Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; Attainment Demonstration for the Dallas/Fort Worth 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area, 40203-40228 [E8-15805]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
along with the American Stock
Exchange, NYSE Arca, Inc., and the
Philadelphia Stock Exchange initiated a
Regulation SHO review of options
market makers covering the time period
from May through July 2006. The focus
of these reviews was the options market
maker exception to the close-out
requirement for aged fails to deliver in
threshold securities that were open for
thirteen consecutive settlement days.10
According to CBOE, the reviews
revealed that there were 598 exceptions
claimed, covering 58 threshold
securities for a total of 11,759,799 fails
to deliver. For the 58 threshold
securities identified, the number of fails
to deliver for which an exemption was
claimed from the close-out requirement
ranged from 207 to 1,950,655. The
following is a distribution of the number
of fails to deliver:
Extension of time to file
comments and reply comments.
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Copyright Office is
extending the time in which comments
and reply comments may be filed in
response to its Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking regarding the
retransmission of digital television
broadcast signals by cable operators
under Section 111 of the Copyright Act.
DATES: Comments are due July 31, 2008.
Reply Comments are due September 16,
2008.
ADDRESSES: If hand delivered by a
private party, an original and five copies
of a comment or reply comment should
be brought to the Library of Congress,
U.S. Copyright Office, Room LM–401,
James Madison Building, 101
Independence Ave., SE, Washington, DC
20559, between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m.
The envelope should be addressed as
Number of
follows: Office of the General Counsel,
Number of fails to deliver for
threshold
U.S. Copyright Office.
which exception was claimed
securities
If delivered by a commercial courier,
an original and five copies of a comment
0–100,000 .............................
35
100,001–200,000 ..................
4 or reply comment must be delivered to
200,001–300,000 ..................
4 the Congressional Courier Acceptance
300,001–400,000 ..................
5 Site (‘‘CCAS’’) located at 2nd and D
400,001–500,000 ..................
4 Streets, NE, Washington, DC between
500,001–600,000 ..................
2 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. The envelope
600,001–700,000 .................. ........................ should be addressed as follows: Office
700,001–800,000 ..................
1 of the General Counsel, U.S. Copyright
800,001–900,000 .................. ........................ Office, LM–403, James Madison
900,001–1,000,000 ...............
1
Building, 101 Independence Avenue,
>1,000,000 ............................
2
SE, Washington, DC 20559. Please note
that CCAS will not accept delivery by
Therefore, the Commission is remeans of overnight delivery services
opening the comment period for
such as Federal Express, United Parcel
Exchange Act Release No. 56213 from
Service or DHL.
the date of this release through August
If sent by mail (including overnight
13, 2008.
delivery using U.S. Postal Service
Dated: July 7, 2008.
Express Mail), an original and five
By the Commission.
copies of a comment or reply comment
Florence E. Harmon,
should be addressed to U.S. Copyright
Office, Copyright GC/I&R, P.O. Box
Acting Secretary.
70400, Washington, DC 20024.
[FR Doc. E8–15768 Filed 7–11–08; 8:45 am]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben
BILLING CODE 8010–01–P
Golant, Assistant General Counsel, and
Tanya M. Sandros, General Counsel,
Copyright GC/I&R, P.O. Box 70400,
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Washington, DC 20024. Telephone:
(202) 707–8380. Telefax: (202) 707–
Copyright Office
8366.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 2,
37 CFR Part 201
2008, the Copyright Office published a
[Docket No. RM 2005–5]
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(‘‘NPRM’’) seeking comment on specific
Retransmission of Digital Broadcast
proposals and policy recommendations
Signals Pursuant to the Cable
related to the retransmission of digital
Statutory License
television signals by cable operators
under Section 111 of the Copyright Act.
AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of
See 73 FR 31399 (June 2, 2008). On June
Congress.
30, 2008, the Copyright Office published
its Section 109 Report to Congress
10 The ‘‘grandfather’’ provision was also in effect
which, inter alia, broadly discussed the
during this period but was not the subject of these
reviews.
continuing need for the cable statutory
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:45 Jul 11, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40203
license (‘‘Report’’). The Report also
examined many of the digital signal
retransmission issues that were initially
raised in the NPRM and recommended
changes to the existing statute to
accommodate digital television in the
cable statutory license royalty scheme.
See Satellite Home Viewer Extension
and Reauthorization Act ~109 Report at
108–114.
On July 7, 2008, the National Cable
and Telecommunications Association
(‘‘NCTA’’) filed a request for an
extension of time to file comments and
reply comments in this proceeding.
NCTA asks for an extension because
‘‘(f)urther study of the recently–released
Report is necessary to assess its
relationship to the rules proposed in the
Digital NPRM and its impact, if any, on
comments that may be filed in that
proceeding.’’ NCTA requests a brief two
week extension so that comments would
be due on July 31, 2008 and September
16, 2008.
Given the complexity of the issues
raised in the NPRM, and the publication
of the Section 109 Report to Congress
thereafter, the Office grants the request
to extend the comment and reply
comment dates in this proceeding.
Comments are now due on July 31, 2008
and reply comments are due on
September 16, 2008.
Dated: July 8, 2008
Tanya Sandros,
General Counsel
U.S. Copyright Office
[FR Doc. E8–15951 Filed 7–11–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410–30–S
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R06–OAR–2007–0524; FRL–8690–7]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Texas;
Attainment Demonstration for the
Dallas/Fort Worth 1997 8-Hour Ozone
Nonattainment Area
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to
conditionally approve the 1997 8-hour
ozone attainment demonstration State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for
the Dallas/Fort Worth moderate 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area (DFW area)
submitted by the State of Texas on May
30, 2007 and supplemented on April 23,
2008. We are also proposing to approve
the associated attainment Motor Vehicle
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
40204
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Emissions Budgets (MVEBs), the
Reasonably Available Control Measures
(RACM) demonstration, and two local
control measures relied upon in the
attainment demonstration. The
proposed approval of the attainment
demonstration is conditioned on Texas
adopting and submitting to EPA prior to
March 2009, a complete SIP revision to
limit the use of Discrete Emission
Reduction Credits (DERCs), beginning in
March 2009. Final conditional approval
of the DFW 1997 8-hour ozone
attainment demonstration SIP is
contingent upon Texas adopting and
submitting to EPA an approvable SIP
revision for the attainment
demonstration SIP’s failure-to-attain
contingency measures plan that meets
section 172(c)(9) of the Clean Air Act
(the Act).
We also are proposing to fully
approve the DFW area SIP as meeting
the Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) requirement for
volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
EPA is proposing these actions in
accordance with section 110 and part D
of the Act and EPA’s regulations.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before August 13, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06–
OAR–2007–0524, by one of the
following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
• U.S. EPA Region 6 ‘‘Contact Us’’
Web site: https://epa.gov/region6/
r6coment.htm. Please click on ‘‘6PD’’
(Multimedia) and select ‘‘Air’’ before
submitting comments.
• E-mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson at
donaldson.guy@epa.gov. Please also
send a copy by email to the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section below.
• Fax: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air
Planning Section (6PD–L), at fax
number 214–665–7263.
• Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief,
Air Planning Section (6PD–L),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1445
Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas
75202–2733.
• Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Guy
Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section
(6PD–L), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,
Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. Such
deliveries are accepted only between the
hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays
except for legal holidays. Special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–2007–
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:45 Jul 11, 2008
Jkt 214001
0524. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail,
information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The https://
www.regulations.gov Web site is an
‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air Planning Section (6PD–L),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1445
Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas
75202–2733. The file will be made
available by appointment for public
inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review
Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m.
and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal
holidays. Contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
paragraph below to make an
appointment. If possible, please make
the appointment at least two working
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
days in advance of your visit. There will
be a fee of 15 cents per page for making
photocopies of documents. On the day
of the visit, please check in at the EPA
Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.
The State submittal, which is part of
the EPA record, is also available for
public inspection at the State Air
Agency listed below during official
business hours by appointment: Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality,
Office of Air Quality, 12124 Park 35
Circle, Austin, Texas 78753.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Carrie Paige, Air Planning Section
(6PD–L), Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733,
telephone (214) 665–6521; fax number
214–665–7263; e-mail address
paige.carrie@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ means EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What Has the State Submitted?
II. What Action Is EPA Proposing?
A. What Must Happen Before We Can
Finalize Conditional Approval?
III. Why Is This Proposed Approval
Conditional and What Are the
Implications of a Conditional Approval?
IV. Background.
A. What Are the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards?
B. What Is a SIP?
C. What Is Ozone and Why Do We Regulate
It?
D. Background of the Texas SIP for the
DFW Area.
E. Background of This SIP Revision To
Address the 1997 Ozone NAAQS.
F. What Is an Attainment Demonstration?
V. Evaluation of the DFW 1997 8-Hour Ozone
Attainment Demonstration SIP.
A. Legal Requirements for Approval
B. Eight-Hour Attainment Demonstration
Modeling and Weight of Evidence.
a. What Were the Results of the
Photochemical Modeling Attainment
Demonstration?
i. What Is a Photochemical Grid Model?
ii. What Episode Did Texas Choose to
Model?
iii. How Well Did the Model Perform?
iv. Once the Base Case Is Determined To
Be Acceptable, How Do You Use the
Modeling for the Attainment
Demonstration?
v. What Modeling Approaches Were Used
for This Attainment Demonstration?
vi. What Did the Results of TCEQ’s Combo
10 Modeling Show?
vii. Evaluation of Other Modeling
Projections Without Benefit of Measures
With a 2010 Compliance Date
viii. Refinements and Adjustments to
Future Year (2009) Emission Inventory
and Modeling-Based Projected Changes
to the SIP Modeling FDVs
ix. What are EPA’s Conclusions of the
Modeling Demonstration?
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
b. What Weight of Evidence Has Been
Evaluated?
i. What Additional Modeling-Based
Evidence Did Texas Provide?
1. Texas Emission Reduction Plan
2. Compressor Engines
ii. Other Non-Modeling WOE From TCEQ
iii. EPA WOE Analysis
1. EPA Meteorological Adjusted Trends
Analysis
iv. Other WOE Items From Texas Not
Currently Quantified: Additional
Programs/Reductions
1. AirCheckTexas
2. Local Quantified and Unquantified
Measures
c. Is the 8-Hour Attainment Demonstration
Approvable?
C. Control Measures Relied Upon by the
State in the Attainment Demonstration
SIP
D. Local Measures Relied Upon in the
Control Strategy Modeling
a. Voluntary Mobile Source Emission
Reduction Programs
b. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs)
c. Measures Discussed in the April 23,
2008 Letter From TCEQ
i. Texas Emission Reduction Plan (TERP)
ii. Discrete Emission Credits (DECs)
E. Reasonably Available Control Measures
(RACM)
F. Failure-To-Attain Contingency Measures
G. Attainment Motor Vehicle Emission
Budgets
H. Section 110(l) Analysis
VI. Reasonably Available Control Technology
(RACT)
VII. Proposed Action
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Has the State Submitted?
On May 30, 2007, Texas submitted a
plan designed to attain the 8-hour
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) for ozone adopted in 1997
(the 1997 8-hour ozone standard). Texas
supplemented this submission with
additional information in a letter dated
April 23, 2008. The attainment
demonstration relies on a variety of
controls on minor and major stationary
sources and controls on mobile source
emissions. The emissions reductions are
achieved through a combination of
Federal, State and Local measures.
These measures are projected to reduce
emissions of NOX, a precursor to ozone
formation, in the DFW area by over 50%
from 1999 levels. Some of the measures
that have been relied on in this
demonstration are being reviewed in
this Federal Register (FR). Many are
being reviewed or have been reviewed
in other FR notices. All of the measures
that are relied on in the plan must be
approved before we can finalize our
approval. The Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ) used
photochemical modeling and other
corroborative evidence to predict the
improvement in ozone levels that will
occur due to these controls while taking
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:45 Jul 11, 2008
Jkt 214001
into account the growth in the DFW
area.
The State’s submission does not
directly address the new ozone standard
issued March 12, 2008. The new ozone
standard is more protective and will
require further reductions to attain, but
the Texas plan will provide progress
toward this new standard.
II. What Action Is EPA Proposing?
The EPA is proposing to conditionally
approve the 1997 8-hour ozone
attainment demonstration SIP revision
for the DFW area (8-hour DFW SIP)
submitted on May 30, 2007 and
supplemented on April 23, 2008. This
submittal provides photochemical
modeling, corroborative analyses,
additional control measures not
explicitly accounted for in the
photochemical modeling, and a
combination of adopted Federal, State,
and local measures to demonstrate that
the DFW area will attain the 1997 8hour ozone standard by June 15, 2010.
It also includes, as part of the
attainment demonstration SIP, an
attainment MVEB, a RACM analysis,
and control measures. In today’s action,
we are proposing to approve two local
measures relied upon in the attainment
demonstration—the Voluntary Mobile
Source Emission Reduction Program
(VMEP) and Transportation Control
Measures (TCMs); we are proposing to
adopt the attainment MVEBs into the
DFW SIP; and we are proposing to
approve the demonstration that all
RACM have been adopted for the DFW
area. Finally, in today’s action, EPA also
is proposing to fully approve the VOC
RACT submissions for both the 1-hour
and the 1997 8-hour ozone standards.
A. What Must Happen Before We Can
Finalize Conditional Approval?
Before finalizing conditional approval
of the attainment demonstration SIP, we
must fully approve all of the control
measures relied on in the attainment
demonstration and the Reasonable
Further Progress (RFP) Plan. In the 8hour DFW SIP, the State included new
NOX emissions reductions measures and
rules (found in Title 30 of the Texas
Administrative Code, Chapter 117—
denoted 30 TAC 117 or Chapter 117), a
VMEP, and TCMs. The revisions to
Chapter 117 include NOX reductions
from the following sources: Industrial,
Commercial, and Institutional (ICI)
Sources, Minor Sources, Electric
Generating Facilities (EGFs), Cement
Kilns and East Texas Combustion
Sources. The measures in the 8-hour
DFW SIP also include rules that were
adopted under the 1-hour ozone
standard, which have been extended to
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40205
the larger 8-hour ozone nonattainment
area (NAA). These previously adopted
rules were approved in earlier actions
and are listed in section V–C of today’s
rulemaking. In separate rulemakings, we
are proposing to approve the 2007 RFP
SIP and the remaining control measures
including NOX controls submitted on
May 30, 2007, for point and area
sources, which include ICI Sources,
EGFs, Minor Sources, Cement Kilns and
East Texas Combustion Sources. We
will also take action on other emissions
reduction measures submitted on May
13, 2005, which include the April 9,
2003 Alcoa Federal consent decree, an
Energy Efficiencies Program and NOX
rules.
A description of all the measures that
must be approved by EPA before any
final approval of the attainment
demonstration SIP is in section V of
today’s action.
In addition, we cannot finalize the
proposed conditional approval until
Texas submits an approvable SIP
revision to satisfy the section 172(c)(9)
requirement for contingency measures
that would be triggered if the area fails
to attain the 8-hour ozone standard by
its attainment date. This SIP revision
(the contingency for final conditional
approval) must be a complete
approvable failure-to-attain contingency
measures plan. Texas has committed to
adopt and submit a plan that relies upon
three VOC SIP rules for Offset
Lithographic Printing; Degassing or
Cleaning of Stationary, Marine and
Transport Vessels; and Petroleum Dry
Cleaning, as well as fleet turnover from
mobile sources after 2009 as
contingency measures. These measures
are more fully described in a
commitment letter submitted by the
State, dated June 13, 2008 (this letter is
in the docket for this action). If the State
submits a complete failure-to-attain
contingency measures plan that relies
upon the four above-noted control
measures, EPA could proceed with a
final conditional approval of the
attainment demonstration SIP. Any
comments concerning whether these
four measures are sufficient to meet the
failure-to-attain contingency measure
requirement should be raised at this
time. EPA does not plan to provide an
additional opportunity for comment
unless the State modifies these
measures or submits a failure-to-attain
contingency measures plan relying on
other measures.
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
40206
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
III. Why Is This Proposed Approval
Conditional and What Are the
Implications of a Conditional
Approval?
Our proposed approval of the
attainment demonstration SIP is
conditional because the attainment
demonstration submitted in May 2007
relies upon unlimited usage of DERCs,
whereas the April 2008 supplemented
attainment demonstration relies upon a
limited usage of DERCs; as yet there is
no State rule implementing this change.
The condition is based on a
commitment by the State of Texas to
adopt and submit by March 1, 2009, a
complete SIP revision that includes an
enforceable mechanism that would
allow no more than 3.2 tons per day
(tpd) of DERCs to be used in 2009 in the
DFW area. If Texas intends to allow for
more than 3.2 tpd of DERCs to be used
beginning January 1, 2010, then the SIP
revision must also provide appropriate
limits on the use of DERCs and a
detailed justification explaining how the
future adjustments to the allowed DERC
usage will be consistent with continued
attainment of the 8-hour ozone
standard. The justification must provide
sufficient detail such that the public can
be assured that attainment will continue
to be projected in future years. For
further explanation of the limitation on
DERCs, see section V–D.
Under section 110(k) of the Act, EPA
may conditionally approve a plan based
on a commitment from the State to
adopt specific enforceable measures
within one year from the date of
approval. The TCEQ submitted a
commitment letter to EPA committing to
adopt and submit to EPA by March 1,
2009, a SIP revision addressing the
DERC restrictions for 2009 and
addressing the use of DERCs in
subsequent years. This letter, dated June
13, 2008, is in the docket for this action.
