not include sufficient control measures to achieve the
necessary emission reductions to demonstrate attainment. Therefore, it
was necessary for those States to commit to adopting additional
measures. As discussed in section IV.F., Texas still has not found
sufficient control measures to demonstrate attainment and will continue
to rely on enforceable commitments for a small portion of the needed
reductions.
III. Background of Texas' Attainment Demonstration Submission
A. What Are the Contents of the State's Attainment Demonstration
Submittals?
The December 20, 2000, SIP revision and the State's proposed May
30, 2001, SIP revision are actually the culmination of several years of
efforts to develop a comprehensive plan to attain the one hour ozone
standard in the HG ozone nonattainment area.
In a March 2, 1995 policy memorandum, we provided that States could
submit their attainment demonstration and ROP plans in phases. Phase I
was to insure that progress was maintained while a complete plan was
developed. The Phase I plan was to include a set of specific control
measures to obtain major reductions in ozone precursors. For Texas,
these were to include:
Rules to insure that Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) was implemented on major sources of volatile organic
compounds,
A demonstration that baseline emissions would be reduced
by 9% during the time period 1997-1999 (Post 1996 ROP plan),
An enforceable commitment to submit an attainment
demonstration by mid-1997, and
A commitment to participate in a consultative process to
address Regional transport of ozone and precursors.
In a letter dated January 10, 1996, Texas submitted a plan intended
to demonstrate the State had met the criteria for a Phase I submission
under the March 2, 1995 policy memorandum.
In August 1996, Texas submitted corrections to its Post 1996 ROP
plan and 15 Percent ROP plan primarily to address changes to the
inspection and maintenance program.
A December 29, 1997, EPA guidance memorandum provided for
additional time for submittal of an attainment demonstration from mid-
1997 until April, 1998. The December 29, 1997, memorandum explained
that additional time was warranted because the consultative process to
address transport, which had become known as the ozone transport
assessment group (OTAG), had been delayed by 9 months; therefore, it
was appropriate to delay the submittal of the attainment demonstrations
accordingly. Subsequently, the State submitted a SIP revision on May
19, 1998, containing the following:
(1) Evidence that all measures and regulations required for the
nonattainment area by subpart 2 of title I of the Act to control ozone
and its precursors had been adopted and implemented or were on an
expeditious schedule to be adopted and implemented.
(2) A list of potential control measures to meet Post 1999 ROP
requirements and attain the 1 hour NAAQS.
(3) An enforceable commitment to submit a plan on or before the end
of 2000 containing (a) target calculations for post 1999 ROP milestones
up to the attainment date and (b) adopted regulations needed to achieve
the post 1999 ROP requirements up to the attainment date and to attain
the 1 hour NAAQS.
(4) An enforceable commitment and schedule to implement the control
programs and regulations in a timely manner to meet ROP and achieve
attainment.
(5) Evidence of a public hearing on the State submittal, and
(6) Photochemical modeling showing that between 65% and 85%
NOX emission reductions are necessary for the area to attain
the standard. The State did not model a specific control strategy that
had been shown to demonstrate attainment.
On November 15, 1999, Texas submitted a SIP revision intended to
correct deficiencies in the May 19, 1998, SIP revision. The November
1999 SIP revision included the following:
(1) A modeled control strategy and other evidence, and
(2) An associated MVEB.
In a letter dated April 25, 2000, Texas submitted a SIP revision
that included the following:
(1) An enforceable commitment to revise the MVEB based on MOBILE6
within 2 years of the release of MOBILE6. If a transportation
conformity analysis is to be performed between 12-24 months after the
release of MOBILE6, transportation conformity will not be determined
until Texas submits an MVEB which is developed using MOBILE6 and which
the EPA finds adequate.
(2) An enforceable commitment to recalculate and resubmit an MVEB
that includes the effects (if any) of the measures that are ultimately
adopted should any of these measures pertain to motor vehicles.
(3) An enforceable commitment to perform a mid-course review.
(4) A list of measures that could be used to achieve the EPA-
identified additional emission reductions needed to demonstrate
attainment, including an indication that none of these measures would
restrict highway construction.
On December 20, 2000, the State submitted a SIP revision,
concerning the ozone attainment demonstration, containing:
(1) A photochemical modeling demonstration and additional weight-
of-evidence analyses supporting the photochemical modeling
demonstration,
(2) An accompanying control strategy, comprised of:
a. Regulations and initiatives in the HG area (and their
documentation); and
b. Additional regional rules and orders (and their documentation),
relied upon for demonstrating attainment in the HG area.
(3) A demonstration that the plan will achieve VOC reductions from
the baseline emissions equal to 3% reduction per year averaged over
each 3-year time period for the time period November 15, 1999 to
November 15, 2007. As allowed under the Act, NOX reductions
were substituted for VOC reductions since the modeling shows ozone
reduction in the HG area is more sensitive to NOX controls.
(4) 2007 MVEBs associated with the attainment demonstration and
2002, 2005 and 2007 MVEBs associated with the Post 1999 ROP plan.
(5) Emissions growth estimates and a 2007 forecast emissions
inventory.
[[Page 36660]]
The December 20, 2000, submission acknowledges that the HG area
needs additional controls to attain the ozone standard by November 15,
2007. In the December 2000 SIP revision, Texas identifies the tons per
year of additional NOX reductions needed to attain. The
Texas Natural Resources Commission (TNRCC) has begun its rulemaking
procedures, including a public comment period and hearing, proposing to
adopt an enforceable commitment to adopt the additional measures needed
to meet the shortfall. As part of the commitment, the State identifies
the to-be-considered control measures, their estimated range of
projected emissions reductions, and the dates for submission to the EPA
of the adopted control measures. The reductions represented by the
enforceable commitment represent only a small percentage (approximately
6%) of the total emission reductions that have been shown are needed
for the area to attain. On May 30, 2001, the Commission gave TNRCC
permission to take formal comment on the following items: Commitments
to adopt the remaining additional measures and to submit them as SIP
revisions by specified dates, impacts upon the proposed control
strategy as a result of recent legislation, a RACM analysis,
corrections to the Post 1999 ROP plans, and a correction to the
attainment plan to revise the projection of on-road diesel emissions
and associated MVEB revision. A further discussion of these items that
we are parallel processing can be found in later sections.
B. What Previous Actions Has EPA Taken on the HG Attainment
Demonstration Submittals?
This proposed action incorporates the preamble to EPA's December
16, 1999 action, in which we proposed conditional approval, and
alternatively, disapproval of portions of the May 19, 1998, SIP
revision that pertained to the attainment demonstration and the
attainment MVEBs, as supplemented by the November 15, 1999, SIP
revision (64 FR 70548). EPA does not plan to take final action on that
proposed action since the State submitted, in December 2000, revised
modeling and analyses, Post 1999 ROP plans and MVEBs, and adopted
measures relied upon in the attainment demonstration. As noted above,
additional revisions are currently being processed by the State and EPA
through parallel processing. To the extent that comments received on
the December 1999 proposed action are applicable to this proposed
rulemaking, however, EPA will respond to those comments in its final
rulemaking action.
IV. Evaluation of Attainment Demonstration SIP
A. Photochemical Modeling
What Modeling Approach was used in the State's Attainment
Demonstration?
Model Selection: Texas used the Comprehensive Air Quality Model
with Extensions (CAMx) photochemical grid model (which is based on
well-established treatments of advection, diffusion, deposition, and
chemistry similar to the Urban Airshed photochemical grid model (i.e.,
UAM)) to conduct the SIP attainment demonstration modeling for the HG
ozone nonattainment area. The TNRCC's modeling activities were
performed as outlined in the modeling protocols, according to EPA's
``Guideline for Regulatory Application of the Urban Airshed Model''
(Guideline). For a full description of the State's modeling analysis,
see the TSD for this proposed action.
Episode Selection:
EPA's Guideline sets forth a recommended procedure for selecting
ozone exceedance episodes appropriate for conducting a modeling
demonstration. This procedure, in part, considers wind rose analyses
based upon the four morning hours of 0700 to 1000 standard time.
However, the HG area is situated along the Upper Texas Coastal Region,
and during the summer months when the highest ozone exceedances occur,
this region frequently experiences a unique land-sea breeze
meteorological regime. This land-sea breeze meteorological regime is
characterized by morning land breezes which transition into afternoon
sea breezes. There appears to be a strong correlation between the land-
sea breeze meteorological regime and high ozone events. Thus, to assure
that the land-sea breeze meteorological regime is well-represented in
the episode selection process, TNRCC modified EPA's recommended
procedure by including wind rose analyses based upon the four afternoon
hours of 1300 to 1600 standard time. Both morning and afternoon wind
rose analyses were considered in defining the meteorological patterns
associated with high ozone events. EPA proposes to accept this modified
procedure for the HG nonattainment area's modeling since it more
adequately addresses the unique source-receptor relationship associated
with the land-sea breeze meteorological regime.
TNRCC identified a total of seven episodes with high ozone and
robust data sets as candidates for modeling. Three of the seven
candidate episodes occurred during the intensive data collection period
(from July 18-August 28, 1993) of the Coastal Oxidants Assessment for
South Texas (COAST) study. Two other of the seven episodes (September
1-2 and September 8-11, 1993) occurred after the intensive data
collection period; however, some of the COAST monitors were still
operational so that more robust meteorological, precursor, and ozone
data were still available. To include a broader base for the episode
selection, TNRCC also identified two candidate episodes that occurred
in October 1992 to supplement the COAST episodes. Initially, Texas
selected four episodes to model: August 18-20, 1993, September 8-11,
1993, October 24-25, 1992, and September 1-2, 1993. The September 1-2
episode was chosen primarily to examine transport into the Beaumont/
Port Arthur area.