If EPA issues a final conditional
approval of the SIP before March 1,
2009 and Texas subsequently fails to
adopt and submit the DERC SIP revision
as committed to in its letter, EPA will
issue a letter to the State converting the
conditional approval of the 1997 8-hour
ozone DFW attainment demonstration
SIP to a disapproval. Such disapproval
will start the 18-month clock for
sanctions in accordance with section
179(b) and 40 CFR 52.31 and the 2-year
clock for a Federal Implementation Plan
(FIP) under section 110(c). EPA would
publish in the Federal Register a notice
regarding the disapproval of the SIP and
the start of sanctions and FIP clocks for
the DFW area, and would revise the
provisions in the Code of Federal
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:45 Jul 11, 2008
Jkt 214001
Regulations (CFR) to reflect the
disapproval of the SIP.
The State anticipates the DERC and
contingency measure SIP revisions to be
proposed for public review and
comment in Summer 2008, and final
adoption of the revisions is expected
early in 2009 in order to meet the
commitment to submit the revisions to
EPA by March 1, 2009. If EPA finds that
the submitted DERC SIP rule is
approvable, we will propose approval of
the rule and could proceed with final
full approval of the attainment
demonstration. Final conditional
approval of the attainment
demonstration SIP would remain in
effect until EPA takes final action to
convert the conditional approval to a
full approval or disapproval of the
attainment demonstration. If EPA
cannot fully approve the revision
concerning the use of DERCs in the
DFW area, EPA will propose
disapproval of the submitted SIP rule
and the attainment demonstration SIP
for the DFW area. The 18-month clock
for sanctions and the 2-year clock for a
FIP start on the date of final
disapproval.
IV. Background
A. What Are the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards?
Section 109 of the Act requires EPA
to establish National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS or
standards) for pollutants that ‘‘may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health and welfare,’’ and to
develop a primary and secondary
standard for each NAAQS. The primary
standard is designed to protect human
health with an adequate margin of
safety, and the secondary standard is
designed to protect public welfare and
the environment. EPA has set NAAQS
for six common air pollutants, referred
to as criteria pollutants: carbon
monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide,
ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur
dioxide. These standards present State
and local governments with the
minimum air quality levels they must
meet to comply with the Act. Also,
these standards provide information to
residents of the United States about the
air quality in their communities.
B. What Is a SIP?
The SIP is a set of air pollution
regulations, control strategies, other
means or techniques, and technical
analyses developed by the State, to
ensure that the State meets the NAAQS.
The SIP is required by section 110 and
other provisions of the Act. These SIPs
can be extensive, containing State
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
regulations or other enforceable
documents and supporting information
such as emissions inventories,
monitoring networks, and modeling
demonstrations. Each State must submit
these regulations and control strategies
to EPA for approval and incorporation
into the federally-enforceable SIP. Each
Federally-approved SIP protects air
quality primarily by addressing air
pollution at its point of origin.
C. What Is Ozone and Why Do We
Regulate It?
Ozone is a gas composed of three
oxygen atoms. Ground-level ozone is
generally not emitted directly from a
vehicle’s exhaust or an industrial
smokestack, but is created by a chemical
reaction between NOX and VOCs in the
presence of sunlight and high ambient
temperatures. Thus, ozone is known
primarily as a summertime air pollutant.
NOX and VOCs are precursors of ozone.
Motor vehicle exhaust and industrial
emissions, gasoline vapors, chemical
solvents and natural sources emit NOX
and VOCs. Urban areas tend to have
high concentrations of ground-level
ozone, but areas without significant
industrial activity and with relatively
low vehicular traffic are also subject to
increased ozone levels because wind
carries ozone and its precursors
hundreds of miles from their sources.
Repeated exposure to ozone pollution
may cause lung damage. Even at very
low concentrations, ground-level ozone
triggers a variety of health problems
including aggravated asthma, reduced
lung capacity, and increased
susceptibility to respiratory illnesses
like pneumonia and bronchitis. It can
also have detrimental effects on plants
and ecosystems.
D. Background of the Texas SIP for the
DFW Area
The original Texas SIP was submitted
to EPA by the Texas Air Control Board
(renamed twice and known today as the
TCEQ), on January 31, 1972. On May 31,
1972, EPA conditionally approved the
SIPs for all States in Volume 37 of the
Federal Register beginning on page
10842 (denoted 37 FR 10842). The
Texas SIP was conditionally approved
(37 FR 10842, 10895) and the status of
the Texas SIP was codified in Title 40,
Part 52 of the U.S. Code of Federal
Regulations (denoted 40 CFR 52),
Subpart SS, sections 52.2270 to 52.2280.
Since 1972, many revisions for the DFW
area have been submitted by the State
and approved by EPA. These include
numerous control measures
implemented under the 1-hour ozone
standard to reduce NOX and VOC
emissions from area, point and mobile
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
sources; the Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress
(ROP) Plan; and the 15% ROP Plan. As
a result of the implementation of these
measures, the area’s 1-hour ozone
values have declined significantly in the
past several years; the 2004–2006 1-hour
design value for the DFW area is 124
parts per billion (ppb) and the
preliminary 1 1-hour design value for
2005–2007 is also 124 ppb, which meets
the 1-hour standard, although this
standard was revoked in 2005.
E. Background of This SIP Revision To
Address the 1997 Ozone NAAQS
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a
revised 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08
parts per million (ppm), which is more
protective than the previous 1-hour
ozone standard (62 FR 38855).2 Under
EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50,
Appendix I, the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard is attained when the 3-year
average of the annual fourth highest
daily maximum 8-hour average ambient
ozone concentrations is less than or
equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when
rounding is considered). For ease of
communication, many reports of ozone
concentrations are given in parts per
billion (ppb); ppb = ppm × 1,000. Thus,
0.084 ppm becomes 84 ppb.
The EPA published the 1997 8-hour
ozone designations and classifications
on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858). The
DFW area was designated
nonattainment, classified as moderate,
and includes nine counties: Collin,
Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant counties
(these constitute the former 1-hour
ozone NAA, hereafter referred to as the
core counties), and Ellis, Johnson,
Kaufman, Parker and Rockwall counties.
The effective date of designation for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS was June 15,
2004. The attainment demonstration for
the DFW area was due by June 15, 2007
and was submitted on time. The
attainment date for the DFW area is June
15, 2010.
EPA also published the first rule
governing implementation of the 8-hour
ozone standard (Phase 1 Rule) on April
30, 2004 (69 FR 23951). The Phase 1
Rule addresses classifications for the 8hour NAAQS; revocation for the 1-hour
NAAQS; how anti-backsliding
principles will ensure continued
progress toward attainment of the 8hour NAAQS; attainment dates; and the
1 The value is considered preliminary because
TCEQ has not certified that it has completed the
quality assurance and quality control checks. We
expect the data certification by by July 1, 2008.
2 EPA issued a revised 8-hour ozone standard on
March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436). The designation and
implementation process for that standard is just
starting and does not affect EPA’s action here.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:45 Jul 11, 2008
Jkt 214001
timing of emissions reductions needed
for attainment.
On December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit vacated EPA’s Phase 1 Rule in
South Coast Air Quality Management
Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir.
2006). On June 8, 2007, in response to
several petitions for rehearing, the court
modified the scope of vacatur of the
Phase 1 Rule. See 489 F.3d 1245 (D.C.
Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S.Ct. 1065
(2008). The court vacated those portions
of the Phase 1 Rule that provide for
regulation of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in some nonattainment areas
under Subpart 1 in lieu of Subpart 2 and
that allowed areas to revise their SIPs to
no longer require certain programs as
they applied for purposes of the 1-hour
NAAQS; new source review, section 185
penalties, and contingency plans for
failure to meet RFP and attainment
milestones. The decision does not affect
the requirements for areas classified
under subpart 2, such as the DFW area,
to submit an attainment demonstration
plan for 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and
to attain the NAAQS no later than the
outside date for attainment required for
the area’s classification.
EPA published a second rule
governing implementation of the 8-hour
ozone standard (Phase 2 Rule) on
November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612), as
revised on June 8, 2007 (72 FR 31727).
The Phase 2 Rule addresses, among
other things, the following control and
planning obligations as they apply to
areas designated nonattainment for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS: RACT,
RACM, photochemical modeling, and
attainment demonstrations. EPA issued
the Phase 2 Rule so States and Tribes
would know how these statutory control
and planning obligations apply and
when SIP revisions are due for these
obligations so that the States could
develop timely submissions consistent
with the statutory obligations and attain
the NAAQS as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than the
attainment dates specified for each
area’s classification. Litigation on the
Phase 2 Rule is pending before the D.C.
Circuit Court of Appeals.
On May 23, 2007, the TCEQ approved
revisions to the SIP for the DFW 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area. The SIP
revisions were submitted to EPA on
May 30, 2007 and supplemented on
April 23, 2008. Today we are addressing
the 1997 8-hour ozone attainment
demonstration SIP for the DFW area and
a RACT finding for both the 1-hour and
1997 8-hour ozone standards.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40207
F. What Is an Attainment
Demonstration?
In general, an ozone attainment
demonstration includes a
photochemical modeling analysis and
other evidence (referred to as ‘‘weight of
evidence’’) showing how an area will
achieve the standard as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than the
attainment date specified for its
classification. For purposes of the 8hour ozone standard, a determination of
attainment (or failure to attain) is based
on the most recent three complete years
of data prior to the area’s attainment
date. Thus, since the DFW moderate
area has a maximum attainment date of
June 15, 2010, the most recent three
years of data for determining attainment
in the DFW area will be from the three
preceding calendar years, i.e., the air
quality monitoring data from 2007, 2008
and 2009. Alternatively, an area may
qualify for up to two one-year
extensions. The first extension can be
granted if the area’s 4th highest daily 8hour average is 0.084 ppm or less. The
second can be granted if the 4th highest
value averaged over the attainment year
and the extension year is 0.084 ppm or
less (40 CFR 51.907).
To demonstrate attainment, an area
must predict that emissions during the
ozone season preceding the attainment
date will meet the standard. EPA
requires areas to implement all the
measures necessary to demonstrate
attainment as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than the start of
the final complete ozone season
preceding the area’s attainment date (40
CFR 51.908). The DFW area’s ozone
season runs from March 1st through
October 31st (62 FR 30270, June 3, 1997
and 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D);
therefore, all of the control strategies
relied upon in the attainment
demonstration must be implemented by
March 1, 2009.
In addition to the approvable
modeling and weight of evidence
components of an attainment
demonstration SIP, for the attainment
demonstration SIP to be approvable, it
must contain the following elements
which must also be approved:
attainment MVEBs for transportation
conformity purposes; the measures
relied on as necessary to demonstrate
attainment; RACM; an RFP plan and the
RFP/failure-to-attain contingency
measures requirements for the area. (See
Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 163
(D.C. Cir. 2002).
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
40208
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
V. Evaluation of the DFW 1997 8-Hour
Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP
Below, we discuss the statutory and
regulatory requirements that prescribe
our review of the State’s attainment
demonstration, the elements in the
State’s submittal, and our evaluation of
those elements comprising the
attainment demonstration SIP. Separate
from our review of the State’s
attainment demonstration SIP is our
review of the State’s VOC RACT
demonstration, and we discuss the VOC
RACT statutory and regulatory
requirements in section VI.
A. Legal Requirements for Approval
The Act requires SIPs for
nonattainment areas to demonstrate that
the area will attain the 8-hour ozone
standard as expeditiously as practicable,
but no later than outside dates
established by the Act. The Phase 2 Rule
provides timing and guidance for this
requirement for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard and identifies the modeling
guidance available to make the
demonstration. Moderate 1997 8-hour
ozone nonattainment areas must attain
the standard no later than June 15, 2010.
An attainment demonstration SIP must
include technical analyses to locate and
identify sources of emissions that are
causing violations of the NAAQS within
nonattainment areas; adopted measures
with schedules for implementation and
other means and techniques necessary
and appropriate for attainment; and
contingency measures required under
section 172(c)(9) of the Act that can be
implemented without further action by
the State or the Administrator to cover
failures to meet RFP milestones and/or
attainment. The attainment
demonstration SIP must include a
demonstration that the area is meeting
RACM. An attainment demonstration
SIP must also identify MVEBs for
transportation conformity purposes.
EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 51.908(c)
specifically require that areas classified
as moderate and above submit a
modeled attainment demonstration
based on a photochemical grid modeling
evaluation or any other analytical
method determined by the
Administrator to be at least as effective
as photochemical modeling. Section
51.908(c) also requires each attainment
demonstration to be consistent with the
provisions of section 51.112, including
Appendix W to 40 CFR part 51 (i.e.,
‘‘EPA’s Guideline on Air Quality
Models,’’ 68 FR 18440, April 15, 2003).
See also EPA’s ‘‘Guidance on the Use of
Models and Other Analyses in
Attainment Demonstrations for the 8hour Ozone NAAQS,’’ October 2005 and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:45 Jul 11, 2008
Jkt 214001
‘‘Guidance on the Use of Models and
Other Analyses for Air Quality Goals in
Attainment Demonstrations for Ozone,
PM2.5, and Regional Haze,’’ April 2007
(hereafter referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 2005
and 2007 A.D. guidance documents’’),
which describe criteria that an air
quality model and its application
should meet to qualify for use in an 8hour ozone attainment demonstration.
For the detailed review of modeling and
the Weight of Evidence (WOE) analyses
and EPA’s conclusions on the DFW 8hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration
see the ‘‘Modeling and Other Analyses
Attainment Demonstration’’ (MOAAD)
Technical Support Document (TSD).
The MOAAD TSD also includes a
complete list of applicable modeling
guidance documents. These guidance
documents provide the overall
framework for the components of the
attainment demonstration, how the
modeling and other analyses should be
conducted, and overall guidance on the
technical analyses for attainment
demonstrations.
As with any predictive tool, there are
inherent uncertainties associated with
photochemical modeling. EPA’s
guidance recognizes these limitations
and provides approaches for
considering other analytical evidence to
help assess whether attainment of the
NAAQS is likely. This process is called
a WOE determination. EPA’s modeling
guidance (updated in 1996, 1999, and
2002) discusses various WOE
approaches. EPA’s modeling guidance
has been further updated in 2005 and
2007 for the 1997 8-hour attainment
demonstration procedures to include a
WOE analysis as an integral part of any
attainment demonstration. This
guidance strongly recommends that all
attainment demonstrations include
supplemental analyses beyond the
recommended modeling. These
supplemental analyses would provide
additional information such as data
analyses, and emissions and air quality
trends, which would help strengthen
the overall conclusion from the
photochemical modeling. A WOE
analysis is specifically recommended to
be included as part of any attainment
demonstration SIP where the modeling
results predict Future Design Values
(FDVs) ranging from 82 to less than 88
ppb (EPA’s 2005 and 2007 A.D.
guidance documents). EPA’s
interpretation of the Act to allow a WOE
analysis has been upheld. See 1000
Friends of Maryland v. Browner, 265
F.3d 216 (4th Cir. 2001) and BCCA
Appeal Group v. EPA, 355 F.3d 817 (5th
Cir. 2003).
Since much of TCEQ’s initial work
was conducted prior to the 2005
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
guidance document, the earlier draft
1999 modeling guidance document
(EPA–454/R–99–004, May 1999;
‘‘DRAFT Guidance on the Use of Models
and Other Analyses in Attainment
Demonstrations for the 8-Hour Ozone
NAAQS’’) was also used by TCEQ and
EPA prior to the October 2005 guidance
issuance. There are two main changes
compared to EPA’s modeling attainment
demonstration guidance issued in 1991.
First, EPA recommends a modeled
attainment test in which model
predictions are used in a relative rather
than absolute sense. Second, the role of
the WOE determination, when used, has
been expanded. That is, where the use
of WOE was previously considered
optional, it is now strongly
recommended as an integral part of an
attainment demonstration in addition to
the modeled attainment test.
TCEQ submitted the DFW attainment
demonstration SIP with photochemical
modeling and WOE analyses. The
results of the photochemical modeling
and WOE analyses are discussed below
in Subsection B. The projected growth
rates and emissions reductions (or
increases) for the control measures and
other means relied upon in the
modeling are discussed in Subsection C.
B. Eight-Hour Attainment
Demonstration Modeling and Weight of
Evidence
a. What Were the Results of the
Photochemical Modeling Attainment
Demonstration?
i. What Is a Photochemical Grid Model?
Photochemical grid models are the
state-of-the-art method for predicting
the effectiveness of control strategies in
reducing ozone levels. The models use
a three-dimensional grid to represent
conditions in the area of interest. TCEQ
chose to use the Comprehensive Air
Model with Extensions (CAMx), Version
4.31 photochemical model for this
attainment demonstration SIP. The
model is based on well-established
treatments of advection, diffusion,
deposition, and chemistry. Another
important feature is that NOX emissions
from large point sources can be treated
with the plume-in-grid sub-model that
helps avoid the artificial diffusion that
occurs when point source emissions are
inserted into a grid volume. The use of
the newer version improves the plume
dispersion algorithms and adds full
NOX and VOC chemistry in the plumes.
TCEQ has used the CAMx model in
other SIPs and EPA has approved many
SIPs using CAMx based modeling
analyses. Part 51 Appendix W indicates
that photochemical grid models should
be used for ozone SIPs and lists a
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
number of factors to be considered in
selecting a photochemical grid model to
utilize. EPA has reviewed TCEQ reasons
for selecting CAMx and EPA agrees with
the choice by TCEQ to utilize CAMx for
this SIP.