The base case modeling for both the August 18-20, 1993, and the
October 24-25, 1992, episodes did not perform within EPA's recommended
performance standards. See the TSD for further details on the
performance of the various episodes. In addition, the September 1-2
episode, while performing well in the Beaumont/Port Arthur portion of
the domain, did not perform well in the HG area. These episodes,
therefore could not be used as a basis for control strategy testing.
The September 8-11, 1993, episode, however, performed within EPA's
recommended performance ranges and could be used for control strategy
testing. The September 8-11 episode includes both calm and land sea
breeze meteorological conditions which are typical for high ozone
events in the HG area. We propose to accept the use of the September 8-
11, 1993, episode for the attainment demonstration modeling purposes
for the HG area because this episode features wind patterns
representative of typical high ozone occurrences in the HG area, high
monitored ambient ozone level concentrations, and is a multi-day
episode.
Modeling Domain: Texas has chosen a large modeling domain (i.e.,
SuperCOAST) to ensure capture of the influence of inter-urban
transport, the important horizontal and vertical circulation patterns
as well as the movement of ozone and ozone precursors. The State
combined both the HG and Beaumont/Port Arthur ozone nonattainment areas
into one nested modeling domain to avoid overlapping wind fields since
the two areas are generally influenced by the same meso-scale
meteorology. This domain, which is larger than the minimum recommended,
encompasses all the
[[Page 36661]]
major emission sources and all surface meteorological/air quality
monitors in both areas and, therefore EPA proposes to accept the domain
since it is more representative of the HG area's conditions.
What Input Data Systems and Analyses Were Used as Part of the Modeling?
The following input data systems and analyses were used by the
State:
Emissions: TNRCC developed two major types of modeling emission
inventories, one type representing the actual emissions that occurred
during the chosen specific episode period, and another type
representing the projected emissions expected to occur at the
attainment date for the HG area (i.e., 2007). The episode-specific
modeling emissions, termed the ``base case,'' were used to evaluate the
model's reliability in replicating the ozone exceedances that occurred
during the chosen episode. The 2007 projected modeling emissions,
termed the ``future base case,'' were used to estimate the overall
level of reductions in VOC and NOX needed to achieve
attainment. For a more complete description of how these base case and
future base case inventories were developed, see the TSD.
Meteorology: TNRCC developed the meteorological inputs to CAMx
using the System Application International Mesoscale Model (SAIMM),
which is a prognostic mesoscale meteorological model with four
dimensional data assimilation (4DDA). EPA is proposing to accept
TNRCC's use of SAIMM because it replicates the land-sea breeze and
inter-urban area transport features which appear to be typical of
conditions associated with ozone exceedances along the Texas Gulf coast
more closely than diagnostic models.
Chemistry: Atmospheric chemistry within the modeling grid system
was simulated using the Carbon Bond-Version IV model developed by the
EPA.
Boundary and Initial Conditions: EPA's Guidelines recommend the use
of the ROM photochemical model on a regional basis for developing
boundary conditions. TNRCC in collaboration with ENVIRON conducted a
regional modeling application to determine boundary and initial
conditions for the COAST modeling domain. This regional modeling domain
covered a rather large area of the southeastern United States,
extending from San Angelo, Texas on the west to the Georgia-Alabama
border on the east, and from south of Brownsville, Texas on the south
to the Oklahoma-Kansas border on the north. EPA considers this modeling
framework used by TNRCC for the development of boundary and initial
conditions to be superior to ROM, since it encompasses many
improvements in model formulation over ROM. Using the ozone transport
(OTAG) model performance criteria as a gauge for the technical
acceptability of this Texas regional modeling, EPA proposes to accept
the TNRCC/ENVIRON regional modeling application as producing more
accurate results upon which to derive initial and boundary conditions
for the COAST modeling episode.
Modeling Performance
How did the State Validate the Modeling Performance?
Texas performed diagnostic and sensitivity analyses, and graphical
and statistical performance measures to evaluate the performance of the
modeling. These performance measures are to be used in conjunction with
one another.
The model performance evaluation based upon diagnostic and
sensitivity analyses consisted of testing the response of modeled ozone
to changes in the various model inputs (i.e., meteorology, emission
inventory, and initial and boundary conditions). The model performance
evaluation based upon graphical measures consisted of comparing time
series of monitored and modeled ozone and ozone precursor
concentrations, and comparing modeled ozone concentration contours with
monitored ozone data. The model performance evaluation based upon
statistical measures consisted of comparing the modeled versus
monitored ozone ``Unpaired Peak Accuracy'', ``Normalized Bias'', and
``Gross Error'' with the suggested limits in the EPA Guideline.
a. Diagnostic and Sensitivity Analyses
Texas conducted the following diagnostic/sensitivity analyses for
the September 8-11, 1993 episode: Zero-out Anthropogenic emissions;
Zero-out Initial and Boundary Conditions; Lowered Boundary Conditions
(i.e. derived from Gulf of Mexico Air Quality Study (GMAQS)); and Half
Wind Speed. These diagnostic tests did not reveal any flaws in the CAMx
model formulation. Both physical and chemical responses demonstrated by
the model are consistent with our underlying understanding of how the
atmosphere behaves.
b. Graphical Measures
The graphical measures consisted of ozone contour plots and times
series analyses. The ozone contour plots generally show the model to be
simulating a notable amount of ozone in both magnitude and geographical
extent. With the exception of September 9, the simulated ozone contour
plots depict the area of ozone greater than 124ppb to be somewhat at
odds geographically with the monitors recording the higher ozone
concentrations. On all four days, the simulated ozone contour plots
show the magnitude of high ozone to be somewhat less than the monitored
ozone concentration levels. Thus, the model under-predicts the ozone
concentration levels. The fact that the model does not precisely
predict the position of the cloud of ozone geographically, does not, by
itself, mean the model is not acceptable for control strategy
development. The graphical performance is only one factor and was
considered in conjunction with other measures of model performance.
c. Statistical Measures
Table 1 shows the statistical performance of the model for this
episode. As indicated, the statistical parameters are within the EPA
recommended limits for all days of the episode.
Table 1.--CAMx Base Case Model Performance Statistics for September 8-11, 1993
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normalized Normalized Unpaired peak Domain-wide peak ozone (ppb)
Episode date bias (+- 5- gross error accuracy (+- -------------------------------
15%) (+- 30-35%) 15-20%) Simulated Observed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9/8/93......................... 1.8 22.6 -12.7 187 214
9/9/93......................... 2.6 29.1 -10.4 175 195
9/10/93........................ -13 26.1 6.2 172 162
9/11/93........................ -2.9 20.4 -3.9 182 189
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 36662]]
Summary of Model Performance
Results of the statistical measures are within the EPA recommended
ranges and the spatial and temporal patterns are generally
representative of the observed patterns in the ambient data. It is
EPA's technical position that taken together, the diagnostics,
sensitivity, statistical and graphical performances of the model
indicate the base case model performance is acceptable for use in this
attainment demonstration.
B. Modeled Control Strategies
What Emission Control Strategies Were Included in the Modeling
Demonstration?
The HG attainment demonstration SIP is directed at reductions of
NOX since the modeling shows reductions of NOX
will be most effective in bringing the area into attainment of the
standard. The modeling includes Federal measures, State and local
initiatives. The attainment demonstration modeling also relies on
Regional measures applied in east and central Texas.
Federal Measures: The State included the following Federal Measures
in the December 2000 revision's Future Year Base Case.
1. On-road mobile sources:
--Tier 2 vehicle emission standards and federal low sulfur
gasoline.
--National Low Emitting Vehicle standards.
--Heavy-duty diesel standards.
We believe that the projected growth rates and emissions reductions
from the sources subject to the above federal measures were calculated
correctly by the State.
2. Off-road mobile sources:
--Lawn and garden equipment standards.
--Tier II/III heavy-duty diesel standards.
--Locomotive standards.
--Compression ignition standards for vehicles and equipment.
--Spark ignition standards for vehicles and equipment.
--Recreational marine standards.
We believe that the State correctly projected the growth rates and
emissions reductions for sources subject to these federal measures.
State Measures for the HG Area: The State included the following
State Measures as local (HG) area controls in the Future Year control
case in the December 2000 revision.
--Phase II reformulated gasoline (RFG) in the HG area.
--Electric generating and industrial point sources--HG area. The State
is proposing a revision to this measure which we are parallel
processing. The effects of this proposed revision upon the Future Year
control case are discussed further in section IV.J. and the TSD.
--An expanded vehicle I/M program--HG area.
--Low emission diesel fuel--East Texas (including the HG area) for off-
road and statewide for on-road.
--Heavy-duty diesel equipment operating restrictions--five counties.
(Excludes Liberty, Chambers and Waller).
As required by the recently enacted Senate Bill 5, TNRCC will not
be relying upon this measure in the final adopted control strategy,
i.e., the Future Year control case. In its place, the State will
substitute some of the projected emission reductions from the newly-
established legislative incentive program, the Texas Emissions
Reduction Program (TERP), that provides 130 million dollars/year for
incentive programs to reduce emissions. We are not proposing action
upon the Heavy-duty Diesel Operating Restrictions rule because a
portion of the reductions from the TERP measure will be replacing it in
the final control strategy. We believe that the incentive program can
achieve more reductions than the projected reductions lost by the
replacement of this control measure. The incentive program and its
technical impacts upon the proposed control strategy are further
discussed in section IV.I.
--Commercial lawn equipment operating restrictions--five counties.
(Excludes Liberty, Chambers and Waller).
--Batch processes, bakeries, and offset lithographic printers--HG area.
--VMEP measures--HG area.
State's Regional measures: The State included the following
Regional measures in the Future Year Base Case.
--Agreed orders with Alcoa, Inc. (formerly Aluminum Company of America)
for its Milam Facility, and the Eastman Chemical Company, Texas
operations, for its facility near Longview, Texas.
--Electric generating facilities in central and eastern Texas.
--Low Reid Vapor Pressure Gasoline in central and eastern Texas.
--Stage I gasoline vapor recovery at gas stations in central and
eastern Texas.
We have reviewed the State's Regional and Local Measures and
believe the State's projection of expected emissions reductions for
these measures are correct. Further, we believe the State has correctly
factored growth in emissions due to population and economic growth.
As discussed briefly above, since the model runs were performed,
two measures, the Heavy-duty Diesel Equipment Operating restrictions
and the rules for utilities are being changed. See sections IV.I. and
IV.J. respectively for discussion of why EPA believes this will not
adversely affect the modeling results.
With the exception of the VMEP measures and the Heavy-duty Diesel
Equipment Operating restrictions, we have already published or shortly
will be publishing actions on all of the above listed State control
measures in various separate Federal Register documents. We are
proposing action today on the acceptability of the VMEP program.
C. Modeling Results and Weight of Evidence
What Were the Modeling Results?
The future control case modeling was conducted using the projected
2007 emissions inventory coupled with emissions controls listed above.
Table 2 summarizes modeled peak ozone for the future control case
compared to the 1993 base case.
Table 2.--Future Control Case Peak Modeled Ozone in the HG 8-County Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peak modeled ozone
(ppb)
---------------------
Episode day Final
1993 control
modeled case
------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 8....................................... 187 141.0
September 9....................................... 175 128.6
September 10...................................... 172 134.7
September 11...................................... 182 130.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are two changes to the emission control programs that are not
included in the modeling performed to achieve the results above. We do
not believe these changes will affect the modeled results in a way to
increase the modeled ozone. The substitution of a portion of the
emission reductions from the new statutorily mandated TERP measure for
the modeled heavy-duty diesel equipment operating restrictions along
with the change in the NOX point source measures, are not
expected to increase the modeled ozone restrictions. A more detailed
discussion of why these changes are not expected to increase modeled
ozone can be found in the TSD and in sections IV.I and IV.J.
Does the Weight of Evidence Support the Attainment Demonstration?
While the 2007 post-control modeling does not demonstrate
attainment of the
[[Page 36663]]
standard, it does project dramatic improvements in air quality. In
Table 2, the reductions in peak ozone are documented. Texas has also
documented dramatic improvements in hours of ozone exceedances and the
area of ozone exceedances.
Texas did not conclude that the modeled control strategy
demonstrated the area would attain the standard. Instead, using a
weight of evidence analysis consistent with the EPA guidance entitled,
``Guidance for Improving Weight of Evidence Through Identification of
Additional Emission Reductions, Not Modeled'' November, 1999), they
determined the amount of additional emission reductions that would be
necessary for the area to attain the standard. The State calculated
that an additional 96 tons/day of NOX emission reductions
will be necessary for the HG area to attain the standard. The State
used a quadratic extrapolation of model results to make this
estimation. This method is an improvement over the linear extrapolation
example provided in the 1999 guidance. The replacement of the Heavy-
duty Diesel Equipment Operating Restriction measure by a portion of the
TERP reductions and the change to the NOX point source rule
will not change the results of the calculation. The EPA proposes to
accept the calculated 96 tons/day of additional NOX emission
reductions as the amount of additional emission reductions, beyond
those modeled, necessary for the HG area to attain. For a full
description of this calculation technique, see the TSD.
D. Additional Control Measures That Have Not Been Modeled
What Measures Have Been Adopted That Were not Included in the State's
Modeling?
The following measures were adopted by the State in order to
address the 96 tons/day additional NOX emission reductions
that are shown by the modeling and the weight of evidence analysis to
be needed to demonstrate attainment.
--Accelerated purchase of Tier 2/3 non-road diesel equipment. As
required by the recent Senate Bill 5, this control measure will not be
part of the final adopted control strategy for the HG area. In
addition, on June 13, 2001, the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas ruled that this measure is preempted by the Clean Air
Act (Engine Manufacturers Association v. Robert J. Huston, NO. A 00 CA
316 SS). In its place, a portion of the projected emission reductions
from the newly established legislative incentive program, the TERP,
will be substituted. EPA believes the projected emission reductions
from the new incentive program can achieve more than the reductions
that were projected to be achieved by this replaced control measure and
the Heavy-duty Diesel Equipment Operating Restrictions measure. The
incentive program is further discussed in section IV.I.
--Agreed Orders for airport ground support equipment electrification
with Continental Airlines, Southwest Airlines, and the City of Houston.
--Gasoline heavy equipment engines--Statewide.
--Speed Limit Reduction--HG area.
--Energy Efficiency--reductions in the HG area based on DOE standards.
--Vehicle Idling Restrictions--HG area.
--Gas-fired water heaters, small boilers, and process heaters--
statewide.
--TCMs
We have proposed to approve most of the above measures in separate
Federal Register actions. We are proposing to approve the Speed Limit
Reduction and TCMs in this proposal action, and have already approved
the statewide rules for water heaters, small boilers, and process
heaters. We are not proposing action upon the accelerated purchase of
Tier \2/3\ non-road diesel equipment rule since this measure will not
be relied upon in the State's final attainment demonstration. A portion
of the projected reductions from the new TERP measure will be relied
upon instead. See the TSD and section VIII for a complete summary of
EPA actions. We will supplement the TSD as each proposed and final
action are published.
E. Summary of Control Measures
What are the Projected NOX Reductions From the Modeled and
Non-modeled Control Measures?
Table 3 provides the projected NOX reductions for the
2007 attainment year resulting from the State rules and the local
initiatives that were included in the final model run and the measures
that were not modeled.
Table 3.--NOX Reduction Projections (Tons per Day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 projected emissions 1083.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modeled measures:
Major point sources.......................................... *586.0
Inspection/Maintenance....................................... 36.2
Low emission diesel fuel..................................... 5.7
HD diesel oper. restrictn (est).............................. 6.7
Small, Spark operating restriction (est)..................... 4.6
VMEP measures................................................ 23.0
--------
Total modeled measures................................... 663.2
========
Measures not modeled:
Energy Eff................................................... 3.6
Acc purchase Tier II/III..................................... 12.2
Speed Limit Reductions....................................... 12.3
Airport GSE.................................................. 5.1
Heavy equipment gas engines.................................. 2.8
Vehicle Idling Restrictions.................................. 0.5
Gas-fired water heaters, etc................................. 0.5
Stationary Diesel Engine Cont................................ 1.0
TCMs......................................................... 1.1
--------
Total NOX reductions not modeled......................... 39.0
========
Total Equivalent NOX from VOC reduct..................... 1.1
========
Total NOX Reductions..................................... 710.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ This number is adjusted in the May 30, 2001 State proposal to
account for the proposed changes to the rules for control of electric
utility generators.
Has the State Adopted Measures That Achieve Sufficient Emission
Reductions To Achieve Attainment?
No, as discussed previously, using a weight of evidence analysis,
the State has calculated that an additional 96 tons/day of
NOX emission reductions are needed beyond those that were
modeled to demonstrate attainment. The State had adopted additional
measures that were projected to achieve 40.1 tons/day of NOX
emission reductions. The legislature, however, repealed the TNRCC's
authority to implement the Heavy-duty Diesel Operating Restrictions and
Accelerated Purchase of Tier 2/3 non-road diesel equipment measures.
This leaves a need to adopt additional measures that will achieve an
additional 68.1 tons/day of NOX emission reductions. Texas
has submitted to EPA, for parallel processing, the impact of the TERP
measure upon the shortfall. A portion of the TERP measure's projected
emission reductions will be substituted for the Tier 2/3 non-road
diesel equipment measure. The State has calculated that reliance upon
this portion of the TERP measure will achieve 12.2 tons/day. EPA is
proposing to agree with this projected emission reduction. This leaves
an additional 55.9 tons/day of NOX emission reductions
needed to be addressed by the State. The State has submitted, through
parallel processing, proposed enforceable commitments to address this
shortfall of 55.9 tons/day. This shortfall is approximately 6% of
[[Page 36664]]
the overall emission reductions from the 1993 baseline shown to be
necessary for attainment in the HG area.
F. Enforceable Commitments
What Is an Enforceable Commitment?
An enforceable commitment is a written commitment by the State to
adopt plan revisions and submit them to EPA as SIP revisions by
specific timeframes. In the case of the HG area, there are two types of
enforceable commitments. First, the State is committing to continue to
analyze the latest technical information and to incorporate it into
planned revisions. There are specific provisions for future on-road
modeling to incorporate the latest mobile emissions estimation models
and to insure that the mobile emissions budgets used for conformity
analyses are based on the most current information. Second, the State
is committing to achieve additional emission reductions needed for
attainment.
To be enforceable, commitments must be part of the SIP and,
therefore, the State must have given notice and taken comment on the
commitment and held a public hearing. The commitments must be specific
as to the state agency's future plans for adoption of specified control
measures. The dates for implementation of, or compliance with, the
future to-be-adopted specified control measures must be included in the
commitments and be as expeditious as practicable. A commitment is
enforceable because EPA can find that the State failed to implement the
SIP if the State does not follow through with the commitment. Further,
the public can seek enforcement of the obligations under section 304(a)
of the CAA.
Why Does EPA Believe That Enforceable Commitments To Achieve Additional
Reductions Are Appropriate?
Texas has not been able to identify and therefore adopt additional
programs that will achieve sufficient emission reductions to achieve
attainment. They have reviewed measures that have been included in
other State Implementation Plans and have been unable to identify
additional RACM, except for one source category--stationary diesel
engines. TNRCC is proposing to adopt a rule to control this category,
and EPA is acting on the proposed rule through parallel processing. EPA
is proposing to agree that the State has adopted all RACM for the HG
area. For a more complete discussion of the State's RACM analysis and
EPA's evaluation, see section IV.H and the TSD. Although the State has
adopted or will have adopted all RACM, these adopted RACM measures are
not enough to show attainment, leaving 6% of the reductions identified
as necessary to show attainment not being controlled. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to allow the State to rely upon enforceable commitments for
this small portion of the attainment demonstration.