In this case, TCEQ has developed a
grid system that consists of three nested
grids. The outer grid stretches from west
of Austin to Maine and parts of the
Atlantic Ocean to the east, and from
parts of southern Canada in the north to
the southern tip of Texas and the Gulf
of Mexico on the southern edge. The
model uses nested grid cells of 36 km
on the outer portions, 12 km in east
Texas and portions of nearby States and
a 4-km grid cell covering the DFW
Nonattainment Area. For more
information on the modeling domain,
see the MOAAD TSD. The model
simulates the movement of air and
emissions into and out of the threedimensional grid cells (advection and
dispersion); mixes pollutants upward
and downward among layers; injects
new emissions from sources such as
point, area, mobile (both on-road and
nonroad), and biogenic into each cell;
and uses chemical reaction equations to
calculate ozone concentrations based on
the concentration of ozone precursors
and incoming solar radiation within
each cell. Air quality planners choose
historical time period(s) (episode(s)) of
high ozone levels to apply the model.
Running the model requires large
amounts of data inputs regarding the
emissions and meteorological
conditions during an episode.
Modeling to duplicate conditions
during an historical time period is
referred to as the base case modeling
and is used to verify that the model
system can predict historical ozone
levels with an acceptable degree of
accuracy. It requires the development of
a base case inventory, which represents
the emissions during the time period for
the meteorology that is being modeled.
These emissions are used for model
performance evaluations. Texas
modeled a 1999 episode, so the base
case emissions and meteorology are for
1999. If the model can adequately
replicate the ozone levels in the base
case and responds adequately to
diagnostic tests, it can then be used to
project the response of future ozone
levels to proposed emission control
strategies.
ii. What Episode Did Texas Choose To
Model?
Texas chose an historical episode,
August 13–22, 1999, that had been
previously used in modeling for the
Early Action Compact modeling of the
Northeast Texas Area. The episode
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:45 Jul 11, 2008
Jkt 214001
encompasses ten days with 8-hour
ozone exceedances every day, except for
the first day which is one of the two
spin-up days. The first two days are
considered spin-up days that are usually
not used in the modeling analysis
because it ordinarily takes 1–2 days to
work out the initial condition biases. Of
the eight days (ten days minus the two
spin-up days) that have exceedances, all
but one day have multiple monitors
with exceedances (2–7 of the nine
monitors). On average, the eight
exceedance days have four monitors
exceeding the standard each day. This
episode contains a variety of
meteorological conditions which
resulted in high concentrations of ozone
in the area as measured on both a 1-hour
and 8-hour basis, and many of the days
had conditions similar to the
predominant types of meteorological
conditions that yield high ozone in the
DFW NAA.
We evaluated Texas’ episode selection
for consistency with our modeling
guidance (1991, Draft 1999, 2005, and
2007 versions). Among items that we
considered were the ozone levels during
the selected period compared to the
Design Value 3 (DV) at the time; how did
the meteorological conditions during
the proposed episode match with the
conceptual model of ozone exceedances
that drive the area’s DV; were enough
days modeled; and was the time period
selected robust enough to represent the
area’s problem for evaluating future
control strategies. EPA’s guidance
indicates that all of these items should
be considered when evaluating available
episodes and selecting episodes to be
modeled. EPA believes that the episode
from August 13–22, 1999, is an
acceptable episode for development of
the 8-hour ozone attainment plan. It has
a number of meteorological conditions
that match the conditions that yield
high ozone in the conceptual model for
the DFW NAA, and was among the
episode periods evaluated with the
highest number of ozone exceedances.
In selecting episodes, it is advantageous
to select episodes with several
exceedance days and with multiple
monitors exceeding the standard each
day when possible. This episode was
among the best episodes for the periods
evaluated when the selection was being
conducted initially, and also had the
benefit that significant work was being
conducted for this period for the Early
Action Compact for the Tyler/
Longview/Marshall area of Northeast
3 The design value is the 3-year average of the
annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour
average ozone concentration (40 CFR 50, Appendix
D.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40209
Texas. See the MOAAD TSD for further
discussion and analysis.
iii. How Well Did the Model Perform?
Model performance is a term used to
describe how well the model predicts
the meteorological and ozone levels in
an historical episode. EPA has
developed various diagnostic, statistical
and graphical analyses that TCEQ has
performed to evaluate the model’s
performance to determine if the model
is working adequately to test control
strategies. TCEQ has done many
analyses of both interim model runs and
the final base case model run and
deemed the model’s performance
adequate for control strategy
development. As described below, we
agree with their assessment.
From 2003 to 2005, several iterations
of the modeling were preformed
incorporating various improvements to
the meteorological modeling, the 1999
base case emissions inventory, and
other model parameters. These
iterations totaled over 40 combinations
as TCEQ worked to refine the modeling.
EPA reviewed these interim modeling
steps and provided comments and
suggestions. When TCEQ felt the model
performance was acceptable, EPA
(Region 6 and the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards) and TCEQ had
a detailed meeting on February 1, 2005
to cover all aspects of the episode
selected and model performance
(meteorological, emissions, and
photochemical). TCEQ shared a
compact disc with detailed statistical
and graphical analysis of the different
modeling (meteorology and
photochemical). This data included
analysis of meteorological outputs
compared to benchmark statistical
parameters that TCEQ previously
developed as target values that are being
used in many areas of the country.
TCEQ also shared graphical analyses of
the meteorology. TCEQ also shared
extensive analyses of the photochemical
modeling for several base case modeling
runs that included: diagnostic tests with
reductions/increases of precursor
emissions, time series of 1-hour and 8hour ozone, EPA 1-hour statistics, EPA
8-hour statistics, ozone spatial plots,
quantile-quantile plots, ozone precursor data, and ozone animations.
After extensive review, EPA was
satisfied that the meteorological
modeling was meeting most of the
statistical benchmarks, and was
transporting air masses in the
appropriate locations for most of the
days of the episode. EPA also conducted
a thorough review of the model’s
performance in predicting ozone and
ozone pre-cursors and found that
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
40210
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
performance was within the
recommended 1-hour ozone statistics
for almost all days and all statistics. We
also evaluated the 8-hour statistics,
results of diagnostic and sensitivity
tests, and multiple graphical analyses
and determined that overall the ozone
performance was acceptable for Texas to
move forward with future year modeling
and development of an attainment
demonstration. EPA’s acceptance of the
modeling is documented in a June 6,
2005 letter.
Subsequently, TCEQ made further
minor refinements to the modeling
which are discussed in the MOAAD
TSD. EPA agrees that after these minor
refinements, the overall model
performance remains acceptable. The
final base case modeling evaluation,
Run 46 using CAMx 4.31, further
reduced negative bias and reduced the
total errors in the modeling system. EPA
agrees that the overall model
performance (Run 46) is adequate, but
notes that even with the refinements,
the modeling still tends to have some
bias on the higher ozone days. This bias
may make future year assessments
conservative, i.e., the amount of ozone
reduction predicted is likely less than
will actually occur, if the modeling is
not fully replicating local ozone
generation. See the MOAAD TSD for
further analysis.
iv. Once the Base Case Is Determined To
Be Acceptable, How Do You Use the
Modeling for the Attainment
Demonstration?
Once the base case modeling is
determined to be consistent with EPA’s
guidance and acceptable for replicating
the ozone levels observed in the 1999
episode period, the modeling can be
used as the basis for developing the
future year modeling. TCEQ then
evaluated the base case emission
inventory, and made some minor
adjustments to the inventory to account
for things that would not be expected to
occur again or that were not normal
(example: inclusion of EGUs that were
not operating due to temporary
shutdown during the base case period
but were expected to be operating in
2009). This emission inventory is called
the 1999 baseline emission inventory.
The photochemical model is then
executed again to obtain a 1999 baseline
model projection.
EPA’s guidance recommends using
2002 as the baseline inventory year, but
there are several possible methodologies
available to calculate baseline design
values. For example, if a state models
episodes from other years it can project
(or back-cast) to 2002 to provide a
starting point for future year projections.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:45 Jul 11, 2008
Jkt 214001
Alternatively, a state may use a baseline
year earlier than 2002 for the following
reasons: (1) Availability of air quality
and meteorological data from an
intensive field study, (2) the desire to
use meteorological data that may be
‘‘more representative’’ of typical ozone
conditions compared to the baseline
design value period, and (3) availability
of a past modeling analysis in which the
model performed well. Texas chose
1999 as the baseline year. There was
extensive air quality and meteorological
modeling available for the 1999 episode
from Early Action Compact Modeling in
Northeast Texas; 1999’s meteorology
represented typical ozone conditions.
Therefore, EPA and TCEQ weighed the
pros and cons and concurred, based
upon the above-noted reasons, that it
was not necessary to attempt to project
to a 2002 baseline emission inventory in
this specific case.
The baseline emission inventory is
also used as the basis, along with other
data, to project and estimate the future
case emission inventory along with
consideration of any state and Federal
regulations that result in emission
changes from the 1999 period. Since
DFW is classified as a moderate NAA,
the attainment deadline is as
expeditiously as practicable but no later
than June 15, 2010. Any emissions
reductions must be implemented no
later than the beginning of the previous
ozone season; in this case, March 1,
2009, which is the beginning of the final
full ozone season preceding the
attainment date, if the reductions are to
support attainment. The meteorological
modeling that has been reviewed and
determined to be acceptable for the base
case is also used for the meteorological
conditions in the future year modeling
(no changes are made). The future case
modeling uses the base case
meteorology and estimated 2009
emissions to assess the impact of
economic growth in the region and State
and Federal control measures that will
become effective during the modeling
period from 1999 to March 1, 2009.
After the State develops a 2009 future
baseline emission inventory,
photochemical modeling is conducted
to get the 2009 baseline ozone levels.
The State then begins conducting
modeling sensitivities and modeling
assessments of potential additional
emission reductions to aid in the
planning of a control strategy that will
demonstrate attainment.
The 8-hour ozone modeling guidance
changed the attainment test to use the
modeling analysis in a relative sense
instead of an absolute sense as was done
in 1-hour ozone demonstrations. To
predict ozone levels in the future, we
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
estimate a value that we refer to as the
FDV. First, we need to calculate a Base
Design Value (BDV). The BDV is
calculated for each monitor that was
operating in the base period by
averaging the three DVs that include the
base year (1999); that would be the DV
for 1997–1999, 1998–2000, and 1999–
2001 to result in a center-weighted BDV.
To estimate the FDV, a value is also
calculated for each monitor that is
called the Relative Response Factor
(RRF) using the baseline and future
modeling. The RRF value is calculated
by taking the ratio of the sum of the
daily highest 8-hour ozone value
predicted around a monitor in 2009 and
dividing by the sum of the daily highest
8-hour ozone value predicted around
the same monitor in the 1999 baseline
analysis. ‘‘Around the monitor’’ for
DFW modeling (4km grid) is defined as
the 7×7 array of grid cells surrounding
the monitor (with the monitor in the
middle). EPA’s guidance indicates that
only days that had a baseline value
above a threshold concentration (TCEQ
used 70 ppb, which is the minimum
value indicated by EPA guidance)
should be used in the RRF calculations.
For each monitor, EPA recommends
adding up all the daily maximum 8hour ozone values (for days that the
maximum 8-hour ozone value in the
baseline were above the threshold in the
area around the monitor) and dividing
that sum by the sum of the daily
maximum 8-hour ozone values
predicted in 2009 around the monitor.
This calculation yields the RRF for that
monitor. The RRF is then multiplied by
the Base Design Value (BDV) for that
monitor to yield the FDV for that
monitor. This step is conducted for each
monitor. The modeled values for each
monitor may be calculated to the
hundredths of a ppb which is rounded
to get to tenths of a ppb, which is then
truncated to an integer (in ppb) at the
end of the process (as recommended by
EPA’s guidance). The truncated values
are included in the tables in this notice
(Example: Modeled value of 84.94 is
rounded to 84.9 and then truncated to
84; Example 2: Modeled value of 84.95
is rounded to 85.0 and then truncated to
85).
v. What Modeling Approaches Were
Used for This Attainment
Demonstration?
TCEQ submitted photochemical
modeling labeled Combo 10 in its
attainment demonstration SIP. Combo
10 contains the control measures
outlined in Section D, including
additional control measures with
compliance deadlines of March 1, 2010.
The 2010 compliance dates apply to
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
40211
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
certain rich-burn natural gas fired
engines for oil and gas compressors in
33 Texas counties, all of which are
outside the DFW NNA. Despite the fact
that the controls noted above are not
required to be implemented until 2010,
Combo 10 assumes that all control
measures will be in effect by the
beginning of the 2009 ozone season.
TCEQ assumed that early compliance
would occur as a result of incentive
grants for early compliance provided by
the State Legislature. Texas SB2000
provides an appropriation of $4 million
to compensate operators of the regulated
oil and gas compressors who comply
with new emission reduction standards
early. There is also a large population of
emission units in this category and it is
also likely that a percentage of these
will be controlled before the 2009 ozone
season, or before the beginning of the
core part of the ozone season. Due to the
large number of emission units in this
category and the incentive for early
compliance, TCEQ believes these units
will provide significant reductions by
2009.
A small portion of the point source
NOX Controls in the DFW NAA, that
yield about 2.4 tpd of NOX reductions,
also have 2010 compliance dates. TCEQ
did not attempt to assess the potential
impact of not having these additional
point source reductions in place by the
beginning of the 2009 ozone season. The
2.4 tpd of NOX reductions from these
sources is less than 10% of the NOX
emission reductions adopted for the
DFW NAA. EPA also notes that some of
these 2.4 tpd NOX reductions are in the
western part of the DFW NAA and
would not directly affect the modeled
impact at the monitors with the highest
modeled FDVs (Frisco and Denton
monitors) for this episode, but would be
expected to help reduce ozone impacts
at other monitors in Parker and Tarrant
counties that have been added to the
DFW area monitoring network since
1999.
For a more complete description of
the modeling procedures conclusions
and EPA’s evaluation of these
procedures and conclusions, see the
MOAAD TSD in the Docket for this
action (EPA–RO6–OAR–2007–0524).
vi. What Did the Results of TCEQ’s
Combo 10 Modeling Show?
The results of modeling the final
control strategy runs are shown in Table
1. As previously discussed, the State
submitted modeling (Combo 10) that
took into account all the reductions
from adopted regulations, including
those with 2010 compliance dates.
TCEQ has proposed an alternative RRF
calculation method that calculated a
daily RRF for each monitor and then
averaged the values to yield the RRF
that was multiplied by the BDV to yield
the FDV. In the following Table 1, we
evaluate the model FDV calculations
using both EPA’s guidance method for
RRF calculation and the alternate RRF
calculation approach that TCEQ had
developed. Details on the two methods
are included in the TSD. For most
monitors, the alternate FDV calculations
make only minor differences. We have
calculated the FDVs in the following
tables using the final truncated numbers
in accordance with EPA guidance. Since
the TCEQ RRF calculation method did
not make significant differences in the
FDVs and with the truncation to whole
numbers, we have used the TCEQ RRFs
for the final assessment with
consideration of the FDVs using EPA’s
RRF method. The results of EPA’s RRF
method are contained in the MOAAD
TSD. Table 1 includes the modeling
projections prior to evaluating any other
modeling runs, any additional model
based projections, and any WOE
considerations for the Combo 10
modeling run. Table 1 also includes the
results from the two methodologies to
calculate the FDVs.
TABLE 1.—JUNE 15, 2007 SIP CONTROL STRATEGY MODELING PROJECTIONS FOR 2009
FDV 1999
Combo 10
BDV
1999
Monitor
EPA
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Frisco .........................................................................................................................................
Dallas Hinton C60 ......................................................................................................................
Dallas North C63 .......................................................................................................................
Dallas Exec C402 ......................................................................................................................
Denton .......................................................................................................................................
Midlothian ...................................................................................................................................
Arlington .....................................................................................................................................
Ft Worth C13 .............................................................................................................................
Ft Worth C17 .............................................................................................................................
The first column is the Base DV for
the 1999 period that is used with the
modeling RRFs for calculating the FDVs.
For Combo 10, the analysis shows that
5 of the 9 monitors are projected to be
in attainment (at or below 84 ppb); two
monitors (Ft. Worth C13 and Dallas
Hinton C60) are projected to be very
near attainment with 85 ppb; and
projections for the other two monitors
are 88 ppb for Denton and 88/89 ppb for
the Frisco monitor. As shown in Table
1, the FDVs are on the order of 8–12 ppb
less than the Base DVs, which is a large
reduction in ozone levels due to existing
State and Federal measures and the
newly adopted measures.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:45 Jul 11, 2008
Jkt 214001
For a more complete description of
the modeling procedures conclusions
and EPA’s evaluation of these
procedures and conclusions, see the
MOAAD TSD in the Docket for this
action (EPA–RO6–OAR–2007–0524).
In addition to the modeling results,
TCEQ has presented other evidence to
demonstrate that attainment will be
reached. These additional WOE
analyses are evaluated in Section 2
below. Since TCEQ’s May 30, 2007
submittal, TCEQ has also provided
additional information dated April 23,
2008 that supplements the modeling
analysis (discussed in part h below) and
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
100.3
92
93
88
101.5
92.5
90.5
98.3
96
TCEQ
89
85
84
78
88
83
80
85
84
88
85
84
78
88
83
80
85
84
also the WOE (also discussed in section
2 below).
vii. Evaluation of Other Modeling
Projections Without Benefit of Measures
With a 2010 Compliance Date
Due to our concerns that not all
control measures relied on in the Combo
10 analysis are required to be
implemented prior to the 2009 ozone
season, we also reviewed an alternative
photochemical modeling analysis. The
additional modeling, which we refer to
as Photochemical Dispersion Modeling
Reanalysis 2009 (PDMR 2009), evaluates
the ozone levels in 2009 based on the
TCEQ control measures with
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
40212
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
compliance dates of March 1, 2009 or
earlier and does not consider the impact
from the adopted rules that have
compliance dates after March 1, 2009.