There are innovative programs and technologies that have the
potential to achieve the needed emission reductions. These programs are
listed in Chapter 7 of the HG SIP, which Texas has submitted to us for
parallel processing. Through parallel processing, we are proposing to
approve Chapter 7 with its enforceable commitments as part of the HG
attainment demonstration SIP. (We are also proposing to approve the
other Chapters and Appendices of the HG SIP, and through parallel
processing, the proposed revisions to these other Chapters and
Appendices.) The programs listed by the State require further
development of new technology or new innovative programs. EPA is
agreeing that, with additional time, Texas should be able to adopt
enough of the additional identified innovative programs and new
technologies so that these programs and technologies will achieve the
needed 55.9 tons/day (or 6%) NOX emission reductions. Texas
is committing to submit them as SIP revisions with all of the measures
adopted no later than the mid-course review submission in May 2004.
What Are the State's Enforceable Commitments?
In the proposed SIP parallel reviewed for this proposal action, the
Commission commits to adopt measures necessary to achieve at least 56
tons/day of NOX emission reductions in the HG area.
Potential measures are identified that could achieve the reductions
without requiring additional limits on highway construction. Further,
they indicate that none of the to be adopted measures require
additional limits on highway construction.
Should the mid-course review conducted in 2003 show that more or
fewer NOX emissions reductions are needed for attainment by
November 15, 2007, they commit to submit the revised calculation to the
EPA for approval. They state that the SIP revision submitted in May
2004 (committed-to in the mid-course review enforceable commitment
submitted April 2000) will account for those additional reductions
above and beyond the 56 tons/day commitment if the mid-course review
shows they are necessary for attainment. They further commit to submit
adopted measures as a SIP revision, with any resulting revision to the
MVEB, to the EPA no later than December 31, 2002, that achieve at least
25% of the 56 tons/day NOX emission reductions. They also
commit to submit adopted measures to achieve at least the 56 tons/day
of NOX emission reductions, as SIP revisions as
expeditiously as practicable but no later than May 2004. They commit
that the implementation dates and compliance deadlines for the adopted
measures will be as expeditious as practicable. They further note that
they commit to adopting any additional measures necessary to achieve
the reductions determined by any EPA-approved shortfall calculation and
submitting the adopted rules with an attainment demonstration SIP no
later than May 1, 2004.
In addition, as discussed earlier, the State has already submitted
the following commitments to insure the plan continues to be based on
the latest information.
An enforceable commitment to perform a mid-course review
(including evaluation of all modeling, inventory data, and other tools
and assumptions used to develop this attainment demonstration) and to
submit a mid-course review SIP revision, with recommended mid-course
corrective actions, to the EPA by May 1, 2004;
An enforceable commitment to submit new mobile source
modeling for the HG area, using MOBILE6, our on-road mobile emissions
factor computer model, within 24 months of the model's official
release; and that if a transportation conformity analysis is to be
performed between 12 months and 24 months after the MOBILE6 official
release, transportation conformity will not be determined until Texas
submits an MVEB which is developed using MOBILE6 and which we find
adequate.
Texas has also submitted for parallel processing, a
commitment to concurrently revise the MVEB and submit the revised MVEB
to EPA as a revision to the attainment SIP if additional control
measures reduce on-road motor vehicle emissions.
In the State's Chapter 7, the State outlines in detail its plans to
conduct the mid-course review, including new modeling analyses and
scientific studies. Texas plans for the modeling analyses to include
new episodes from the Texas 2000 intensive ozone study. Based on these
studies and modeling analyses, the State may refine in the future the
control strategy being proposed for approval by EPA today. The State
acknowledges in Chapter 7 that any changes to the plan or methodology
will have to be submitted to EPA for review and approval. Texas intends
to approach the mid-course
[[Page 36665]]
review in two planned phases : One phase by December 2002 and the
second phase is the full mid-course review that will be submitted to
EPA as a SIP revision in May 2004.
What Measures Are Being Considered To Address the Shortfall?
Texas is considering a number of measures to address the 56 ton/day
NOX shortfall. The programs listed by the State in Chapter 7
require further development of new technology or new innovative
programs and are described below. The State has cited ranges of
potential reductions which are included here, and which give us
reasonable assurance that the State can meet its commitment to submit
adopted measures filling the shortfall. We are not, however, approving
the particular amount of reductions presented by Texas for any
individual measure. We will review the State's projected reductions
from individual measures when they are fully adopted by the State and
submitted as a SIP revision. Through the rulemaking procedures, we will
propose action upon the acceptability of the projected reductions.
Gasoline Additives: As of January 1, 1995, all gasoline marketed in the
United States must contain an EPA-approved additive package with a
detergent. Detergent in gasoline is critical to keep the fuel nozzles
of injectors clear of varnish, gums and other deposits that can clog
them. A clogged injector will result in incomplete combustion,
resulting in increased tailpipe emissions. Research and development of
gasoline additives is ongoing. The State represents, based on an
additive manufacturer's claims for their additive package, an emission
reduction potential for gasoline detergent additives in addition to
what is federally required for detergent additives. The State believes
that a gasoline additive program has potential to reduce emissions by
11-20 tons/day.
Diesel Emulsion: This is an emerging fuel technology that relies on
a water in fuel mixture to lower NOX and particulate matter
(PM) emissions. The water tends to lower flame temperatures thus
reducing the resulting NOX emissions. The key to a
successful diesel emulsion is an effective additive to act as an
emulsifying agent to suspend the water in the diesel. At least two
companies are marketing a diesel emulsion technology with
NOX emission reduction claims of 20-30%. Currently both the
Port of Houston and the City of Houston are testing the fuel to
determine its operational feasibility. Texas has projected that a
widespread use of emulsified diesel could result in 4-10 tons/day of
emission reductions.
Energy Efficiency: Texas has projected a potential 4-11 tons/day of
emission reductions from measures to improve energy efficiency. Senate
Bill 5 establishes State-wide energy efficient building codes and also
sets energy efficiency targets for State and local governments. These
programs will clearly reduce growth in demand and therefore will result
in NOX emission reductions. It is not clear, however, the
amount and location of the emission reductions that will occur. We will
work with TNRCC to quantify the expected reductions in demand growth
and the anticipated amount of emission reductions.
Economic Incentives, Fleet Controls, Incentives for cleaner
vehicles and/or vehicle fleets and funding for transit programs: 17-25
tons/day. To calculate the potential range of emission reductions,
Texas has primarily looked to the diesel incentive program recently
established by the Texas legislature (TERP). This program can
reasonably be expected to provide 40 million dollars/year to the HG
area for reducing emissions from existing diesel equipment. The program
is based on similar California programs and has the potential to
achieve substantial reductions. Based on the California experience, we
believe that emission reductions should be obtainable at an average
cost on the order of $5000/ton. A preliminary estimate is that 32-40
tons/day of emission reductions could potentially be achieved in the HG
area. However, a portion of the reductions attributable to this program
for the HG area will be used in the final control strategy to replace
the projected reductions from the Heavy-duty Diesel Equipment Operating
restrictions and the accelerated purchase of Tier 2/Tier 3 non-road
diesel equipment measures. These two replaced programs were projected
to achieve the equivalent of 18.9 tons/day of emission reductions,
therefore leaving the potential of 13-21 tons/day of emission
reductions from the diesel subsidy program to be used to help address
the remaining shortfall.
The legislature has also appropriated money to provide incentive
for consumers to buy cars that meet the most stringent Tier II
standards. The technology exists for manufacturers to produce vehicles
which meet the cleaner ``incentive emissions standards,'' but EPA
cannot predict at this time the availability of the cleaner vehicles
produced by auto manufacturers during the 2002 to 2003 timeframe,
regardless of incentives offered for individual purchase. The State
believes that all of the programs, other than TERP, have potential to
reduce emissions by 4 tons/day.
Diesel NOX reduction systems: There are several diesel
NOX emission reductions technologies that are being tested
by the Port of Houston and the City of Houston. These technologies are
devices that can be added to on-road and off-road equipment to reduce
NOX emissions. Texas has estimated the potential of these
devices to reduce emissions by 6-15 tons/day.
Additional Gasoline Sulfur Controls: Texas has estimated that
reducing gasoline sulfur levels to 15ppm would result in another 1-2
tons/day of emission reduction beyond that achieved by Tier II in the
HG area.
Fuel Cells: The State has projected that 1-5 tons/day of emission
reductions can be achieved with increased use of fuel cells. Fuel cells
are an emerging technology that have the potential to provide reliable
electrical power with much less pollution and virtually no
NOX emissions. Currently, two projects are underway in the
HG area to test the feasibility of fuel cells. First, electrical ground
support equipment at Bush Intercontinental Airport is going to be
charged using fuel cells. Second, a portion of ships' power while
docked will be provided by a fuel cell. These projects will demonstrate
the potential of fuel cells to provide reliable power at the point of
use.
Innovative Idea measures: The following programs together are
presented by Texas as having potential to achieve emission reductions
of 12-33 tons/day: marine loading operations, episodic emission
controls, reductions in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), pricing policies
to reduce VMT, reductions at ports and airports, use of new technology
and the internet to further reduce emissions.
It is worth noting that marine loading operations and episodic
emissions are primarily emitters of VOC emissions. This attainment
demonstration SIP for the HG area has been almost exclusively designed
to reduce NOX emissions, although 25% reduction of VOC
emissions are shown to be needed for attainment. The attainment
demonstration SIP has projected VOC reductions of at least 25%.