The adopted SIP included 2.4 tpd of
NOX emission reductions in the DFW
NAA with a 2010 compliance date,
while the adopted reductions within the
DFW NAA with a 2009 compliance date
of March 1, 2009 or earlier yield 23.48
tpd of NOX reductions. The adopted SIP
also included 22.4 tpd of NOX
reductions outside the DFW NAA due to
the control of rich-burn compressor
engines with a compliance date after
March 1, 2009. Since these emission
reductions occur outside the DFW NAA,
they would not be expected to yield the
same amount of ozone benefit as similar
reductions in the DFW NAA would
yield. The PDMR 2009 modeling helps
to assess the potential impacts of these
2010 compliance rules.
This evaluation of PDMR 2009 sets
the lower bound of model predictions
for the FDV in 2009 and the Combo 10
run sets the upper bound. This
approach is consistent with attempting
to consider the bounds of potential
benefit from the adopted measures
included in the SIP.
Table 2 includes the modeling
projections for both the Combo 10 and
PDMR 2009 modeling runs.
TABLE 2.—JUNE 15, 2007 SIP CONTROL STRATEGY MODELING PROJECTIONS FOR 2009
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Frisco .........................................................................................................................................
Dallas Hinton C60 ......................................................................................................................
Dallas North C63 .......................................................................................................................
Dallas Exec C402 ......................................................................................................................
Denton .......................................................................................................................................
Midlothian ...................................................................................................................................
Arlington .....................................................................................................................................
Ft Worth C13 .............................................................................................................................
Ft Worth C17 .............................................................................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:45 Jul 11, 2008
Jkt 214001
of a ppb of ozone. For more details see
the MOAAD TSD for this notice.
viii. Refinements and Adjustments to
Future Year (2009) Emission Inventory
and Modeling-Based Projected Changes
to the SIP Modeling FDVs
Texas provided supplemental
information to EPA on April 23, 2008
that expands and confirms information
in the May 30, 2007 SIP submittal. See
TCEQ’s April 23, 2008 letter in the
docket. The letter addresses the issues
discussed below related to the airport
emission inventory, DERCs and back-up
generators, demonstrating that the
projected emissions in these categories
will be lower in 2009 than the
projections in the May 30, 2007 SIP
submittal. To support the adjustment to
the DERC projections, Texas also
provided a commitment letter on June
13, 2008 to adopt a SIP revision to limit
the use of DERCs that is evaluated
below and in section V–D of this notice.
This commitment was made by TCEQ in
order to strengthen the attainment
demonstration.
Regarding airport emissions, TCEQ
provided a report performed by Eastern
Research Group for Love Field, a Dallas
inner city airport, which indicated that
emission projections based on more
recent data are much lower in 2009 than
emission projections relied on in the
Combo 10 and PDMR 2009 modeling.
The emissions are lower primarily due
to changes in market demand post—
9/11/2001 and the accelerated
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
100.3
92
93
88
101.5
92.5
90.5
98.3
96
FDV
PDMR 2009
TCEQ RRF
For PDMR 2009, the analysis shows
that 3 of the 9 monitors are projected to
be in attainment (at or below 84 ppb);
four monitors (Ft. Worth C13, Ft. Worth
C17, Dallas North C63, and Dallas
Hinton C60) are projected to be very
near attainment with 85 ppb; and
projections for the other two monitors
are 88 ppb for the Denton and Frisco
monitors. This analysis indicates a
slightly worse air quality picture than
the results from the Combo 10 analysis.
The FDVs for several monitors were
higher, but the actual difference is only
a few tenths of a ppb at most monitors
of concern. The largest difference
between the PDMR 2009 modeling and
the Combo 10 modeling was an increase
of 0.3 ppb at the Frisco monitor.
As previously discussed, reductions
from rules with a March 2010
compliance date are included in the
Combo 10 run. Due to the incentives for
early compliance and consideration that
some sources will likely be controlled
early, we conclude some of the
reductions from rules with a March
2010 compliance date will likely be
completed early. Therefore, we have
evaluated the modeling outputs based
on an approach that looks at both the
PDMR 2009 outputs, which predicts
ozone levels that are slightly worse than
what actually will occur and Combo 10
outputs which may be somewhat
optimistic. For most monitors, the
difference between the PDMR 2009 and
Combo 10 outputs is only a few tenths
FDV
Combo 10
BDV
1999
Monitor
TCEQ RRF
88
85
84
78
88
83
80
85
84
88
85
85
79
88
84
81
85
85
replacement of engines which occurred
in order to reduce fuel usage because of
the drastic increase in fuel costs over
the last few years. Projections at Love
Field were also impacted by changes in
the Wright Amendment Restrictions, a
Federal law restricting flights in and out
of the airport that imposed restrictions
on the number of gates that could be
operated (Pub. L. 109–352). TCEQ and
North Central Texas Council of
Governments (NCTCOG) have provided
EPA with updated information which
became available since the May 30, 2007
submittal which refines the 2009 future
year emission projections for Love Field
and also the DFW International Airport
(DFWIA). Both airports agree with their
revised projections. With the reduced
projections at DFWIA and Love Field,
total airport emissions for all airports in
the DFW NAA are reduced from 24.05
tpd (the amount that was included in
the attainment demonstration modeling
submitted May 30, 2007) to a lower
emission totals of 14.66 tpd (aircraft and
ground support equipment). In other
words, the new estimates result in a
9.39 tpd airport emission inventory
reduction from the May 30, 2007 SIP
modeling estimates for the two airports.
We have reviewed the updated
information and agree that 14.66 tpd
NOX (a decrease of 9.39 tpd from the
May 30, 2007 submittal values)
represents a more accurate estimate of
the projected emissions from the DFW
NAA airports.
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
40213
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Consistent with EPA’s guidance,
sections 12 and 16 of ‘‘Improving Air
Quality with Economic Incentive
Programs’’ (EPA–452/R–01–001, January
2001), TCEQ included in the 2009
modeled projections, all of the Emission
Reduction Credits (ERCs) and Discrete
Emission Reduction Credits (DERCs) in
the bank. EPA guidance calls for
emission credits that are being carried
in the emissions bank to be included in
modeled projections because these
emissions will come back in the air
when the credits are used. The TCEQ
Bank currently holds 20.4 tpd of DERCs.
Upon review of the DERC values
included in the modeling, TCEQ felt
that the inclusion of the entire balance
of the DERC bank was overly
conservative based on past usage of
DERCs. After discussions with EPA,
TCEQ committed to adopt and submit as
a SIP revision, additional regulations
prior to the 2009 ozone season that will
limit the usage of DERCs by facilities in
the DFW NAA. TCEQ plans to propose
a DERC usage limitation such that 17.2
tpd of the 20.4 tpd currently in the 2009
modeling, will not be allowed to be
used in 2009. The TCEQ submitted a
commitment to EPA to adopt and
submit to EPA as a SIP revision, an
enforceable mechanism by March 1,
2009 that would limit DERC usage to a
maximum daily usage of 3.2 tpd of NOX
DERCs effective March 1, 2009. Texas
also committed to adopt and submit as
a SIP revision, an enforceable
mechanism that would provide a review
procedure to ensure that future
allowable use of DERCs after January 1,
2010, would not interfere with
continued attainment of the 8-hour
NAAQS. We have concluded that an
enforceable mechanism, as described in
more detail elsewhere in this notice, can
provide the basis for revising the
quantity of DERCs that were modeled in
the May 30, 2007 SIP submittal.
In the May 30, 2007 SIP submittal,
TCEQ also included requirements on
the operation of back-up generators with
a March 1, 2009 compliance date that
had been estimated as potentially
generating 0.9 tpd of NOX reductions in
the DFW NAA. TCEQ quantified and
discussed these rules in the WOE
section of the SIP rather than including
the estimated emission reductions in
their modeling. The April 23, 2008
letter, includes an estimate of the
reduction of ozone that would occur
based on the 0.9 tpd of NOX reduction.
In its letter, TCEQ provided estimates
of the predicted impact on modeled
ozone that would occur due to the
changes in emission projections for
airports, DERCs and back-up generators.
TCEQ based these estimates on
sensitivity runs of the model, which
showed the model’s response to various
levels of ‘‘across-the-board’’ reductions
for various emissions categories. These
runs differ from more refined modeling
because emissions reductions are not
assigned to the particular grid cell
where they are expected to occur.
EPA considers the use of modeling
sensitivity runs, based on the
adjustments to the Combo 10 modeling
and similar sensitivity runs, to estimate
the revised modeling FDV projections to
be acceptable in these limited
circumstances. In this case, the EPA’s
modeling sensitivity runs using the
future control strategies modeling run,
indicate the modeling is reacting very
linearly over this limited range.
Therefore, estimating changes to ozone
levels due to limited emission changes
to the 2009 emissions inventory will
yield results similar to what would be
predicted if there were a new refined
future control strategies modeling run
using a 2009 emissions inventory
reflecting the revised emissions for the
airport, DERCs, and back-up generators.
Additionally, our analysis is that these
modeling sensitivity runs are similar in
spatial allocation to how these emission
changes for the airports, DERCs, and
back-up generators would be analyzed
in a new future control strategies model
run using a revised 2009 emissions
inventory. EPA therefore finds the use
of modeling sensitivities runs, based on
the adjustments to the Combo 10
modeling and similar sensitivity runs, is
acceptable in this fact-specific instance,
to estimate the revised modeling FDV
projections. Therefore, EPA considers
these adjustments to modeled ozone
levels to be refinements to the previous
modeling (submitted in the May 30,
2007, SIP) that would have been
included in TCEQ’s original submittal if
additional time would have been
available to incorporate the changes.
EPA has reviewed these three revisions
to the emissions inventories and TCEQ’s
projection of their impact on the future
ozone concentration levels and finds
that TCEQ provided a reasonable
assessment of projected ozone levels. In
fact we believe, particularly in the case
of the airport emissions adjustment, that
if these reductions had been modeled
specifically rather than spread across
the off road mobile emissions category,
there would have been greater ozone
reduction benefit because of the location
of these emissions when compared to
the location of the highest monitors. A
more detailed discussion of our analysis
is contained in the MOAAD TSD.
Relying on these modeling-based
estimates presumes that Texas will
adopt an enforceable measure that will
limit the use of DERCs to 3.2 tpd.
Table 3 lists the estimated level of
ozone when the adjustments to airport,
DERC and back-up generator emissions
are considered.
TABLE 3.—ADJUSTED MODELING PROJECTIONS.
FDV
combo 10
FDV
PDMR 2009
TCEQ RRF
TCEQ RRF
88.7
85.6
84.8
78.8
88.6
83.9
80.9
85.6
84.8
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Airport
emissions
Backup
generators
(17.2 tpd reduced)
(9.39 tpd reduced)
(0.9 tpd reduced)
DERC ppb
Airport ppb
B.G. ppb
89.0
85.8
85.1
79.0
88.8
84.1
81.0
85.7
85.0
Monitor
Frisco ...............................
Dallas Hinton ....................
Dallas North .....................
Dallas Exec ......................
Denton ..............................
Midlothian .........................
Arlington ...........................
Ft Worth C13 ...................
Ft Worth C17 ...................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
DERC emissions
14:45 Jul 11, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00020
¥0.39
¥0.36
¥0.36
¥0.47
¥0.32
¥0.66
¥0.67
¥0.57
¥0.37
Fmt 4702
¥0.32
¥0.26
¥0.28
¥0.19
¥0.43
¥0.09
¥0.24
¥0.34
¥0.43
Sfmt 4702
¥0.03
¥0.02
¥0.03
¥0.02
¥0.04
¥0.01
¥0.02
¥0.03
¥0.04
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
Total
reduction
FDV
adjusted
combo 10
FDV
adjusted
PDMR 2009
ppb
TCEQ RRF
TCEQ RRF
87
84
84
78
87
83
79
84
84
88
85
84
78
88
83
80
84
84
¥0.74
¥0.64
¥0.66
¥0.68
¥0.79
¥0.75
¥0.94
¥0.95
¥0.85
14JYP1
40214
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
With the addition of these new
reductions included in the April 23,
2008, letter, Combo 10 projects using
TCEQ’s RRF that 7 of 9 are in attainment
(at or below 84 ppb); and projections for
the other two monitors are 87 ppb for
the Denton and Frisco monitors. EPA
believes it is reasonable to consider the
above values as a sufficient
representation of outputs of refined
future year control strategy runs. Thus
EPA considers the modeling values
estimated in Table 3 to represent the
final attainment demonstration
modeling analysis.
ix. What Are EPA’s Conclusions of the
Modeling Demonstration?
Using the TCEQ’s RRF method and
Combo 10 run with the three
refinements, both the Frisco and Denton
monitors are at 87 ppb and the rest of
the monitors are projected to be
attaining the standard. EPA also
considered EPA’s RRF method and
determined that while the EPA method
gives slightly higher results in some
cases, it does not make a significant
difference. In addition, EPA concludes
that the modeling provided results that
are in the range (82 ppb to <88 ppb)
where it is recommended other WOE be
considered to determine if attainment
will be reached.
Although the modeled attainment test
is not met at all of the DFW monitors,
EPA recognizes that models are
approximations of complex phenomena.
The modeling analyses used to
demonstrate that various emission
reduction measures will help to bring
the DFW area into attainment of the
1997 8-hour ozone standard, contain
many elements that are uncertain (e.g.,
emission projections, meteorological
inputs, model response, simplified
chemistry, simplified temporal and
spatial allocation of emissions, etc.).
These uncertain aspects of the DFW
analyses can prevent definitive
assessments of future attainment status.
The confidence in the accuracy of the
quantitative results from a modeled
attainment test should be a function of
the degree to which the uncertainties in
the analysis were minimized. However,
while Eulerian air quality models
represent the best tools for integrating
emissions and meteorological
information with atmospheric chemistry
and no single additional analysis can
replace that, EPA believes that all
attainment demonstrations are
strengthened by additional analyses that
help confirm whether the planned
emissions reductions will result in
attainment of the standard.
EPA’s modeling guidance indicates
that when the maximum attainment
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:45 Jul 11, 2008
Jkt 214001
demonstration modeling projections are
within the 82 to less than 88 ppb range,
further WOE analyses should be
included in the attainment
demonstration and evaluated in
addition to the modeling projections.
EPA’s guidance also allows for WOE to
be used when the modeled levels are 88
ppb or greater, but notes the further the
projected levels are from attainment
levels, the more substantial the WOE
must be to conclude that the area would
reach attainment by the attainment date.
EPA’s 2005 and 2007 A.D. guidance
documents indicate that even though
the photochemical modeling
demonstration projections do not
predict attainment of the standard (the
modeled attainment test), assessment of
a WOE analysis could yield a
determination that the area will attain
the standard by its attainment date. The
next section will discuss the WOE that
has been evaluated for this
demonstration and EPA’s review of the
WOE.
b. What Weight of Evidence Has Been
Evaluated?
Both EPA’s 2005 and 2007 A.D.
guidance documents recommend that in
addition to a modeling demonstration,
the states include additional analyses,
called weight-of-evidence (WOE) when
the modeling results in FDVs are greater
than 82 ppb. EPA’s 2005 and 2007 A.D.
guidance documents both discuss
additional relevant information that
may be considered as WOE. A WOE
analysis may provide additional
scientific analyses as to whether the
proposed control strategy, although not
modeling attainment, will likely achieve
attainment by the attainment date. The
intent of EPA’s guidance is to utilize the
WOE analysis to consider potential
uncertainty in the modeling system and
future year projections. Thus, in the
DFW case, even though the specific
control strategy modeling predicts some
monitors to be above the NAAQS,
additional information (WOE) may
provide a basis to conclude monitored
attainment may be achieved. Since the
attainment year is just a year away, EPA
places greater significance on the WOE,
especially consideration of current
measured ozone levels and reductions
still expected. As models have to make
numerous simplifying assumptions and
when the system being modeled is very
complex, model predictions are not
perfect. As a result of some of these
inherent uncertainties, EPA’s guidance
is to consider other evidence (WOE) to
help assess whether attainment of the
NAAQS is likely. EPA’s guidance
indicates that several items should be
included in a WOE analyses, including
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the following: Additional modeling,
additional reductions not modeled,
recent emissions and monitoring trends,
known uncertainties in the modeling
and/or emission projections, and other
pertinent scientific evaluations.
Pursuant to EPA’s guidance, TCEQ
supplemented the control strategy
modeling with WOE analyses.
Today we are discussing the more
significant components of the WOE that
impacted EPA’s evaluation of the
attainment demonstration. Many other
elements are discussed in the MOAAD
TSD that had some impact on EPA’s
evaluation. We are briefly covering the
more significant elements in this notice.
For EPA’s complete evaluation of the
WOE considered for this notice, see the
MOAAD TSD.
i. What Additional Modeling-Based
Evidence Did Texas Provide?
Texas submitted a significant body of
information as WOE in the May 30,
2007, submittal. Texas also provided
supplemental information and
clarifications in a letter to EPA dated
April 23, 2008.
1. Texas Emission Reduction Plan
(TERP)
TERP reductions for previous years
was included in a previous SIP revision,
the Increment of Progress (IOP) SIP and
included in the modeled projections.
Texas provided information in its May
30, 2007, submission and the April 23,
2008, letter documenting that additional
reductions from the TERP Program (in
2008 and 2009) which were not
included in the modeling are projected
to occur. The impact of these reductions
can be estimated in the WOE analysis.
The additional TERP funding is
expected to produce air quality benefits
above-and-beyond those modeled for
the SIP. The modeling includes
reductions expected for TERP through
2007. Not all of the reductions were
accounted for and this shortfall must be
achieved before additional WOE
reductions can be achieved. As
additional WOE, TCEQ estimated that
14.2 tpd reductions in NOX emissions in
the DFW area could be achieved, if 50
percent of available 2008 funding and
70 percent of the 2009 funding were
used for projects in the DFW area. This
calculation is based upon funding for
the DFW area at $53 million in FY2008
and $94 million in FY2009, an average
seven-year project life with 250 days/
year utilization, an estimated $6,000
cost per ton for TERP program
emissions reductions, and using 2008
funds remaining after the short-fall is
met ($6000/ton × 250 days/year × 7
years life cycle = $10.5 million for 1 tpd
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
40215
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
of NOX reductions). As of April 2008,
requests in 2008 for TERP projects in
the DFW area totaled $94.5 million.
Therefore, once an estimated $39
million of project requests is utilized to
fill the previous shortfall, there is an
additional $55.5 million of project
requests in the DFW area for further
NOX reductions. These project requests
will be reviewed by TCEQ to determine
whether the projects are cost effective
and TCEQ will make determinations
about funding of the projects that pass
review. Pending TCEQ’s review and
granting decisions, the surplus DFW
area FY2008 new project requests
(estimated surplus of $55.5 million in
requests that are estimated to yield 5.25
tpd in NOX reductions) seem to be in
line with the calculated project requests
needed to achieve a 14.2 tpd reduction
in NOX emissions if another $94 million
(estimated to yield 8.95 tpd in NOX
reductions) in requests are received by
TCEQ in FY2009.
It should be noted that the $94
million in requests that was received in
FY2008 is much larger than any
previous annual request in the DFW
area.
2. Compressor Engines
In the April 23, 2008, letter, TCEQ
provided supplemental information
regarding emissions from stationary,
gas-fired engines. During the May 23,
2007, adoption agenda before the TCEQ
commissioners for the 30 TAC Chapter
117 rules and DFW 1997 8-hour ozone
attainment demonstration SIP,
stakeholders commented that the
number of stationary, gas-fired engines
in the DFW area was likely
underestimated in the modeling
projections because of the growing
exploration and production of natural
gas from the Barnett Shale. The
commissioners directed the TCEQ’s staff
to research the issue. TCEQ staff
subsequently conducted a survey to reevaluate the number of stationary, gasfired engines in the nine-county DFW
area. The 2007 TCEQ survey results
show there is a much larger fleet of
stationary, gas-fired internal combustion
engines than estimated in the SIP
submittal. Almost all of these engines
came into service after the 1999 base
year so represent emissions growth.
This growth in emissions will be greatly
mitigated by the implementation of
controls in response to the Chapter 117
rules adopted as part of the May 30,
2007, SIP submission. While mitigated
to a large extent, emissions in the model
from these sources would be expected to
be 3.3 tpd higher than the model
projected. Using previously discussed
modeling sensitivity runs, we account
for this increase in projected emissions
and estimate its effect on modeled
ozone levels in Table 4.
Table 4 includes the estimates for the
amount of ozone reductions for these
additional TERP and Compressor
Engines WOE emission changes. Table 5
is included below and includes the
estimated FDVs with consideration of
the two adjustments.
TABLE 4.—ASSESSMENT OF ADDITIONAL WOE EMISSION REDUCTIONS AND POTENTIAL OZONE REDUCTIONS
TERP using
nonroad sensitivity
EPA nonroad
sensitivity
Monitor
tpd reduction
¥14.2
ppb/ton
¥0.03387
¥0.03060
¥0.02866
¥0.02455
¥0.05343
¥0.01332
¥0.02868
¥0.03347
¥0.04906
Frisco ...............................................................................................................
Dallas Hinton C60 ............................................................................................
Dallas North C63 .............................................................................................
Dallas Exec C402 ............................................................................................
Denton .............................................................................................................
Midlothian .........................................................................................................
Arlington ...........................................................................................................
Ft Worth C13 ...................................................................................................
Ft Worth C17 ...................................................................................................
As shown in Table 5, using the TCEQ
RRF method for both the Combo 10 and
PDMR2009 runs with the three
modeling refinements and also these
modeling-based WOE adjustments, the
Frisco and Denton monitors are 87 ppb
and the rest of the monitors are
projected to be attaining the standard.
ppb change
NG compressor engines using
nonroad sensitivity
Total change
Net tpd
¥10.9
tpd increase
3.3
ppb change
¥0.4810
¥0.4345
¥0.4070
¥0.3487
¥0.7587
¥0.1891
¥0.4072
¥0.4753
¥0.6967
0.112
0.101
0.095
0.081
0.176
0.044
0.095
0.110
0.162
Net ppb
change
¥0.37
¥0.33
¥0.31
¥0.27
¥0.58
¥0.15
¥0.31
¥0.36
¥0.53
Other WOE factors, discussed below,
indicate further progress that we believe
will lead to attainment of the standard.
TABLE 5.—MODELING-BASED ASSESSMENT WITH SOME WOE ELEMENTS INCLUDED
FDV adjusted
combo 10
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Monitor
FDV adjusted
PDMR2009
Total modeling-based
WOE reduction
FDV with WOE emission estimates w/ modeling-based
ozone adjustments applied to
previously adjusted modeling
values
ppb
TCEQ RRF
Frisco ...................................................................................
Dallas Hinton ........................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:45 Jul 11, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
TCEQ RRF
87.9
84.9
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Adjusted
combo 10
w/WOE
Adjusted
PDMR2009
w/WOE
TCEQ RRF
TCEQ RRF
TCEQ RRF
88.2
85.2
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
¥0.37
¥0.33
14JYP1
87
84
87
84
40216
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 5.—MODELING-BASED ASSESSMENT WITH SOME WOE ELEMENTS INCLUDED—Continued
FDV adjusted
combo 10
Monitor
FDV adjusted
PDMR2009
Total modeling-based
WOE reduction
FDV with WOE emission estimates w/ modeling-based
ozone adjustments applied to
previously adjusted modeling
values
ppb
TCEQ RRF
Dallas North .........................................................................
Dallas Exec ..........................................................................
Denton ..................................................................................
Midlothian .............................................................................
Arlington ...............................................................................
Ft Worth C13 .......................................................................
Ft Worth C17 .......................................................................
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
ii. Other Non-Modeling WOE From
TCEQ
EPA believes that, with only one year
left until attainment, it is important to
look at the current air quality and the
amount of reductions that are yet to
occur to evaluate whether it is realistic
that the area can attain by 2009.
The preliminary highest value for the
4th high 8-hour exceedance value
monitored at any monitor in the DFW
NAA in 2007 was 89 ppb. (The value is
considered preliminary because TCEQ
has not certified that it has completed
the Quality Assurance and Quality
Control Checks, a process that will be
completed shortly). This is the lowest
level that has ever been achieved for the
fourth high in this area.
In the May 30, 2007 submittal, TCEQ
also provided additional WOE of ozone
trends that show the area had monitored
attainment for the 1-hour ozone
standard (now revoked). The data
indicates emission trends and 8-hour
ozone levels have decreased despite
large population increases. As included
in references in TCEQ’s TSD for this SIP
revision, TCEQ and others have also
provided ozone source apportionment
assessments showing that DFW
emissions can contribute up to
approximately 40% of the ozone
exceedance values projected by the
model at monitors downwind of DFW
on high ozone days, while the episode
average of all monitors was 24%. Ozone
source apportionment techniques are
tools used to estimate the contribution
of various sources or source categories
to modeled ozone levels. In this case,
source apportionment is showing that
ozone levels on some days during the
episode are much more heavily
influenced by emissions within the
nonattainment area which are the
primary target of the control strategy.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:45 Jul 11, 2008
Jkt 214001
TCEQ RRF
84.1
78.1
87.8
83.2
79.9
84.6
84.0
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Adjusted
PDMR2009
w/WOE
TCEQ RRF
TCEQ RRF
TCEQ RRF
¥0.31
¥0.27
¥0.58
¥0.15
¥0.31
¥0.36
¥0.53
84.4
78.3
88.0
83.4
80.1
84.8
84.2
The attainment test relies on a relative
response factor which is an average
value that is based on most of the days
of the episode. The response of the RRF
to local controls would be expected to
be consistent with 24% of the ozone
level being driven by local emissions
since both the RRF and 24% source
apportionment are averaged across the
episode. However, on specific days
when a monitor is more directly
impacted by DFW area emissions
(downwind of the core DFW area) the
ozone value reflected at the monitor
may be 40% due to local DFW NAA
emissions. Therefore, the attainment test
with the averaging of days with different
wind directions is likely underestimating the benefit of local
reductions in the DFW NAA.
TCEQ also submitted WOE
components that are further discussed
in the TSD including the following:
Ozone design value trends, ozone
variability analysis and trends, model
projected RRFs at area monitors that
have been installed since the base case
period and were not utilized in the
modeling, NOX and VOC monitoring
trends, emission trends, NOX and VOC
chemistry limitation analysis, local
contribution analyses, and mobile
emission sensitivity runs. Details of
these WOE components are included in
Chapter 3 of the May 30, 2007 SIP
submittal. TCEQ also provided updated
data for some of these elements in their
April 23, 2008 letter.
Additional quantified WOE emissions
reductions (without ozone reductions
calculated) include a number of energy
efficiency measures (Residential and
Commercial Building Codes,
municipality purchase of renewable
energies, political subdivision projects,
electric utility sponsored programs,
Federal facilities EE/RE Projects, etc.)
PO 00000
Adjusted
combo 10
w/WOE
83
77
87
83
79
84
83
84
78
87
83
79
84
83
that TCEQ has estimated will yield 2.12
tpd NOX reductions.
III. EPA WOE Analysis
Since the May 30, 2007 submittal,
EPA has worked with TCEQ to quantify
emission reductions that will occur
between the latest ozone monitoring
season (2007) and the attainment year
2009. EPA has generated an estimate of
how much reduction in emissions is
expected to occur between 2007 and
2009. Our estimate is that an additional
70 tpd of NOX reductions will occur due
to the existing rules. With the inclusion
of all of the potential WOE reduction
elements (including 14.2 tpd of NOX
reductions from TERP and additional
estimated reductions of 35.7 tpd from
control of the underestimated
compressor engines) the total potential
reductions are estimated as 120 tpd of
NOX. Based on an estimated 2007 NOX
emission inventory, these SIP rules (and
other State and Federal requirements)
are estimated to reduce NOX emissions
15% from 2007 levels. With inclusion of
all the potential WOE elements
identified, the amount of reduction of
daily NOX from 2007 levels increases to
26%. These are large expected changes
to the DFW NAA NOX inventory.
Utilizing multiple sensitivity runs
conducted by EPA and TCEQ, we have
estimated that the additional 15%
reductions which occur after the 2007
ozone season could result in a 2.3 ppb
decrease in ozone levels at the
controlling monitors (Frisco and
Denton). EPA’s assessment, including
both the SIP and WOE emission
reductions estimated to occur after the
2007 ozone season, indicates a 3–4 ppb
drop in ozone levels is possible. The 3–
4 ppb drop is a rough estimate that
could be larger (greater than 4 ppb) and
that value would yield a value of 84 ppb
or lower to indicate attainment.
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
The monitored attainment test is
monitor specific and in the future the
highest monitor that is used to
determine attainment (using 2007–2009
data) may not be the one that recorded
a high value of 89 ppb in 2007. Only 2
of the 20 monitors in the DFW area
monitored 4th high 8-hour values of 89
ppb. The 4th high 8-hour ozone levels
monitored at the other 18 monitors
were: 88 ppb at one monitor, 87 ppb at
one monitor and the rest were 84 ppb
or below. If the monitor used for the
2009 attainment test is one of the
monitors that recorded a value less than
89 ppb (18 of the 20 monitors), then a
3–4 ppb drop from the 4th high value
recorded in 2007 would indicate
attainment with a value of 84 ppb or
lower. With the emission reductions to
occur after 2007, we could expect a 4th
high value for the DFW area of
approximately 84–85 ppb or lower.
Based on this analysis, it is not
unreasonable to conclude that
attainment in 2009 is possible
considering the recent downward
monitoring trend (2006–2007) and the
preliminary 2007 monitoring values of
89 ppb value.
This simplistic analysis alone does
not conclusively prove that the area will
attain the standard by 2009, but EPA
believes that the most recent
preliminary monitoring values from
2007, coupled with the estimated
impact of the additional reductions,
estimated ozone decreases (estimated as
3–4 ppb), are consistent with reaching
attainment by 2009.
1. EPA Meteorological Adjusted Trends
Analysis
EPA performed a draft meteorological
adjusted trends analysis in October 2007
for many areas in the eastern half of the
United States. Meteorological adjusted
trends analyses attempt to remove the
variability in ozone levels due to
differing meteorology and adjust the
ozone values to the average meteorology
level. These analyses are called met
adjusted design values and can be used
to indicate whether nonattainment areas
are closer to (or farther from) attainment
than their actual most recent design
values would otherwise indicate. The
technique and estimated values should
not be used in an absolute sense, but
rather as a directional assessment tool.
EPA performed a meteorological
adjusted analysis for select DFW
monitors with higher DVs for the last 10
years of data (where available). The
most recent DFW NAA DV (based on
preliminary monitoring data for 2007) is
95 ppb (2005–2007). EPA’s
meteorological adjusted trends analysis
yields a value of 91.7 ppb for the 2005–
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:45 Jul 11, 2008
Jkt 214001
2007 period. Thus, the analysis
indicates that the 2005–2007 period was
worse than normal meteorology. So if
average meteorology occurs in the
future, the DV may potentially drop on
the order of 3 ppb without consideration
of additional emission reductions. The
met adjusted trends analysis also
included an assessment of the years
around the 1999 base period of the
modeling. The assessment of the base
period indicated that the meteorology
was worse than normal, and when this
is taken into account, the highest Base
DVs would be about 0.8 ppb lower. If
the meteorological adjusted Base DV is
used for the modeling projection, the
2009 modeling values would be
approximately 0.8 ppb less, thus the
2009 modeling would be closer to
attainment. If this 0.8 ppb level decrease
is used for the Frisco and Denton
monitors, the future modeling and WOE
projection would also drop. The
resultant estimates would be that
Combo 10 would yield 86 ppb at the
Denton and Frisco monitors, and for the
PDMR2009 modeling the values would
be 87 ppb at Frisco and 86 ppb at
Denton monitor.
iv. Other WOE Items From Texas Not
Currently Quantified: Additional
Programs/Reductions
These are additional items in TCEQ’s
WOE analysis that are not easily
quantifiable and are difficult to estimate
expected ozone decreases. These
elements can still add to the overall
WOE analysis but may not warrant as
much emphasis as more refined
technical analyses.
1. AirCheckTexas
The AirCheckTexas (ACT) program
provides funds to individuals as an
incentive to retire older, more polluting
vehicles or aid in the repair of vehicles’
emission control systems. TCEQ
included discussion of the ACT program
in the WOE section in their May 30,
2007 submittal, but did not include a
benefit due to the ACT program in the
modeling.
The May 30, 2007 submittal also
states that the Texas Legislature was
considering additional funding for the
ACT—Drive a Clean Machine program.
During the 80th Legislative Session,
Senate Bill 12 was passed and
subsequently signed by the Governor on
June 15, 2007. The ACT program for the
DFW area was funded at $21,348,583
each for fiscal years 2008 and 2009.
Currently the program funding has been
increased to approximately $20 million/
year for two years in DFW NAA. The
Legislature significantly increased the
amount paid for replacement of vehicles
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40217
older than 10 years old (or vehicles that
have failed emission testing and can’t be
reasonably fixed) to $3,000 for a new/
recent model year vehicle and $3500 for
a hybrid vehicle. Promotion of this
program has been unprecedented and
recently the State and local agencies
have received and processed
applications for the $20 million allotted
to DFW area this year, well in advance
of the State fiscal year end date of
August 31st.
The North Central Texas Council of
Governments (NCTCOG) is the local
entity implementing the program and
processing applications. Since the SB 12
enhanced program started on December
12, 2007, there has been high interest
and 15,092 applications submitted.
Again, outreach by TCEQ, NCTCOG,
local business leaders, and local
governments has been unprecedented,
and recently the NCTCOG indicated that
there were 6,986 vouchers issued by
April 4, 2008. With the level of voucher
issuance and usage, it is likely the
program will result in emission
reductions greater than considered in
the WOE portion of the May 30, 2007
SIP submittal.
Other unquantified WOE emissions
reductions include Luminant’s
(formerly TXU) announcement that they
are going to spend $1 billion to yield
emission reductions at some of their
plants in East and North Central Texas.
Luminant has initially indicated that
their plans include installing SCR at the
Martin Lake plant, SNCR at Monticello
and Big Brown plants and improving
their Low NOX burners at one of the
Monticello units. We sent a letter to
Luminant asking for clarification on
what NOX controls may be in place by
the 2009 DFW ozone season, and are
currently waiting for a response from
Luminant. If we receive a response from
Luminant, we will include it in the
docket for review. These facilities are to
the East and Southeast of the DFW area,
and are often upwind of DFW during
ozone events. Reductions at these plants
will help lower background ozone and
pre-cursor entering DFW area on many
ozone conducive days and would be
expected to yield reductions in ozone
levels at the DFW area monitors on
many ozone conducive days.