Episodic high concentrations of VOC emissions, particularly in the
heavily industrialized ship channel area, may contribute to the
observed ``spike'' ozone peaks in the HG area. TNRCC is committed to
performing further scientific analyses.
[[Page 36666]]
Does EPA Propose To Accept These Enforceable Commitments To Cover the
Shortfall in the SIP?
The SIP submitted for parallel processing contains an enforceable
commitment for the State to adopt, by May 2004, measures to achieve at
least 56 tons/day of NOX emission reductions. It identifies
potential measures that could achieve the reductions without requiring
additional limits on highway construction. The proposed SIP
acknowledges that none of the measures could require additional limits
on highway construction. They also commit to implement the adopted
rules as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the beginning
of the ozone season in the HG area--January 2007. Further, the State
commits to adopt, and submit to the EPA as a SIP revision, by December
2002, measures to achieve at least 25% of the 56 tons/day
NOX reductions. They commit to adopt, and submit to the EPA
as a SIP revision, no later than May 2004, the remaining rules needed
to obtain the rest of the shortfall. We believe these submission and
implementation schedules are as expeditious as practicable. Further, we
believe the State has identified sufficient innovative programs and new
technologies such that it is reasonable to believe that, in the
aggregate, the projected estimated emission reductions from these new
programs and technologies can be achieved and will fill the shortfall.
In addition, the State has made an enforceable commitment to
concurrently revise the MVEB and submit the revised MVEB to EPA as a
revision to the attainment SIP if additional control measures reduce
on-road motor vehicle emissions. Therefore, through parallel
processing, we propose approval of the State's commitments.
G. Attainment Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget
What Is a Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget (MVEB) and Why Is It
Important?
The MVEB is the level of total allowable on-road emissions
established by the measures in a control strategy implementation plan
or maintenance plan. In this case, the MVEB establishes the maximum
level of on-road emissions that can be produced in 2007, when
considered with emissions from all other sources, which demonstrates
attainment of the NAAQS. It is important because the MVEB is used to
determine the conformity of transportation plans and programs to the
SIP, as described by section 176(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
What Are the MVEBs Established by the Attainment Plan and Proposed for
Approval by This Action?
The MVEBs established by this plan and that the EPA is proposing to
approve through parallel processing are contained in Table 4.
Table 4.--2007 Attainment Year Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
[Tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC.......................................................... 79.51
NOX.......................................................... 156.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We find the MVEBs consistent with all pertinent SIP requirements,
and the MVEBs are proposed for approval as limited by the discussion
below. In addition, we are taking comment in this action on the
adequacy of the MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes pursuant
to the criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) as part of our proposed action
on the SIP rather than using the web posting process because we are
moving forward on this SIP in a quick manner as described in Guidance
on Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in One-Hour Ozone Attainment
Demonstrations dated November 3, 1999.
What Is the State's Commitment To Revise the Motor Vehicle Emissions
Budgets With MOBILE6?
All States whose attainment demonstration includes the effects of
the Tier 2/sulfur program have committed to revise and resubmit their
motor vehicle emissions budgets after we release MOBILE6. The State
committed in its April 2000 submission to performing new mobile source
modeling for the HG area, using MOBILE6, within 24 months of the
model's official release. If transportation conformity analysis is to
be performed between 12 months and 24 months after the official release
of MOBILE6, transportation conformity will not be determined until the
State submits an MVEB which is developed using MOBILE6 and which we
find adequate. Texas also commits in its Chapter 7, as proposed to be
revised, that it will concurrently revise the MVEB if the adoption of
any shortfall measures affects the MVEB and submit the revision to EPA
as a revision to the attainment SIP.
What Is the Applicable Budget To Use for Conformity Analysis?
We propose to approve the MVEBs in Table 4, pursuant to the State's
commitments relating to MOBILE6 and the shortfall measures, only until
revised motor vehicle emissions budgets are submitted and we have found
them adequate for transportation conformity purposes. In other words,
the budgets that are part of this attainment demonstration will apply
for transportation conformity purposes only until there are new,
adequate budgets consistent with the State's commitments to revise the
budgets. The revised budgets will apply for transportation conformity
purposes as soon as we find them adequate since our approval of the
current budgets will terminate at that time.
We are proposing to limit the duration of our approval in this
manner because we are only proposing to approve the attainment
demonstration and its budgets because the State has committed to revise
them after we release MOBILE6, after the State adopts measures that
affect motor vehicle emissions pursuant to their enforceable
commitments, and after the State conducts its mid-course review.
Therefore, once we have confirmed that the revised budgets are
adequate, they will be more appropriate than the budgets we are
proposing to approve for conformity purposes now.
If future changes to the budgets raise issues about the sufficiency
of the attainment demonstration, we will work with the State. If the
revised budgets show that motor vehicle emissions are lower than the
budgets we approve, a reassessment of the attainment demonstration's
analysis will be necessary.
This action does not propose any change to the existing
transportation conformity rule or to the way it is normally implemented
with respect to other submitted and approved SIPs, which do not contain
commitments to revise the budget.
We can find the attainment MVEBs adequate for transportation
conformity purposes and approvable, as limited above, because the
budgets will not interfere with the area's ability to adopt additional
measures to attain. Because the additional measures do not involve
additional limits on highway construction, allowing new transportation
investments to proceed consistent with the budgets will not prevent the
area from achieving the additional reductions necessary to reach
attainment.
H. Reasonably Available Control Measures
What Action Are We Proposing?
Through parallel processing, we are proposing to approve Texas'
[[Page 36667]]
demonstration that all Reasonably Available Control Measures have been
or will be adopted in the HG area. The proposed analysis was submitted
in a letter dated June 15, 2001, for us to parallel process. We believe
Texas has shown that all reasonable measures that are RACM for the HG
area have been or will be adopted. A full description of our evaluation
of TNRCC's proposed analysis is contained in the TSD to this document.
It is worth noting that through this analysis, Texas identified one
measure, control of emissions from diesel fired generators, as being an
additional RACM for the HG area. TNRCC has proposed a rule to control
this source category and requested parallel processing. EPA will
parallel process action on this rule in a separate rulemaking. If EPA
cannot fully approve this diesel generator rule, we cannot fully
approve the HG attainment demonstration SIP because it would not show
that all RACM was being implemented in the area.
What Is the Reasonably Available Control Measure Requirement?
Section 172(c)(1) of the Act requires SIPs to provide for the
implementation of all reasonably available control measures (RACM) as
expeditiously as practicable and for attainment of the standard. We
have previously provided guidance interpreting the RACM requirements of
172(c)(1) in the General Preamble. See 57 FR 13498, 13560 (April 16,
1992). In the General Preamble, we indicated our interpretation of
section 172(c)(1), under the 1990 amendments, as imposing a duty on
States to consider all available control measures and to adopt and
implement such measures as are reasonably available for implementation
in the particular nonattainment area. We also retained our pre-1990
interpretation of the RACM provisions that where measures that might in
fact be available for implementation in the nonattainment area could
not be implemented on a schedule that would advance the date for
attainment in the area, we would not consider it reasonable to require
implementation of such measures. We indicated that States could reject
certain RACM measures as not reasonably available for various reasons
related to local conditions. A State could include area-specific
reasons for rejecting a measure as RACM, such as the rejected measure
would not advance the attainment date, or technological and economic
feasibility in the area.
We also issued a recent memorandum reaffirming our position on this
topic, ``Guidance on the Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM)
Requirement and Attainment Demonstration Submissions for Ozone
Nonattainment Areas,'' John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, dated November 30, 1999. A copy can be obtained
from www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html. In this memorandum, we state
that in order to determine whether a state has adopted all RACM
necessary for attainment and as expeditiously as practicable, the state
will need to provide a justification as to why measures within the
arena of potential reasonable measures have not been adopted. The
justification would need to support that a measure was not reasonably
available for that area and could be based on technological or economic
grounds.
How Did Texas Perform Its RACM Analysis?
Texas has based its analysis primarily on EPA's document ``Control
Measures for Serious and Severe Ozone Nonattainment Areas'' issued
November 1999. This document has a summary of the control measures that
have been adopted in other areas of the country. Using this document as
a guide, Texas was able to determine that measures as stringent or more
stringent than other areas of the country are being implemented in the
HG area for NOX control. Texas used a modeling analysis in
conjunction with the list of control measures in the EPA document to
determine that additional VOC controls are not cost-effective in
reducing ozone in the specific HG area because of the large number of
small sources, difficulties in enforcement, and the large amount of VOC
reductions needed to achieve a change in ozone concentrations. They
also would not advance the attainment deadline.
I. Impacts of Texas Legislative Action
Numerous legislative changes occurred during Texas' 77th
legislative session that impact the SIP that will be submitted by the
State. As discussed earlier, Texas Senate Bill 5 creates an incentive
program for purchase of low emission vehicles and establishes an energy
efficiency program. The bill requires TNRCC to withdraw the control
measures for the Heavy-duty Diesel Operating restrictions and the
accelerated purchase of Tier \2/3\ non-road diesel equipment,\2\ and
replace these with the incentive program (TERP). The TSD documents in
detail the potential emission reductions of the incentive program.