2. Local Quantified and Unquantified
Measures
Other unquantified measures include
Dallas Sustainable Skylines Initiative,
Smartway, Intelligent Transportation
System, Truck Lane Restriction, LED
Traffic Signal replacement, Blue
Skyways Collaborative, Parking Cashout Program, Roadway Peak Period
Pricing, Clean School Bus Program, $4
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
40218
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
million incentive for early NG engine
control, etc. These programs are not
included in the VMEP program and
therefore are not being double-counted.
Through the actions of citizens and
local governments, an approach to
purchase cement that is produced with
less NOX emissions is being considered
by local cities. Currently three of the
largest cities (Dallas, Ft. Worth, and
Arlington) have passed city ordinances
addressing the purchase of green
cement. These ordinances may yield an
additional 1 tpd of NOX reductions, but
this estimate is not certain at this time.
We expect additional reductions will be
achieved and that the location of the
reductions would be beneficial to
reducing the area’s ozone levels.
Local city and county officials have
increased their enforcement of
Inspection and Maintenance (I&M) rules
by performing site inspections. In
certain cases, officials discovered
fraudulent transactions, including
inspection sticker counterfeiting. The
enforcement initiatives by local
governments will result in additional
emission reductions from mobile
sources in the DFW area. Some of these
benefits are already considered in the
modeling, but these efforts will yield
additional actual reductions between
2007 and 2009.
c. Is the 8-Hour Attainment
Demonstration Approvable?
EPA is proposing that, taken in
balance, the available modeling,
evidence, analyses, adopted control
strategies (including rules with 2010
compliance dates), the DERCs
condition, monitoring data, and
additional information support that the
DFW area will reach attainment of the
1997 8-hour ozone standard by its
attainment date. In making this
determination, we have considered
supplemental information not available
at the time the attainment modeling was
performed by TCEQ, including evidence
that NOX emissions reductions will
occur that are in addition to the
measures adopted and quantified in the
May 30, 2007 SIP submittal.
We have considered modeling using
two emission reduction scenarios
(Combo 10 and PDMR2009), recognizing
that the actual emission control level
would be somewhere in between. We
have also considered the impact of
additional measures and reductions
documented in the April 23, 2008 letter.
With these adjustments, the modeling is
showing significant reductions of 7–13
ppb in ozone from the base period, but
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:45 Jul 11, 2008
Jkt 214001
is still slightly short of attainment. The
modeling predicts values greater than 84
ppb at two of the nine monitors, but we
believe the WOE assists in bridging the
gap to attainment.
We also considered that the model’s
under prediction of high ozone levels
may be biasing the model predictions,
and therefore potentially
underestimating the ozone reduction
that could occur by the emission
reductions achieved by local and
regional rules and additional WOE
elements. We also have considered the
impact of meteorological adjustments to
the design value projection which
would further indicate the future
projections may be too high. Finally, we
have recognized emission reduction
efforts that have not been quantified and
included in the modeling or model
based WOE estimates.
EPA is also considering non-modeling
evidence. One factor that EPA believes
is of particular importance is the total
NOX reductions expected in the DFW
NAA from 2007 to 2009, which are
expected to decrease ozone levels from
the 89 ppb fourth high maximum
monitored in 2007 to levels consistent
with attainment. We have confidence
that ozone levels will improve because
NOX emissions are projected to decrease
by 26% in the time period 2007–2009.
Finally, EPA has considered the most
recent ambient data which indicates
that the area is on a track that is
consistent with achieving attainment of
the 8-hour standard by 2009.
Taking these factors together, we
believe the modeling, including all the
WOE measures, is consistent with
attainment.
C. Control Measures Relied Upon by the
State in the Control Strategy Modeling
Section 172 of the Act provides the
general requirements for nonattainment
plans. Section 172(c)(6) and section 110
require SIPs to include enforceable
emissions 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. The DFW attainment
demonstration SIP is mainly directed at
reductions of NOX since the modeling
shows that NOX reductions will be most
effective in bringing the area into
attainment of the standard, but the SIP
includes VOC emissions reductions as
well. The modeling includes Federal,
State and local measures. The
attainment demonstration modeling also
relies on regional measures applied in
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
east and central Texas and measures
applied in the Houston (HG) and
Beaumont (BPA) ozone nonattainment
areas. The State adopted controls to
reduce NOX emissions from mobile
sources, ICI Sources, EGFs, Minor
Sources, Cement Kilns, and East Texas
Combustion Sources. Today’s action
proposes approval of emissions
reductions from two mobile source
strategies not previously adopted into
the SIP. These strategies are the new
VMEP and the new TCMs included in
the May 30, 2007 SIP submittal. In
separate actions, we are finalizing
approval of the April 9, 2003 Alcoa
Federal Consent Decree, the Energy
Efficiencies Program, and the May 13,
2005, NOX rules, and we are proposing
to approve the NOX rules for ICI
Sources,EGFs, Minor Sources, Cement
Kilns, and East Texas Combustion
Sources. These actions will assist the
area in meeting the 8-hour ozone
standard and are relied upon in the
control strategy modeling.
The following is the identification of
the control measures reflected in the
2009 inventory for the May 30, 2007
revision Future Control Strategy Case
modeling run. In addition, we identify
which of the State and local controls are
addressed in this proposed action and
which will be addressed in separate
rulemaking actions.
TABLE 6.—FEDERAL MEASURES REFLECTED IN THE DFW 2009 INVENTORY
Federal Tier 1 Federal Motor Vehicle Control
Program (FMVCP)
Federal Tier 2 FMVCP
Federal 2007 Heavy Duty Diesel FMVCP
standards
Federal National Low Emission Vehicle Program (NLEV)
Federal Tier I and Tier II Locomotive NOX
standards
Federal New Non-road Spark Ignition Engines rule
Federal Heavy Duty Non-road Diesel Engines rule
Federal Tier 1, 2, and 3 Non-road Diesel Engines rule
Federal Small Non-road Spark Ignition Engines rule
Federal Large Non-road Spark Ignition Engines and Recreational Marine rule
Non-road RFG—Federal/state opt in—the 4
core counties
We believe that the State correctly
projected the growth rates and
emissions reductions for sources subject
to these Federal measures.
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
40219
TABLE 7.—STATE MEASURES REFLECTED IN THE DFW 2009 INVENTORY
Measures
Status
DFW gas-fired engine rule .......................................................................
DFW non-EGUs—banked ERCs and DERCs for VOC and NOX emissions.
DFW EGUs ...............................................................................................
DFW non-EGUs ........................................................................................
Auxiliary steam boilers in the 5 counties .................................................
Stationary gas turbines in the 5 counties .................................................
DFW Major Source Rule ..........................................................................
DFW Minor Source Rule ..........................................................................
Stage I Program, expanded from the 4 core to all 9 counties ................
Surface Coating Rules, expanded from the 4 core to all 9 counties .......
Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) Program, expanded from the 4 core to all
9 counties.
Anti-tampering Rule ..................................................................................
RFG in the 4 core counties ......................................................................
VOC Rules, expanded from the 4 core to all 9 counties, adopted by
TCEQ on 11/15/06.
Portable Fuel Container Rule ...................................................................
Reid Vapor Pressure Rule .......................................................................
We believe that the State correctly
projected the growth rates and
EPA is taking action in a separate rule.
Approved September 6, 2006 (71 FR 52703).
EPA is taking action in a separate rule.
EPA is taking action in a separate rule.
EPA is taking action in a separate rule.
EPA is taking action in a separate rule.
EPA is taking action in a separate rule.
EPA is taking action in a separate rule.
Approved January 19, 2006 (71 FR 3009).
Approved January 19, 2006 (71 FR 3009).
Approved November 14, 2001 (66 FR 57261).
Approved July 1, 1998 (63 FR 35839).
Approved October 8, 1992 (57 FR 46316).
EPA is taking action in a separate rule.
Approved February 10, 2005 (70 FR 7041).
Approved April 26, 2001 (66 FR 20927).
emissions reductions for sources subject
to these State measures.
TABLE 8.—LOCAL MEASURES REFLECTED IN THE DFW 2009 INVENTORY
Measures
Status
VMEP ........................................................................................................
TERP ........................................................................................................
Proposed for approval in this action.
Program already approved; SIP credits proposed for approval in this
action.
Proposed for approval in this action.
EPA is taking action in a separate rule.
Approved October 11, 2005 (70 FR 58978).
TCMs ........................................................................................................
Energy Efficiencies Program (EEP) .........................................................
Speed Limits .............................................................................................
We believe that the State correctly
projected the growth rates and
emissions reductions for sources subject
to these local measures.
TABLE 9.—TEXAS REGIONAL MEASURES REFLECTED IN THE DFW 2009 INVENTORY
Measures
Status
Agreed Orders for Alcoa and Texas Eastman .........................................
East Texas Chapter 117 NOX requirements ............................................
East Texas Combustion Rule ...................................................................
April 9, 2003 Alcoa Federal Consent Decree ..........................................
TxLED (includes locomotives) ..................................................................
Portable Fuel Container Rule (34 counties) .............................................
Stage I ......................................................................................................
Lower RVP ...............................................................................................
Cement kiln rules ......................................................................................
We believe that the State correctly
projected the growth rates and
Approved October 26, 2000 (65 FR 64148).
Approved March 16, 2001 (66 FR 15195).
EPA is taking action in a separate rule.
EPA is taking action in a separate rule.
Approved November 14, 2001 (66 FR 57196).
Approved February 10, 2005 (70 FR 7041).
Approved December 20, 2000 (65 FR 79745).
Approved April 26, 2001 (66 FR 20927).
EPA taking action in a separate rule.
emissions reductions for sources subject
to these Regional measures.
TABLE 10.—HOUSTON (HG) AND BEAUMONT (BPA) OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA MEASURES REFLECTED IN THE DFW
2009 INVENTORY
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Measures
Status
Chapter 117 NOX requirements for HG ...................................................
Chapter 117 NOX requirements for BPA .................................................
Approved November 14, 2001 (66 FR 57230).
Approved 26, 2000 (65 FR 64158); September 9, 2000 (65 FR 53172);
and March 3, 2000 (65 FR 11468).
Approved September 6, 2006 (71 FR 52664).
Approved September 6, 2006 (71 FR 52664).
HG MECT rule for HG EGUs ...................................................................
HG non-EGUs—banked ERCs and DERCs for VOC and NOX emissions and the MECT NOX cap.
HG highly-reactive VOC cap (HRVOC) rule ............................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:45 Jul 11, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Approved September 6, 2006 (71 FR 52659).
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
40220
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 10.—HOUSTON (HG) AND BEAUMONT (BPA) OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA MEASURES REFLECTED IN THE DFW
2009 INVENTORY—Continued
Measures
Status
BPA non-EGUs—banked ERCs and DERCs for VOC and NOX emissions.
Agreed Orders for Premcor, Exxon Chemical, and Motiva in the BPA
Ozone SIP.
We believe that the State correctly
projected the growth rates and
emissions reductions for sources subject
to these measures in the HG and BPA
ozone nonattainment areas.
D. Local Measures Relied Upon in the
Control Strategy Modeling
Today’s action proposes approval of
two new emission reductions from local
strategies not previously adopted into
the SIP. These strategies are the VMEP
and TCMs. These controls should assist
the area in meeting the 8-hour ozone
standard. Approval of the relied-upon
control measures must be finalized
before EPA takes final action approving
the attainment demonstration SIP.
a. Voluntary Mobile Source Emission
Reduction Programs
A voluntary mobile source emissions
reductions program (VMEP) is an
overall control strategy that attempts to
complement existing regulatory
programs through voluntary, nonregulatory changes in local
transportation activities or changes in
in-use vehicle and engine composition.
Authority for our approval of the VMEP
is primarily grounded in section
110(a)(2) of the Act, as well as sections
182(g)(4)(A) and 108. Section 110(a)(2)
establishes that a SIP must include
‘‘enforceable emissions limits and other
control measures, means or techniques
* * * as well as schedules and
timetables for compliance, as may be
necessary or appropriate to meet the
applicable requirements of this
chapter.’’
In interpreting 110(a)(2) of the Act,
EPA issued a guidance document
Approved March 16, 2001 (66 FR 15195).
Approved April 12, 2005 (70 FR 18995).
entitled, ‘‘Guidance on Incorporating
Voluntary Mobile Source Emission
Reduction Programs in State
Implementation Plans (SIPs),’’
Memorandum from Richard D. Wilson,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation, dated October 24, 1997,
which allows for SIP credit for
voluntary measures. The Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals upheld, as a
reasonable interpretation of the Act,
EPA’s VMEP policy and allowed the
State to consider estimated emissions
reductions from a VMEP in the Houston
area 1-hour ozone attainment
demonstration. See BCCA Appeal Group
v. EPA, 355 F.3d 817, 825 (5th Cir.
2003).
The EPA’s VMEP Guidance provides
a detailed framework for states to obtain
SIP emissions reduction credit for such
voluntary emissions reductions. EPA
guidance allows VMEP to provide a
maximum of 3% of the total future year
emissions reductions required to attain
the appropriate NAAQS. In addition,
states must identify and describe the
voluntary measures in a VMEP and
include supportable projections of
emissions reductions associated with
the measures. The state must also make
an enforceable commitment to monitor,
assess, and report on the
implementation and emissions effects of
the VMEPs, as well as to remedy timely
any shortfall in emissions reductions
that do not meet the projected levels.
The EPA guidance sets forth specific
minimum criteria for approval of
VMEPs into the SIP. The criteria specify
that VMEP emissions reductions be
quantifiable, surplus, enforceable,
permanent, and adequately supported.
The state must promptly assess and
backfill any shortfall pursuant to
enforceable commitments in the SIP in
the event that the projected emission
reductions are not achieved. In addition,
VMEPs must be consistent with
attainment of the standard and with the
RFP requirements and must not
interfere with other requirements of the
Act.
The NCTCOG, as the regional
metropolitan transportation planning
agency for the DFW area, has committed
to implement the projects and/or
programs outlined in the DFW VMEP
submittal. The estimated benefits listed
are calculated for the year 2009. The
NCTCOG will be responsible for
monitoring and reporting the emissions
reductions to the TCEQ. The NCTCOG,
through TCEQ, will cover any VMEP
shortfall (of the total 2.63 tpd of NOX
committed) by supplementing
additional Transportation Emission
Reduction Measures (TERMs). The
program areas that may be used to
remedy a shortfall are traffic signal
improvements; intelligent transportation
systems (ITS); and/or freeway and/or
arterial bottleneck removal. Texas
submitted adequate program
descriptions that project emissions
reductions attributable to each specific
voluntary program and included the
basis for the quantified emissions
reductions. The DFW VMEP will be
implemented in each of the nine
counties within the DFW area.
NCTCOG identified seven voluntary
programs that will aid in the
improvement of the DFW area’s air
quality, as described below. Table 11
lists the programs and projected credits:
TABLE 11.—VOLUNTARY MOBILE EMISSION REDUCTION PROGRAMS AND CREDITS CLAIMED
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Program type
2009 NOX benefits
2009 VOC benefits
Clean Vehicle Program ............................................................................................................................
Employee Trip Reduction ........................................................................................................................
Locally Enforced Idling Restriction ..........................................................................................................
Diesel Freight Idling Reduction Program ................................................................................................
SmartWay Transport Demonstration Project ...........................................................................................
Public Agency Policy for Construction Equipment ..................................................................................
Aviation Efficiencies .................................................................................................................................
0.24
0.43
0.62
0.33
0.00
0.06
0.95
0.05
0.28
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.24
Total Benefits ....................................................................................................................................
2.63
0.61
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:45 Jul 11, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
As stated above, the State commits to
evaluating each program to validate
estimated credits, to evaluating and
reporting on the program
implementation and results, and to
promptly remedy any credit shortfall.
The State also commits to additional
TERMs that can be substituted for any
shortfall in credit from the estimated
credits for VMEP. These include traffic
signal improvements, ITS; and/or
freeway and/or arterial bottleneck
removal.
EPA’s analysis of all the VMEP
measures shows that each creditable
measure is quantifiable. All VMEP
measures must be in place by March 1,
2009, in order to be relied on for
purposes of attainment by June 15,
2010. The emissions benefits for the
measures are calculated for 2009 and are
permanent as the NCTCOG is
responsible to monitor, assess, report on
future emissions reductions from the
measures and remedy any shortfall. The
reductions are surplus by not being
substitutes for mandatory, required
emissions reductions and are not being
counted in any other control strategy.
The SIP with voluntary measures is
enforceable because the State has
committed to fill any shortfall in credit,
thus any enforcement will be against the
State. Each measure is adequately
supported by personnel and program
resources for implementation. The
State’s goal is 2.63 tpd of NOX benefit
from the VMEP. Our detailed evaluation
of the State’s VMEP is in the TSD.
The DFW 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 into the DFW SIP and agree with
the projected NOX emissions reductions
of 2.63 tpd and the projected VOC
emissions reductions of 0.61 tpd from
the VMEP.
b. Transportation Control Measures
(TCMs)
TCMs are transportation related
projects or activities designed to reduce
on-road mobile source emissions.
Section 108 of the Act outlines
allowable types of TCMs. Federal
regulations at 40 CFR 93.101 define a
TCM as any measure that is specifically
identified and committed to in the
applicable implementation plan that is
either one of the types listed in section
108 of the Act, or any other measure for
the purposes of reducing emissions or
concentrations of air pollutants from
transportation sources by reducing
vehicle use or changing traffic flow or
congestion conditions.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:45 Jul 11, 2008
Jkt 214001
Nonattainment areas may submit
TCMs as air quality control measures
into the SIP. TCMs used as an emissions
reductions control strategy must be
specific and enforceable as required by
the Act and EPA guidance. TCMs in the
SIP must include an identification of
each project, location, length of each
project (if applicable), a brief project
description, implementation date, and
emissions reductions for NOX and VOC.
(See ‘‘Transportation Control Measures:
State Implementation Plan Guidance,’’
September 1990 (EPA 450/2–89–020)).
The process for TCM selection and
inclusion in the SIP is based on
consideration of all potential measures
specified in section 108 of the Act and
other emerging transportation control
measures that may be reasonably
available for implementation and used
for emissions reductions. The TCMs
identified through this process and
included in the SIP are contained and
funded in the region’s metropolitan
transportation plan and Transportation
Improvement Program. This ensures
that the TCMs were properly adopted,
funded and received appropriate
approval. Inclusion of TCMs in the SIP
also shows evidence of a specific
schedule to plan, implement and
enforce the measures. EPA approved the
Texas TCM rule as a revision to the SIP
on December 5, 2002 (67 FR 72379).
The NCTCOG identified in Appendix
F of the SIP submittal TCMs for use as
a control strategy for attainment of the
ozone NAAQS. Appendix F of the
submittal lists seven categories of TCMs:
bicycle-pedestrian projects; grade
separation projects; high-occupancy
vehicle/managed lane projects;
intersection improvement projects; park
and ride projects; rail transit projects;
and vanpool projects. The TCMs have
been, or will be, implemented in the
nine-county DFW area. By the start of
the 2009 ozone season, the TCMs
should reduce NOX emissions in the
DFW area by 1.53 tpd and VOC
emissions by 1.61 tpd.
The State has shown that the DFW
TCMs meet the requirements of the Act
and applicable EPA guidance. The list
of TCMs provided in Appendix F of the
State’s submittal provides identification
of each project, location, length of each
project (if applicable), a brief project
description, completion/
implementation date, and emissions
reductions for NOX and VOCs. EPA’s
detailed evaluation of the approvability
of the State’s TCMs can be found in the
TSD to this action. EPA agrees that the
implementation of TCMs will reduce
NOX emissions in the DFW area by 1.53
tpd and VOC emissions by 1.61 tpd. We
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40221
therefore propose to approve the State’s
TCMs into the DFW SIP.
c. Measures Discussed in the April 23,
2008 Letter From TCEQ
Texas provided a letter on April 23,
2008 supplementing the information in
the May 2007 SIP. Below we discuss
two of the issues raised in the letter
(TERP and DERCs) in detail as these
have significantly impacted our review
of the modeling and weight of evidence
as discussed in section V–B.
i. Texas Emission Reduction Plan
(TERP)
TERP is a discretionary economic
incentive program (EIP) providing
economic incentives to reduce
emissions. Although TERP is composed
of several different components, the part
of the plan that EPA approved into the
Texas SIP is the diesel emission
reduction program. See 66 FR 57160
(November 14, 2001). The approved
TERP program is a grant program,
unique to Texas, that provides funds
through TCEQ in a variety of categories,
including emissions reduction incentive
grants, rebate grants (including grants
for small businesses), and heavy and
light duty motor vehicle purchase or
lease programs, all with the goal of
improving air quality in Texas.
Examples of TERP programs include
assisting small businesses in purchasing
lower-emission diesel vehicles, helping
school districts to reduce emissions
from school buses, and providing funds
to support research and development of
pollution-reducing technology. TERP is
available to all public and private fleet
operators that operate qualifying
equipment in any of the ozone
nonattainment counties within the
State, including the nine that comprise
the DFW area.
State rules that govern TCEQ
administration of TERP were approved
into the SIP on August 19, 2005, at 70
FR 48647. The State’s previous
methodologies for determining
emissions reductions from this type of
program have been found acceptable by
EPA.
Texas twice submitted TERP
estimated emission reductions within
the DFW area for approval into the DFW
SIP. The first submission, on May 13,
2005, has not previously been approved
into the SIP as SIP credit, but DFW has
received air quality benefits from the
emissions reductions achieved. This
first plan submitted calculations based
upon legislative funding that projected
NOX emissions reductions of 22.2 tpd
from TERP, which would be achieved
by June 15, 2007. To date however, the
State has shown that only 18.45 tpd of
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
40222
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
the calculated 22.2 tpd NOX emissions
reductions have occurred, leaving a
shortfall of 3.75 tpd.4 As explained
below, this shortfall of 3.75 tpd TERP
SIP credit will be addressed and
corrected by March 1, 2009.
The second plan, submitted on April
23, 2008, projected NOX emissions
reductions of 14.2 tpd from TERP,
which would be achieved by March 1,
2009. The amount of TERP credit
allocated to DFW is predicated on the
funding formula set up by the Texas
Legislature. For the 2008/2009
biennium, the Texas Legislature fully
funded TERP in the amount of
$297,144,243. TCEQ will award these
TERP grants based on program criteria 5
and it is possible to project NOX
emissions reductions to occur by March
1, 2009, by using an estimated funding
allotment for the DFW area. For
example, if 50% of the available 2008
funds and 70% of the 2009 funds are
used for projects in DFW, the 3.75 tpd
shortfall noted above will be corrected,
and an additional 14.2 tpd reduction in
NOX emissions can be expected.6
The emissions reductions projected
for the 2008/2009 TERP are quantifiable,
as they are projected to reduce NOX by
14.2 tpd by March 1, 2009.7 This
measure is surplus, as it will be used to
fund projects that are not otherwise
required under the Act or the Federallyapproved SIP. The measure is
permanent, because the average project
life extends beyond the period in which
it is used in the applicable SIP
demonstration. TERP is fully funded by
the Texas Legislature and has a history
4 The shortfall was the result of an error in
calculations.
5 Rather than allocating funds among a subset of
eligible (nonattainment) counties, the State will
allocate based on the cost effectiveness of each
project.
6 FY08 TERP funds total approximately $146
million and nearly $40 million went to rebate
grants, a 3rd party grant and unfunded FY07
applications, leaving approximately $106 million
for FY08. As of May 22, 2008, the DFW area
implemented TERP projects totaling 18.45 tpd, but
the May 13, 2005 submission projected 22.2 tpd
(22.2¥18.45 = 3.75). Assuming $6,000/ton, 250
days/yr and 7 yr project life, it will cost approx.
$39,375,000 to correct the May 13, 2005 submission
TERP deficiency (6,000 × 250 × 7) × 3.75 =
39,375,000. The applications submitted to TCEQ for
projects in DFW for FY08 were approximately $94.5
million. Subtract the May 13, 2005 submission
shortfall ($94,500,000¥$39,375,000) and we are left
with approximately $55,125,000. Divide by the
(6,000 × 250 × 7) to estimate tons reduced by
projects for the applications submitted
($55,125,000/10,500,000 = 5.25 tpd for the FY08
applications. Of the projected 14.2 tpd: 14.2¥5.25
= 8.95 tpd, (6,000 × 250 × 7) × 8.95 = $93,975,000.
Thus, the DFW goal for project applications for
FY09 is approximately $93,975,000.
7 TCEQ cannot award funds for the FY2009
applications prior to September 1, 2008, but the
grant application process could begin prior to that
date.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:45 Jul 11, 2008
Jkt 214001
of adequate personnel and resources to
implement the program. The TCEQ is
obligated to monitor, assess and report
on the implementation of TERP to the
Texas Legislature. Annual reports
document, by area, the total number of
tons reduced, tons reduced per year,
average cost per ton, grant recipients
and type of project funded. During the
first grant cycle for 2008, which
spanned January through April, TCEQ
received applications for the DFW area
requesting a total of approximately
$94.5 million, which exceeds the 2008
target projected in the April 23, 2008
supplemental letter (see the docket) and
is unprecedented for the DFW area.
Projected reductions are calculated
based on ‘‘cost per ton’’ of previous
projects. The cost cited by the TCEQ
and used in this estimation is $6,000/
ton. Historically, TERP has provided
NOX reductions in DFW with costs
averaging less than $4500/ton, and the
most recent average costs are under
$4000/ton. We have reviewed the
information submitted to us (including
TCEQ’s April 2, 2008 TERP summary),
and we agree with the State’s cost per
ton analysis. We believe that the
assumptions used to project emissions
reductions from the TERP are
conservative, and reasonable for
achieving improvements in air quality.
Projects funded by TERP in the DFW
area will reduce NOX emissions by
March 1, 2009, and will contribute
toward attainment of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS by the area’s attainment date.
We are proposing to approve that the
TERP program will achieve NOX
emissions reductions of 22.2 tpd and
14.2 tpd, based on the May 13, 2005 and
the April 23, 2008 submittals combined.
ii. Discrete Emission Credits (DECs)
A DEC represents one ton of certified
emissions reductions generated over a
discrete time period. DECs can be
generated by discrete reductions in
criteria pollutants, with the exception of
lead, from stationary, area or mobile
sources statewide. When a stationary or
area source generates a DEC it is known
as a discrete emission reduction credit
(DERC); when a mobile source generates
a DEC it is known as a mobile discrete
emission reduction credit (MDERC). The
use of the term ‘‘DERC’’ collectively
refers to DERCs and MDERCs unless
specifically stated as only applying to
stationary DECs. Once certified by the
TCEQ, a DERC can either be banked for
future use or used by a source for a
variety of uses, including to exceed
allowable permit limits, and to meet SIP
requirements under 30 TAC Chapters
114, 115, and 117. The authority to
generate and use DERCs within Texas is
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
found at 30 TAC Chapter 101,
Subchapter H, Division 4—Discrete
Emission Credit Banking and Trading
(the DERC rule). EPA granted final
conditional approval of the Texas DERC
rule on September 6, 2006 (71 FR
52703).8
Since the use of DERCs will increase
emissions in an area, the DFW
attainment demonstration must account
for the possibility that all DERCs will be
used in the nonattainment area (See
section 12.5(d) of EPA Guidance
entitled ‘‘Improving Air Quality with
Economic Incentive Programs,’’ EPA–
452/R–01–001, January 2001 (Economic
Incentive Program (EIP) Guidance)). The
TCEQ Emissions Bank currently has
20.4 tpd of DFW NOX DERCs. The DFW
attainment demonstration
photochemical modeling accounted for
the possibility that all 20.4 tpd credits
would be used in the attainment year.
Section 16.15 of EPA’s EIP Guidance
provides that States may use an
alternative to predicting that all DERCs
will be used in the attainment year by
establishing an enforceable mechanism
to restrict the use of banked emission
reductions to ensure attainment goals.
TCEQ determined that restricting the
use of DERCs to no more than 3.2 tpd
would provide for attainment and be
consistent with the flexibility of the
DERC program. In a letter dated April
23, 2008, TCEQ provided economic and
photochemical sensitivity analyses
supportive of this enforceable
mechanism.
Our proposed approval of the 8-hour
DFW SIP is conditioned on the TCEQ
submitting a complete SIP revision that
provides a 3.2 tpd restriction on the
amount of DERCs available for use in
DFW beginning March 1, 2009. The SIP
revision may provide that the amount of
DERCs available for use beginning
January 1, 2010, could increase above
3.2 tpd if the revision provides an
enforceable mechanism and a
justification that the increase is
consistent with attainment and
maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. In a letter dated June 13, 2008,
TCEQ committed to adopting these
conditions. Specifically, the TCEQ
committed to submitting a SIP revision
for the DERC rule that adopts the
necessary enforceable mechanism no
later than March 1, 2009. If Texas
intends to allow for more than 3.2 tpd
of DERCs to be used beginning January
8 TCEQ submitted revisions to the DERC rule as
a SIP revision on October 24, 2006. The revisions
included the changes to address our conditional
approval and other revisions identified in Texas
Senate Bill 784. EPA is currently evaluating
whether the SIP revision satisfies the conditional
approval commitments.
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
1, 2010, then the SIP revision must also
provide appropriate limits on the use of
DERCs and a detailed justification
explaining how the future adjustments
to the allowed DERC usage will be
consistent with continued attainment of
the 8-hour ozone standard. The
justification must provide sufficient
detail such that the public can be
assured that attainment will continue to
be projected in future years. The
justification and methodology for any
increase in allowable DERC usage must
be fully identified in the TCEQ
rulemaking and SIP submittal process.
The SIP revision submitted by March
1, 2009, must adequately provide for
continued attainment, and include the
justification and/or methodology used
by TCEQ to increase the amount of
DERCs allowed for use in DFW starting
in calendar year 2010. The justification
provided by TCEQ must satisfy section
110(l) of the Act and demonstrate that
the increase will not interfere with
attainment or any other applicable
measure of the Act. The analysis to
satisfy section 110(l) will need to
address both quantity and spatial
allocation impacts of increased DERC
usage on ozone levels.
We will also consider whether TCEQ
restricted allowable DERC usage to 3.2
tpd consistent with the attainment
demonstration for the year 2009. The
DERC rule enables the TCEQ Executive
Director (ED) to approve Notice of Intent
to Use Forms up to 90 days prior to the
use period. Therefore, it is possible that
the ED could approve the use of DERCs
for a time period including March 1,
2009 and any time thereafter, before the
3.2 tpd restriction has been adopted by
the TCEQ and submitted as a SIP
revision. At the time EPA takes final
action on the proposed conditional
approval, EPA will review all Notice of
Intent to Use Forms that have been
approved for use in 2009 to ensure that
the total amount of DERCs approved for
use beginning on March 1, 2009 does
not exceed 3.2 tpd.
E. Reasonably Available Control
Measures (RACM)
The RACM requirement applies to all
nonattainment areas that are required to
submit an attainment demonstration.
Section 172(c)(1) of the Act requires
SIPs to provide for the implementation
of all RACM as expeditiously as
practicable and for attainment of the
standard. EPA interpreted the RACM
requirements of 172(c)(1) in the General
Preamble to the Act’s 1990
Amendments (April 16, 1992, 57 FR
13498) as imposing a duty on States to
consider all available control measures
and to adopt and implement such
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:45 Jul 11, 2008
Jkt 214001
measures as are reasonably available for
implementation in the particular
nonattainment area. EPA also issued a
memorandum reaffirming its 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. In addition, measures available for
implementation in the nonattainment
area that could not be implemented on
a schedule that would advance the
attainment date in the area would not be
considered by EPA as reasonable to
require for implementation. EPA
indicated that a State could reject
certain 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 measure
would not advance the attainment date,
or was not technologically and
economically feasible. Although EPA
encourages areas to implement available
RACM measures as potentially costeffective methods to achieve emissions
reductions in the short term, EPA does
not believe that section 172(c)(1)
requires implementation of potential
RACM measures that either require
costly implementation efforts or
produce relatively small emissions
reductions that will not be sufficient to
allow the area to achieve attainment in
advance of full implementation of all
other required measures.
The TCEQ provided the DFW RACM
analysis in Appendices K, L and M of
the SIP submittal. Texas evaluated
control strategies for NOX and VOC
emissions, from area, point and mobile
(on-road and non-road) sources. The
candidate strategies were identified by
reviewing documents published by
multi-state air planning organizations,
EPA documents, and proposed and
approved control strategies for
nonattainment areas in other states (see
list in the TSD). As discussed in
Chapters 2 and 3 of the SIP submittal,
sensitivity analyses and the
photochemical modeling indicate that
DFW ozone is more responsive to NOX
reductions than VOC reductions. Based
upon the analyses and modeling, only
large reductions of VOC emissions, over
100 tpd, would advance the attainment
date in DFW. We were unable to
identify any additional available
evaluated measures that cumulatively
would provide 100 tpd in VOC
emissions reductions and thus, advance
the attainment date for the DFW area.
Many measures to reduce VOCs are
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40223
already in place, through state and
Federal mobile source programs and
rules to reformulate solvents, including
the recently published Federal rules for
Architectural and Industrial Coatings
(73 FR 15604, March 24, 2008), which
Texas estimates could reduce VOC
emissions in the DFW area by 12.5 tpd.
On November 15, 2006, TCEQ extended
the VOC RACT requirements to include
all nine counties in the DFW area; we
are acting on these measures in a
separate rulemaking, though in Section
VI we are evaluating whether these rules
implement RACT. Our analysis showed
that the State already is controlling the
significant VOC stationary and mobile
sources to RACM levels in the specific
DFW area. For more detail, see the TSD.
The majority of NOX emissions in the
DFW area come from mobile sources
and industrial processes; emissions of
NOX have been reduced to a large extent
with controls on EGUs and improved
mobile source programs. Our evaluation
of Texas’ modeling analyses found that
NOX reductions of at least 40 tpd would
be needed to advance the attainment
date by one year. This is because at least
40 tpd of reductions will occur in the
last year of the plan. We were unable to
identify any additional evaluated
measures that cumulatively would
provide 40 tpd in NOX emissions
reductions and thus, potentially
advance the attainment date for the
DFW area. Many NOX control measures
are already in place in the nine counties
and in the eastern half of Texas. Texas
extended the NOX RACT requirements
to include all of the nine counties.
Texas adopted new NOX control
measures for ICI Sources (brick, ceramic
and lime kilns; glass melting furnaces,
etc); EGFs; Cement Kilns; and Stationary
Internal Combustion (IC) Engines (gasfired, diesel and dual-fuel) in the nine
counties. Texas also adopted new NOX
control measures for East Texas
Combustion Sources located outside of
the DFW area.