Based on the experience with similar programs in California, EPA is
proposing that this new Texas program can achieve sufficient reductions
to replace the two measures and also contribute to reducing the
shortfall. Further, model sensitivity runs indicate that use of an
incentive program, rather than the heavy duty diesel operating
restrictions, will not increase the modeled shortfall. In fact, it may
have positive impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ As also stated previously, the District Court for the
Western District of Texas recently ruled that these two rules are
preempted by the Clean Air Act. This ruling has no impact on the
attainment demonstration because of the provisions of Senate Bill 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Bill 2912 also requires changes to the SIP. This bill limits
TNRCC's authority to control fuel content. In anticipation of this
legislation, the State proposed amendments to the low emission diesel
rule on May 10, 2001. They have submitted this proposal, along with a
request for parallel processing to EPA, for inclusion in the attainment
demonstration. We have proposed to approve the rule and amendments in a
separate action. These changes will not have an impact on the projected
emission reductions from this measure nor on the peak modeled ozone
concentrations and the gap methodology and the calculated 56 tons/day
of NOX emission reductions needed to show attainment because
Texas had not previously included the benefits of requiring this rule
in the western portion of the State in its modeling analysis.
House Bill 2912 also includes permit requirements for sources not
previously required to obtain permits. The projected emission
reductions from this measure are being used to replace the revised
emission reductions projected from the NOX point source
measure. EPA discusses in the TSD how the emission reductions are
projected and why, combined with the revised NOX point
source measure, there is no expected impact on the peak modeled ozone
concentrations, the gap methodology and the calculated 56 tons/day of
NOX emission reductions needed to show attainment.
Texas House Bill 2134 creates the Texas Low-income Vehicle Repair
Assistance, Retrofit, and Accelerated Vehicle Retirement Program. This
program establishes a method for repair of high emitting vehicles or
the retirement and replacement of those vehicles. It is anticipated
that this legislation will have a neutral or slightly beneficial impact
toward emission reductions. When the State implements the legislation,
they will have to fully document the effects of the legislation. If the
reductions are less than those currently relied upon from the scrappage
program (included as a
[[Page 36668]]
voluntary measure in the attainment demonstration), an additional
measure will need to be submitted to account for the difference.
Further discussion of the projected emission reductions from the
recent legislation and the effects upon the modeling and the shortfall
methodology are discussed in the TSD.
J. Impacts of Recent State Settlement of Litigation
What Is the Basis for the Settlement of the Lawsuit?
A group of refinery, petrochemical and utility companies challenged
a number of the State rules being relied on in the attainment
demonstration in State court. In particular, they challenged the rules
for control of industrial NOX emissions. The TNRCC and EPA
recognize that there are several factors contributing to the severity
of the HG area's ozone problem. One is routine ozone formation such as
that seen in other cities. Another is the HG area's unique land/sea
breeze interaction. A characteristic of the HG area is ``spike'' ozone
events where ozone rapidly builds up in the atmosphere. Meteorology,
particularly the area's land/sea breeze interaction, may play a role in
producing ``spike'' events.
The litigants, however, expressed their belief that this ``spike''
phenomenon is caused by episodic releases of highly reactive VOCs and
that this phenomenon might play a role in determining ozone design
values and control strategies. TNRCC in its Chapter 7 says that the
sudden introduction of significant quantities of reactive hydrocarbons
(or chlorine) could theoretically trigger dramatic increases in ozone
concentrations. Thus, the TNRCC agreed in a settlement to perform a
scientific study within one year. The study, as discussed in Chapter 7,
would (1) develop a robust statistical definition of ozone ``spikes'';
(2) evaluate ``spike'' events from the 1998-2000 design value period;
and (3) analyze ``spike'' events to determine their probable causes and
locations within the modeling domain. The Commission states in Chapter
7 that they will perform analyses to see if ``spikes'' were at all
influenced by upset releases. They will also review the inventory to
see if it reflects or can be revised to reflect the varying temporal
characteristics of many sources. Modeling of an August-September 2000
episode will be conducted as well. Planned enhancements to this
modeling would be the incorporation of an upgrade to the model's
chemical mechanism to account for chlorine chemistry, the TNRCC's
determination of the role of chlorine in ozone formation, the role of
``spikes'', and possibly the use of very high resolution sub-domains.
In Chapter 7 of the HG SIP, as proposed to be revised, the Commission
commits to developing an enforceable plan to minimize releases of
reactive hydrocarbon emissions and the emissions of chlorine. They
further state that to the extent that the science (the study and
modeling discussed above) confirms the benefit from this strategy, then
it is the intent of the Commission to implement such a VOC-control
strategy which will first offset NOX reductions required for
industrial sources from the existing strategy's required 90 percent to
the 80 percent level. They also state that they would implement such a
revised VOC-control program through a SIP revision. The Commission
further states that in its discretion, it may allocate any additional
benefit beyond 80 percent to other existing SIP strategies and/or to
the point source NOX control strategy. Any scientific
determinations, supporting technical information, revised rules,
revised control strategy, and revised attainment demonstration must be
submitted to the EPA for approval as an attainment demonstration SIP
revision.
Another element of the agreement is for the TNRCC to revise the
reduction requirement for utility generators in the HG area from 93% to
90%. Relaxing this requirement is compensated by the NOX
reductions that will be achieved by the recent legislation requiring
permitting of grandfathered sources. (The sources primarily affected by
the revised measure are pump and compressor station engines.) Texas in
Chapter 7, as proposed to be revised, states that it will perform a
refined analysis modeling both the new emission reductions and the
increases in NOX from the power plant emissions in its
planned first phase of the mid-course review (that planned modeling
would also include the other enhancements discussed above). By June
2002, the Commission will assess the results of the modeling conducted.
Depending upon the assessment, the Commission plans to begin rulemaking
activities, if indicated, by June 2002 and finish in November 2002. We
are proposing to agree with Texas that the effect of the reduced amount
of NOX reductions from power plants should be small and will
be offset by the reductions at the currently un-permitted facilities.
Further discussion of the projected emission reductions from the
proposed revisions for electric utility generators and the effects upon
the modeling and the shortfall methodology are discussed in the TSD.
V. Local Measures
What Are the Local Initiatives and Are They Approvable?
The State submitted in the December 2000 SIP revision, three local
initiatives; speed limit reductions, a voluntary mobile emissions
program in the eight county area, and transportation control measures.
A. Speed Limit Reductions
The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) revised regulations
relating to speed limits to allow TNRCC to submit a request to change
speed limits for environmental reasons when justified. Please see
adopted rules, 25 TexReg 5686, June 9, 2000. TxDOT, using this
authority, will lower posted speed limits currently above 55 mph to 55
mph in the eight county area beginning May 1, 2002. The reduced speed
limits will apply year-round beginning May 2002. Traveling at slower
speeds will reduce the emissions of NOX and improve air
quality. In estimating the benefits of this measure, TNRCC did not
assume that all cars would comply with the new speed limits but instead
assumed a similar level of noncompliance would continue at the lower
speed limits as occurs presently. The State estimates a reduction of
12.33 tons/day of NOX emissions and 1.76 tons/day of VOC
emissions from this measure. We propose approval of the speed limit
reductions control measure and associated emission reductions.
B. Voluntary Mobile Emissions Program (VMEP)
What Is EPA's VMEP?
Voluntary mobile source strategies that attempt to complement
existing regulatory programs through voluntary, non-regulatory changes
in local transportation activities or changes in in-use vehicle and
engine composition constitute the VMEP. EPA believes that the Act
allows SIP credit for new approaches to reducing mobile source
emissions, where supported by enforceable commitments to monitor and
assess implementation and backfill any emissions reductions shortfall
in a timely fashion. This flexible approach is consistent with the
Clean Air Act section 110. Economic incentive provisions are also
available in sections 182 and 108 of the Act. Credits generated through
VMEP can be counted toward attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. Due
to the innovative nature of this program, up to
[[Page 36669]]
3% of the total future year emissions reductions required to attain the
appropriate NAAQS, may be claimed under the VMEP policy.
What Qualifies for SIP Credit?
The basic framework for ensuring SIP credit for VMEPs is spelled
out in guidance that came out under a memorandum from Richard D.
Wilson, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated
October 24, 1997, entitled ``Guidance on Incorporating Voluntary Mobile
Source Emission Reduction Programs in State Implementation Plans
(SIPs).'' Generally, to obtain credit for a VMEP, a State submits a SIP
that:
(1) Identifies and describes a VMEP;
(2) Contains projections of emission reductions attributable to the
program, along with any relevant technical support documentation;
(3) Commits to evaluation and reporting on program implementation
and results; and
(4) Commits to the timely remedy of any credit shortfall should the
VMEP not achieve the anticipated emission reductions.
More specifically, the guidance suggests the following key points
be considered for approval of credits. The credits should be
quantifiable, surplus, enforceable, permanent, and adequately
supported. In addition, VMEPs must be consistent with attainment of the
standard and with the ROP requirements and not interfere with other
Clean Air Act requirements.
What Did the State Submit?
The State submitted program descriptions that projected emission
reductions attributable to each specific program as part of the HG
attainment demonstration submitted December 20, 2000. The State commits
to evaluating each program to validate estimated credits. Table 5 lists
the programs and projected credits.
Table 5.--Voluntary Mobile Emission Reduction Programs and Credits
Claimed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX benefits
Program type (tons per
day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scrappage Program......................................... 0.39
Smoking Vehicle Program................................... 0.04
Public Fleet Measures..................................... 1.02
Highway Demonstration Projects............................ 0.84
Private Fleet Measures.................................... 3.21
Non-road Demonstration.................................... 2.5
Locomotive Controls....................................... 2.0
Marine Measures........................................... 4.8
Commute Solutions......................................... 1.8
Transtar Expansion........................................ 0.0
Clean Air Action/Cool Cities/Other........................ 0.03
Signal Light Timing....................................... 0-0.5
Smart Growth.............................................. 0.3
Local County Emission Reduction Plan...................... 1.5
AERCO Pilot Project....................................... 6.0
Total Benefits (tpd)...................................... 23
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State's goal is 23 tons/day of NOX benefit from the
VMEP program. Since overall, the HG area needs to reduce emissions by
768 tons/day from uncontrolled 2007 levels, this is within the 3%
criteria in our guidance. The State has committed to evaluating and
reporting on the program implementation and results and to timely
remedy any credit shortfall.
Do the VMEPs Meet the Requirements for Approval?
A detailed analysis of all the VMEP measures can be found in the
TSD for this document. For each creditable VMEP, the measure was found
to be quantifiable. The reductions are surplus by not being substitutes
for mandatory, required emission reductions. The commitment to monitor,
assess and timely remedy any shortfall from implementation of the
measures will be enforceable against the State. The reductions will
continue at least for as long as the time period in which they are used
by this SIP demonstration, so they are considered permanent. Each
measure is adequately supported by personnel and program resources for
implementation.
What Action Is EPA Taking on the VMEP?
The HG area's ozone SIP VMEP meets the criteria for credit in the
SIP. The State has shown that the credits are quantifiable, surplus,
enforceable, permanent, adequately supported, and consistent with the
SIP and the Act. We propose to approve the VMEP portion of the Texas
SIP.
C. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs)
The State has included a variety of TCMs in the December 2000 SIP
as a control strategy for attainment of the ozone NAAQS. The specific
TCMs have been described in detail in appendix I of the SIP, and they
will be incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations in
the final approval action. Detailed information is necessary for those
TCMs used as emissions reduction measures in the SIP to ensure that
they are specific and enforceable as required by the Act and reflected
in our policy. The TCMs' description in the SIP includes identification
of each project, location, length of each project (if applicable), a
brief project description, implementation date, and emissions
reductions for both VOC and NOX.
The TCMs identified through this process and included in the SIP
are contained and funded in the metropolitan transportation plan (MTP)
and transportation improvement program (TIP) to ensure funding for
implementation.
We propose approval of the TCMs.
VI. Post 1999 Rate Of Progress Plan
A. Proposed Action
What Action Are We Proposing To Take?
We are proposing approval of the Post 1999 ROP plans, submitted by
the Governor on December 20, 2000. These plans were supplemented with
proposed revisions to the SIP submitted for parallel processing in a
letter dated June 15, 2001. We are proposing to parallel process
approval of these revisions to the plans.
These plans demonstrate that ozone forming emissions will be
reduced from the baseline emissions by 9% in each of the periods 2000-
2002 and 2003-2005 and by 6% during the time period of 2006-2007. We
are also proposing to approve the MVEBs associated with these plans and
revisions thereto by parallel process approval. We are also proposing
to approve the changes to the 1990 base year emissions inventory for
the HG nonattainment area.
These Post 1999 ROP plans build upon the 15% ROP plan that was to
cover the time period 1990-1996 and the Post 1996 ROP Plan that covered
the time period 1997-1999. The 15% ROP plan was given conditional
interim approval November 10, 1998, 63 FR 62943. In this action, the
15% plan is being proposed for full approval (see section VII.). The
Post 1996 ROP plan was approved on April 25, 2001, 66 FR 20778.
B. Calculation of Required Reductions and Summary of Plans
What Are the Changes to the 1990 Base Year Inventory?
The 1990 base year inventory was originally approved November 8,
1994 (59 FR 55586). The State revised the VOC inventory on August 8,
1996.
[[Page 36670]]
These changes were approved November 10, 1998 (63 FR 62943). The State
revised the 1990 base year VOC inventory again in the December 20, 2000
SIP revision. The December 20, 2000, SIP revision also contains the
State's first revisions to the 1990 base year NOX emissions
inventory. The changes resulted from data gathered for the 1993 and
1996 periodic inventories. Analysis of the changes in the periodic
inventories was backcast to the 1990 inventory for consistency since
the 1990 inventory remains the ROP beginning point. We have reviewed
the inventory revisions and they have been developed in accordance with
our guidance on emission inventory preparation. Thus, we are proposing
approval of the December 20, 2000, revisions to the 1990 base year
inventory.
How Do We Calculate the Needed VOC and NOX Emissions
Reductions?
Calculating the needed emission reductions is a multi-step process
that is described in detail in the TSD for this proposed action. In
summary, the State (1) estimates the baseline emissions in 1990; (2)
adjusts the baseline emissions to factor out emission reductions from
pre-1990 federal motor vehicle control programs and Reid vapor pressure
controls because the Act does not allow States to take credit for these
reductions; (3) estimates the target level of emissions in the
milestone years; and (4) estimates the anticipated growth in emissions
during each period and calculates the needed emission reductions.
How Do the Plans Achieve the Required Reductions?
Tables 6 and 7 summarize the ROP plans submitted by Texas.
Table 6.--VOC Rate of Progress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milestone Year................. 2002.............. 2005............. 2007
Target Level................... 696.25............ 694.81........... 693.84
Projected emissions after 670.99............ 644.93........... 629.68
controls.
Measures....................... Pulp and Paper.... Small Engine..... Small Engine
I/M............... Tier I........... Marine Engine
Small engine...... I/M.............. Tier I/II
Tier I............ Tier I/II........ NLEV
RFG............... NLEV............. HDDV
NLEV.............. HDDV.............
HDDV..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7.--NOX Rate of Progress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milestone Year................. 2002.............. 2005............. 2007
Target Level................... 1127.08........... 1011.33.......... 935.67
Projected emission after 1116.06........... 695.05........... 542.0
controls.
Measures....................... Tier I............ Tier I/II........ Tier I/II
NLEV.............. I/M.............. HDDV Standards
RFG............... HDDV Standards... NOX Point source controls
I/M............... NOX Point source
controls.
Small Engine......
HDDV Standards....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do the Plans Achieve the Rate of Progress Goals?
Tables 6 and 7 show that the projected emissions after controls are
less than the target level in each of the milestone years. In the 2002
ROP milestone year, Texas is able to meet the ROP requirement by a
small margin through the documentation of progress made by Federal
Measures. In 2005, the plan meets the ROP milestone by a wide margin
since the bulk of the State's NOX point source are required
to be implemented in 2003 and 2005. It should be noted that TNRCC's ROP
proposal does not reflect the changes proposed May 30, 2001 to the
NOX point source rules in response to the settlement of the
industry legal challenge. These proposed changes delay some of the
reductions planned for 2005 and reduce slightly the amount of total
emission reductions that will occur in 2007 due to the relaxation of
the electric utility generation rules. EPA has estimated the amount of
emission reductions that it believes will occur in 2005 and 2007 as a
result of the proposed changes to the rules and reflected these
estimates in the Tables. Also, because of the wide margin, TNRCC did
not include in the ROP plans a significant portion of the emission
reductions included in the attainment plan, such as the Voluntary
Measures program, Low emission diesel and speed limit reductions.
C. Post 1999 ROP MVEBs
What Are the MVEBs Established by These Plans and Proposed for
Approval?
The MVEBs established by these plans and that we are proposing to
approve are contained in Table 8. We find the MVEBs consistent with all
ROP SIP requirements. In addition, we are taking comment in this action
on the adequacy of the MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes
pursuant to the criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) as part of our proposed
action on the SIP rather than using the web posting process because we
are moving forward on this SIP in a quick manner as described in
Guidance on Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in One-Hour Ozone
Attainment Demonstrations dated November 3, 1999.
Table 8.--ROP SIP Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
[Tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant 2002 2005 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC......................................... 100.07 68.52 79.51
NOX......................................... 260.85 185.48 156.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2005 and 2007 ROP budgets are being proposed for revision in
the June 15, 2001 submission being parallel processed. The new 2007
budgets are being proposed by Texas pursuant to a settlement agreement
and are taken from the attainment demonstration modeling rather than
directly from the ROP calculations. Emissions estimates used to
demonstrate transportation
[[Page 36671]]
conformity will be derived using the assumptions used to develop these
emissions budgets for the 2007 attainment SIP MVEBs, pursuant to 40 CFR
93.122(a)(6). We find such MVEBs consistent with ROP.
VII. 15% Rate Of Progress Plan
Proposed Action
What Action Are We Proposing To Take?
We are proposing full approval of the 15% plan submitted on August
8, 1996, contingent upon us finalizing full approval of the State's I/M
program for the HG nonattainment area, which is included in the 15%
plan. The 15% plan was given conditional, interim approval on November
10, 1998, pending corrections to the I/M program. This ROP plan was
given conditional, interim approval because it relied on emissions
reductions from the I/M program that received conditional, interim
approval. For further information on the I/M conditional, interim
approval, see 62 FR 37138, July 11, 1997. We found that the State had
met the conditions of the conditional approval, and on April 23, 1999,
we removed the conditions and granted Texas a final interim approval of
the I/M SIP under the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995,
Public Law 104-59, section 348(c)(1). See, 64 FR 19910. The interim
approval expired on February 11, 1999. Texas has submitted significant
revisions to the I/M program for the HG area. The revisions expand the
program from Harris county to seven additional counties in the
nonattainment area. We are taking a separate action on these I/M
revisions (proposed approval 66 FR 31199, June 11, 2001). Because the
revisions appear to have eliminated the last impediment to full
approval of the I/M program for the HG area, we are proposing full
approval of the HG area's 15% plan. This proposed full approval of the
15% plan will not be finalized unless and until action finalizing full
approval of the I/M program is signed. If the I/M program is
disapproved, we will disapprove the 15% plan. If we disapprove the 15%
plan, we cannot finalize a full approval of the HG attainment
demonstration SIP. See 63 FR 62943 and the 15% plan TSD for additional
information on the HG area's 15% plan.
How Did the Inspection/Maintenance Program Submitted With the
Attainment Demonstration Purport To Cure the Previous Deficiencies?
As stated previously, a conditional interim approval for the
Motorist Choice I/M Program was proposed on October 3, 1996 (61 FR
51651). Conditional interim approval was published on July 11, 1997 (62
FR 37138). The conditions were removed from the interim approval on
April 23, 1999 (64 FR 19910). The interim approval status of this
program lapsed on February 11, 1999.
The State submitted an approvable 18-month demonstration on
February 8, 1999, as required by the National Highway System
Designation Act of 1995, Public Law 104-59, section 348(c)(1). The
program was not fully approved at that time because one provision of
the interim approval remained: that the State provide evidence that the
remote sensing program was effective in identifying the shortfall in
number of vehicles needed to make up for the lack of a tailpipe testing
program in all the nonattainment counties.
Modeling has since shown that NOX reductions are
essential to reaching attainment in the HG area. As a result, the Texas
Motorist Choice I/M program has been revised to include measurement for
NOX emissions and to provide additional NOX
emission reductions by expanding coverage of the program to all eight
counties within the HG nonattainment area. By revising the program to
expand area coverage for NOX SIP credits, the deficiency
that prohibited full approval in the HG nonattainment area appears to
be cured. All counties within the HG designated ozone nonattainment
area will be participating in the full program. As indicated above, we
have not yet taken a final action on the I/M submittal and cannot take
final action on the ROP Plan and attainment demonstration SIP which
rely upon reductions from the I/M plan, until the I/M revision is
finally approved.
VIII. Summary of Related Measures EPA Must Approve Before EPA can
Fully Approve the HG Attainment Demonstration
What Clean Air Act Requirements Apply to the HG Severe Area?
The following table presents a summary of the CAA requirements that
are required for each severe nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS. These requirements are specified in section 182 of the CAA.
CAA Requirements for Severe Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
--NSR, including an offset ratio of 1.3:1 and a major VOC and NOX source
cutoff of 25 tons per year (tpy).
--Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for VOC and NOX.
--15 percent Rate-Of-Progress (ROP) plan for VOC through 1996.
--9 percent Rate-Of-Progress (ROP) plan for VOC through 1999.
--1990 baseline emissions inventory for VOC and NOX.
--Periodic emissions inventory and source emission statement
regulations.
--Enhanced Vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) program.
--Clean fuel vehicle program.
--Enhanced monitoring program.
--Reformulated gasoline.
--3%/yr ROP plan(Post 1999).
--Measures to offset VMT growth.
--Requirement for fees for major sources for failure to attain.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Areas that are currently attaining the standard or can demonstrate
that NOX controls are not needed can request a NOX waiver under
section 182(f). The HG area is not such an area.
A listing of applicable requirements and the effective dates of
their EPA approvals for the HG area is contained in the TSD for this
rulemaking.
What Measures Must Be Finally Approved Before We Can Finalize the
Approval of the Attainment SIP?
We cannot finalize approval of the attainment demonstration SIP and
its associated MVEBs unless and until we have finalized action on the
following rules since they are relied upon in the attainment
demonstration:
1. Vehicle I/M program (30 TAC 114). Recent legislation and the
rule allow Liberty, Chambers and Waller counties to submit an
alternative air control strategy by May 1, 2002 (the I/M program does
not apply in those counties until May 1, 2004). The alternative
strategy must be approved by TNRCC and EPA (in the form of a SIP
revision) and must provide modeled reductions in NOX and VOC
equivalent to the reductions modeled for these counties from the I/M
program. This flexibility is an acceptable approach as long as the
implemented I/M program covers the urbanized area within the HG
Metropolitan statistical Area and does not rely on the remote sensing
program for vehicle coverage.\3\ For further discussion, please see the
proposed approval (66 FR at 31200) and accompanying TSD as well as 30
TAC section 114.50(a)(4)(G). It should be noted that unless the
equivalent emission reductions are from mobile
[[Page 36672]]
sources, the MVEBs will be impacted by these areas opting out of I/M.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ It should be noted that these three counties are not part of
the urbanized area and, therefore, not required to be part of the I/
M program. See, 40 CFR 51.350(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Revised emission specifications in the HG area for
NOX Point Sources (30 TAC 117). Note certain portions of
this rule submitted December 20, 2000 have been proposed for revision.
Texas has submitted these revisions for parallel processing.
3. NOX Cap and Trading program (30 TAC 101). Note
certain portions of this rule submitted December 20, 2000 has been
proposed for revision. Texas has submitted these revisions for parallel
processing.
4. Low emission diesel fuel (30 TAC 114). Texas has proposed a
revision to the rule that was submitted by the Governor in December
2000. Further revisions that were approved for public comment by TNRCC
on May 10, 2001, include a change to the area of coverage, a later
implementation deadline, and allowing alternate diesel formulations (if
approved by EPA) as a means of compliance. These revisions correspond
to changes in the statutory authority of TNRCC to regulate fuels. These
changes are in Texas House Bill 2912. This bill establishes certain
guidelines for fuel regulations that are more stringent than federal
requirements. In a letter dated June 15, 2001, a SIP revision was
submitted, along with a request for parallel processing.
5. Non-Road Large Spark-Ignition (LSI) Engines (30 TAC Chapter 114,
Subchapter I, Division 3). This rule requires that non-road large
spark-ignition engines of 25 horsepower (hp) or larger conform to Title
13 of the California Code of Regulations, Chapter 9. Section
209(e)(2)(B) of the Act allows another state to adopt requirements for
non-road engines if such regulations are identical to California's
requirements. EPA has promulgated regulations, codified at 40 CFR
85.1606, setting forth the criteria for adoption of California
regulations regarding non-road vehicles and non-road engines. We are
addressing this measure in a separate action.
6. Agreed Orders with Continental and Southwest Airlines and the
City of Houston. The Agreed Orders make enforceable specific local
emission reductions of NOX from sources under the airlines'
control. The agreement with the City of Houston is to bring about
additional reductions from operations in the Houston Airport System. We
will address the agreed orders in a separate action.
7. Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) rules regulating
VOCs from Batch Processes (30 TAC 115) and Offset Lithographers (30 TAC
115). These rules submitted December 20, 2000 ensure that RACT is in
place on major sources of VOCs in these categories in the HG area. We
will address these rules in a separate action.
8. A determination that the HG SIP includes all Reasonably
Available Control Measures. See section IV.H.
9. The 15% ROP Plan. See section VII.
10. The Post 1999 ROP Plans and contingency measures. See section
VI.
11. The revisions to the 1990 base year inventory. See Section VI.
12. The speed limit reductions, the VMEP and the TCMs. See section
V.
13. Lawn service equipment operating restrictions (30 TAC 114.452-
459). This is a rule that would implement an operating-use restriction
program requiring that the handheld and non-handheld spark-ignition
engines, rated at 25 hp and below, be restricted from use by commercial
operators between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and noon, April 1 through
October 31, in Brazoria, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, and Montgomery
counties. For more information on this measure, see our proposed
approval at 66 FR 31197 (June 11, 2001).
14. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Offset Plan.
15. Motor Vehicle Idling Limitations (30 TAC 114.500-509). This
rule establishes idling limits for gasoline and diesel-powered engines
in heavy-duty motor vehicles in the HG area. For more information on
this measure, see our proposed approval at 66 FR 31197 (June 11, 2001).
16. Stationary Diesel Generator rule (30 TAC 117.206). This rule
was submitted for parallel processing in a letter dated June 15, 2001,
as part of other proposed revisions to the NOX point source
rules. Its approval is necessary to insure that all RACM have been
adopted in the HG area.
17. The Post 1996 ROP Plan and contingency measures. See Section
VI.
IX. EPA Guidance
What EPA Guidelines Apply To the Attainment Demonstration Submittals?
The following documents, among others, contain EPA's guidelines
affecting the content and review of ozone attainment demonstration
submittals:
1. Guideline for Regulatory Application of the Urban Airshed Model,
EPA-450/4-91-013, July 1991. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/
(file name: ``UAMREG'').
2. Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile
Sources (Revised) (1992).
3. Guidance on Urban Airshed Model (UAM) Reporting Requirements for
Attainment Demonstrations, EPA-454/R-93-056, March 1994. Web site:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/ (file name: ``UAMRPTRQ'').
4. User's Guide to MOBILE5 (Mobile Source Emission Factor Model),
May 1994.
5. Memorandum, ``Ozone Attainment Demonstrations,'' from Mary D.
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, March 2, 1995.
Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html.
6. Guidance on the Use of Modeled Results to Demonstrate Attainment
of the Ozone NAAQS, EPA-454/B-95-007, June 1996. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/ (file name: ``O3TEST'').
7. Memorandum, ``Guidance for Implementing the 1-Hour Ozone and
Pre-Existing PM10 NAAQS,'' from Richard Wilson, Office of Air and
Radiation, December 29, 1997. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html .
8. Memorandum, ``Use of Models and Other Analyses in Attainment
Demonstrations for the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (Draft),'' 1998.
9. Memorandum, ``Guidance on Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in
One-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstrations,'' from Merrylin Zaw-Mon,
Acting Director of the Regional and State Programs Division, November
3, 1999. Web site: www.epa.gov/oms/transp/conform/nov3guid.pdf
10. Memorandum, ``Guidance on the Reasonably Available Control
Measures (RACM) Requirement and Attainment Demonstration Submissions
for Ozone Nonattainment Areas,'' from John S. Seitz, Director of Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, November 30, 1999.
11. Draft Memorandum, ``1-Hour Ozone NAAQS--Mid-Course Review
Guidance,'' from John Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards.
12. Memorandum ``Guidance for Improving Weight of Evidence Through
Identification of Additional Emission Reductions, Not Modeled''
November, 1999.
VIII. Administrative Requirements
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed 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
[[Page 36673]]
proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and
imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed 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 proposes to approve 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). This proposed
rule also does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it 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 proposes to approve 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 proposed 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. As required by section 3
of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing
this proposed 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. 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' issued under the executive order.
This proposed 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, Attainment,
Hydrocarbons, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 2, 2001.
Gregg A. Cooke,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 01-17470 Filed 7-11-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P