We also reviewed whether there were
any additional available evaluated
strategies to reduce NOX emissions from
mobile sources. Our analysis showed
that the State SIP has in place TCMs,
VMEP, TERP, ACT and a motor vehicle
I/M program. Several of the measures on
the State’s list are already covered under
the TCMs, VMEP, TERP and ACT
programs and several other measures are
being implemented by various cities
within the DFW area. Our analysis
showed that the State is controlling the
significant NOX stationary and mobile
sources to RACM levels.
The State estimated that NOX
emissions reductions of approximately
23 tpd from point sources and
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
40224
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
approximately 20 tpd from fleet
turnover will be in place in the DFW
area by March 1, 2009. Given the control
strategies already in place for the DFW
area, any additional available measures
would not advance attainment.
Moreover, we note that in order to
advance attainment by a year (i.e., by
June 15, 2009), the State would have
had to implement any additional control
measures needed for attainment by the
beginning of the 2008 ozone season,
which has already passed. Thus, at this
time, it would be impossible to
implement additional controls that
would advance attainment. EPA has
reviewed the RACM analysis provided
in the SIP submittal for the DFW area
and believes that the State has included
sufficient documentation concerning the
rejection of certain available measures
as RACM for the DFW area.
We propose that any other available
evaluated measures are not reasonably
available for the DFW area, because they
are either economically and/or
technically infeasible, or would not
produce emissions reductions sufficient
to advance the attainment date in the
DFW area and, therefore, should not be
considered RACM. For more
information, see the TSD.
F. Failure-to-Attain Contingency
Measures Plan
Section 172(c)(9) of the Act requires
nonattainment SIPs to provide for a
contingency plan that will take effect
without further action by the State or
EPA if an area fails to attain the
standard by the applicable date. While
the Act does not specify the type of
measures or quantity of emissions
reductions required, EPA provided
guidance on contingency plans in the
General Preamble (57 FR 13498, 13510).
See the TSD for a list of applicable
guidance documents.
EPA interprets sections 172 and 182
of the Act to require States with
moderate or above ozone nonattainment
areas to include contingency measures
to implement additional emission
reductions of 3% of the adjusted base
year inventory in the year following the
year in which the failure has been
identified. EPA based the 3%
recommendation in the General
Preamble on the fact that moderate and
above areas are generally required
through the ROP/RFP requirements to
achieve an average of 3% reduction per
year until they attain the NAAQS. The
state must specify the type of
contingency measures, the quantity of
emissions reductions, and show that the
measures can be implemented with no
further rulemaking and minimal further
action by the state.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:45 Jul 11, 2008
Jkt 214001
For the failure-to-attain 1997 8-hour
ozone contingency measures plan,
Texas identified contingency measures
that were adopted for the 1-hour ozone
standard but never implemented. The
contingency measures include State
VOC rules approved by EPA in the
Texas SIP for Offset Lithographic
Printing at 30 TAC 115.449(c) (approved
April 6, 2000, 65 FR 18003, revised July
16, 2001, 66 FR 36917), Degassing or
Cleaning of Stationary, Marine, and
Transport Vessels at section 115.549(b)
(approved January 26, 1999, 64 FR
03841, revised February 27, 2008, 73 FR
10380) and Petroleum Dry Cleaning at
section 115.559(a) (approved January
26, 1999, 64 FR 03841, revised February
27, 2008, 73 FR 10383). Our review of
the May 30, 2007 SIP revision indicates
that the failure-to-attain 1997 8-hour
ozone contingency measures plan does
not identify sufficient measures to
achieve additional emissions reductions
of 3% of the emissions in the adjusted
1999 base year emissions inventory, as
required by our interpretation of the Act
(see EPA’s General Preamble at 57 FR
13498, 13510). Rather, the identified
controls would only achieve 0.35%
reduction.
Texas provided a commitment letter,
which identifies contingency measures
that the State will recommend for
adoption through rulemaking and has
committed to submit to EPA no later
than March 1, 2009 as a SIP revision
(see letter of June 13, 2008, in the
docket) adopted rules that could achieve
the additional reduction, providing a
total of 3%, for the failure-to-attain
contingency measure plan. The
commitment letter states that Texas will
adopt and submit no later than March
1, 2009 to EPA as a SIP revision, subject
to the SIP public participation
requirements and commission approval,
a revised failure-to-attain 1997 8-hour
ozone contingency measures plan that
would include the Federal Motor
Vehicle Control programs (FMVCP)
occurring after the 2009 ozone season,
in addition to the already-identified
VOC rules described above. The FMVCP
requires controls on both on- and nonroad motor vehicles, providing
emissions reductions as the fleet is
replaced with newer vehicles (turns
over). Texas’ April 23, 2008 letter
estimates projected emissions
reductions attributed to this 2009–2010
fleet turnover from mobile sources
occurring after the 2009 ozone season to
be approximately 20.78 tpd of NOX and
4.86 tpd of VOCs. The emissions
inventory from this attainment
demonstration SIP submittal, which
uses 1999 as the base year, estimates
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
emissions from anthropogenic sources
are 754.56 tpd NOX and 520.08 tpd
VOC. Texas projects the 2009–2010 fleet
turnover reductions alone will provide
a 2.75% reduction of NOX and a 0.93%
reduction of VOC from the 1999 base
year emissions. Texas also estimates
that the contingency measures
identified in the May 30, 2007 submittal
provide a cumulative total of 1.8 tpd
VOC reductions.
We have reviewed the May 30, 2007,
SIP revision and the State’s commitment
and determined that the VOC and fleet
turnover control measures identified are
specific and that the VOC measures are
enforceable because they are approved
into the SIP and will become effective
if the area fails to attain the standard by
the applicable date. We have
determined that the quantity of
emissions reductions exceeds 3% of the
1999 base year emissions inventory
based upon Texas’ estimate that the
2009–2010 fleet turnover reductions
will provide a 2.75% reduction of NOX
and a 0.93% reduction of VOC from the
1999 inventory. We agree with the
State’s projected emissions reductions.
We believe Federal measures already
scheduled for implementation and not
relied upon in the attainment
demonstration are appropriate
contingency measures (Phase 2 Rule, 70
FR 71612, 71651).
Therefore, we are proposing that the
contingency measures identified in the
SIP submittal and in the State’s
commitment letter would meet Federal
requirements for a 1997 8-hour ozone
failure-to-attain contingency measures
plan. We are proposing to approve the
1997 8-hour ozone failure-to-attain
contingency measures plan for the DFW
area, contingent upon the State’s
adoption of and submittal to EPA, of a
new failure-to-attain contingency
measures plan that includes the abovedescribed VOC rules and the additional
described control measure, fleet
turnover from mobile sources after the
2009 ozone season. If Texas submits a
revised failure-to-attain 1997 8-hour
ozone contingency measures plan that
includes the specifically identified
measures, i.e., the VOC rules and fleet
turnover after 2009 from mobile sources,
we will move forward with a final full
approval of the 1997 8-hour ozone
failure-to-attain contingency measure
SIP for the DFW area. Any comments
concerning whether these four measures
are sufficient to meet the failure-toattain contingency measure requirement
should be raised at this time. EPA does
not plan to provide an additional
opportunity for comment unless the
State modifies these measures or
submits a failure-to-attain contingency
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
measures plan relying on other
measures. Because the failure-to-attain
contingency measure SIP is a necessary
component of the attainment
demonstration, if Texas fails to submit
such a SIP revision, we cannot move
forward with a final conditional
approval action on the DFW 1997
8-hour ozone attainment demonstration
SIP, as we have also proposed in this
notice.
G. Attainment Motor Vehicle Emission
Budgets (MVEBs)
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
The 1997 8-hour ozone attainment
demonstration SIP must include MVEBs
for transportation conformity purposes.
Conformity to a SIP means that
transportation activities will not
produce new air quality violations,
worsen existing violations, or delay
timely attainment of the NAAQS. It is a
process required by section 176(c) of the
Act for ensuring that the effects of
emissions from all on-road sources are
consistent with attainment of the
standard. EPA’s transportation
conformity rules at 40 CFR 93 require
that transportation plans and related
projects result in emissions that do not
exceed the MVEB established in the SIP.
The attainment year established in the
DFW 1997 8-hour ozone attainment
demonstration SIP is the calendar year
of the final ozone season for
determining attainment, which is 2009.
See 40 CFR 93.118(b).
The attainment MVEB is the level of
total allowable on-road emissions
established by the control strategy
implementation plan. Ozone attainment
demonstrations must include the
estimates of motor vehicle VOC and
NOX emissions that are consistent with
attainment, which then act as a budget
or ceiling for the purposes of
determining whether transportation
plans, programs, and projects conform
to the attainment demonstration SIP. In
this case, the attainment MVEBs set the
maximum level of on-road emissions
that can be produced in 2009, when
considered with emissions from all
other sources, which demonstrate
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
The 2009 attainment MVEBs
established by this plan and that the
EPA is proposing to incorporate into the
DFW SIP are listed in Table 12:
TABLE 12.—2009 DFW ATTAINMENT
MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS (TPD)
Pollutant
NOX ..........................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:45 Jul 11, 2008
2009
186.81
Jkt 214001
40225
TABLE 12.—2009 DFW ATTAINMENT the inability of water heater
MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDG- manufacturers to supply units
compliant with the rule. Therefore, the
ETS (TPD)—Continued
Pollutant
2009
VOC ..........................................
99.09
We found the 2009 attainment MVEBs
(also termed transportation conformity
budgets) ‘‘adequate’’ and on June 28,
2007, the availability of these budgets
was posted on EPA’s Web site for the
purpose of soliciting public comments.
The comment period closed on July 30,
2007, and we received no comments. On
March 21, 2008, we published the
Notice of Adequacy Determination for
these attainment MVEBs (73 FR 15152).
Once determined adequate, these
attainment MVEBs must be used in
future DFW transportation conformity
determinations.
The attainment budget represents the
on-road mobile source emissions that
have been modeled for the attainment
demonstration. The budget reflects all of
the on-road control measures in that
demonstration. We believe that the
MVEBs are consistent with all
applicable SIP requirements and thus
are proposing to approve adoption of
the 2009 attainment MVEBs into the
DFW 1997 8-hour ozone attainment
demonstration SIP. All future
transportation improvement programs,
projects and plans for the DFW area will
need to show conformity to the budgets
in this plan.
H. Section 110(l) Analysis
Section 110(l) of the Act precludes
EPA from approving a revision of a plan
if the revision would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning
attainment and RFP (as defined in
section 171), or any other applicable
requirement of the Act. EPA interprets
section 110(l) to allow substitution of a
control measure in the SIP with a
different control measure if the new
measure will accomplish new and
contemporaneous emissions reductions
to offset the loss of the control measure
being removed from the SIP. We also
ensure that air quality will not degrade
and that progress toward attainment
will continue as EPA promulgates
revised ozone standards.
As of 2006, the DFW area is
monitoring attainment of the 1-hour
ozone standard (now revoked. See Phase
I Rule, 69 FR 23951). Measures from the
2000 1-hour SIP have been approved
into the SIP and remain enforceable,
with one exception. The Texas
Legislature caused the statewide
residential water heater emission
standards to be relaxed in 2005 due to
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
more stringent rule was never
implemented. TCEQ requested that this
measure be revised in the SIP and
substituted with new and
contemporaneous reductions of NOX
emissions from the TERP program that
were in excess of those required by the
April 27, 2005 DFW 5% IOP SIP. EPA
agrees with the State rationale. EPA and
the State projected NOX reductions of
0.5 tpd from the State’s residential water
heater rule in the DFW area. The
reductions from the TERP program in
the DFW 5% IOP SIP were projected to
provide 22.2 tpd in NOX emissions
reductions, or an excess of 4.23 tpd over
the 5% IOP. The actual NOX emissions
reductions achieved however, were
18.45 tpd (22.2¥18.45 = 3.75 tpd). Even
with this change in the projected
emissions reductions of NOX in the IOP
Plan, however, the projected NOX
reductions used to make up for the
revision of the residential water heater
rule are nearly met (4.23¥3.75 = 0.48).
And, per the discussion in section III–
C above, the shortfall of 0.02 tpd needed
to make up for the revised residential
water heater rule is projected to occur.
In summary, the State adopted the
water heater rule for the purpose of
contributing to attainment of the 1-hour
NAAQS. The emission standards in the
rule were made less stringent due to
technical infeasibility. The DFW area
has monitored attainment of the 1-hour
NAAQS. TCEQ substituted new and
contemporaneous reductions of NOX
emissions from the TERP program. In
addition, Texas has demonstrated
attainment of the 1997 8-hour NAAQS
using the revised water heater rule. We
therefore are proposing to find that the
revised State rule for residential water
heaters meets section 110(l) of the Act
for the DFW area.
VI. Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT)
Sections 172(c)(1) and 182 of the Act
require areas that are classified as
moderate or above for ozone
nonattainment to adopt Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT)
requirements for sources that are subject
to Control Techniques Guidelines
(CTGs) issued by EPA and for ‘‘major
sources’’ of VOC and NOX, which are
ozone precursors. See 42 U.S.C. sections
7502(c)(1) and 7511a(b) and (f). RACT is
defined as the lowest emissions
limitation that a particular source is
capable of meeting by the application of
control technology that is reasonably
available considering technological and
economic feasibility (44 FR 53762,
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
40226
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
September 17, 1979). A CTG provides
information on the available controls for
a source category and provides a
‘‘presumptive norm’’ RACT. In this
action, EPA is addressing RACT for
VOCs in the DFW area for the 1997
8-hour ozone standard, and for the
1-hour standard; RACT for NOX in DFW
will be addressed in a separate
rulemaking.
EPA published the 8-hour ozone
designations and the Phase 1 Rule for
implementing the 8-hour ozone
standard and the designations for the
8-hour ozone standard on April 30, 2004
(69 FR 23858 and 69 FR 23951,
respectively). At the time of designation,
DFW was a nonattainment area for the
1-hour ozone standard and had two
outstanding 1-hour ozone obligations:
(1) The area did not have an approved
1-hour ozone attainment demonstration;
and (2) the area did not have approved
RACT requirements for VOC emissions
(VOC RACT). All other 1-hour
requirements were approved. For
additional information, see the TSD.
According to EPA’s Phase 2 Rule (70
FR 71612, November 29, 2005), areas
classified as moderate nonattainment or
higher must submit a demonstration, as
a revision to the SIP, that their current
rules fulfill 1997 8-hour ozone RACT
requirements for all CTG categories and
all major non-CTG sources. Since DFW
is classified as moderate for the 1997
8-hour ozone standard, for purposes of
meeting the 8-hour RACT requirement,
the DFW area must demonstrate RACT
level controls for sources covered by a
CTG document, and for each major nonCTG source (100 tpy or greater potential
to emit). The Phase 2 Rule, section IV.G
states, in part, that where a RACT SIP
is required, State SIPs implementing the
8-hour standard generally must assure
that RACT is met, either through a
certification that previously required
RACT controls represent RACT for
8-hour implementation purposes or
through a new RACT determination.
The RACT SIP submitted by TCEQ
provides an analysis which
demonstrates how the DFW area meets
RACT requirements for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. See the TSD for more
information about the State’s VOC
RACT analysis for DFW.
In addition, the Phase 1 Rule provides
that 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas
are required to adopt and implement
‘‘applicable requirements’’ according to
the area’s classification under the 1hour ozone standard (see 40 CFR
51.905(a)(i)). The DFW area was still
classified as a serious nonattainment
area at the time of the 8-hour
designation and an outstanding
‘‘applicable requirement’’ for the DFW
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:45 Jul 11, 2008
Jkt 214001
area is VOC RACT. In the four core
counties, which comprised the 1-hour
ozone nonattainment areas, Texas
previously adopted rules to address
RACT requirements for all source
categories covered by EPA CTGs, and to
address major sources at the moderate
area major source threshold of 100 tpy.
The EPA approved these rules as
meeting VOC RACT for a moderate 1hour ozone nonattainment area (60 FR
12438). The reclassification of the area
from moderate to serious for the 1-hour
ozone standard, on February 18, 1998
(63 FR 8128), required Texas to ensure
that RACT was in place on non-CTG
sources down to 50 tpy. Texas
submitted a SIP to address this
requirement and we proposed to
approve the SIP submission as meeting
the 1-hour ozone serious area VOC
RACT requirements for the DFW 1-hour
ozone nonattainment area on January
18, 2001 (66 FR 4756). Although we
received no comments on that proposal,
we never took final action.
We are re-opening the comment
period on that proposed action for
1-hour ozone serious area RACT
requirements, and intend to take final
action on it in the same rulemaking
where we finalize action on the VOC
RACT 1997 8-hour ozone proposal. If
these proposed actions are finalized, the
DFW area will have fulfilled all of its
outstanding 1-hour ozone VOC RACT
obligations, and met the 1997 8-hour
ozone VOC RACT requirements.
The State’s submittal for the DFW
area for meeting the 1997 8-hour ozone
RACT requirement included, among
other things, the following two
components:
(a) A list of all CTG or ACT source
categories which matched those
categories with one or more
corresponding State rules which
implements RACT and the affected
sources in the nine counties,9 and
(b) An analysis of RACT for all major
sources in the nine counties that are not
covered by a CTG or ACT and how these
are controlled to meet RACT.
9 An earlier VOC-related Texas rulemaking was
adopted on November 15, 2006, and submitted to
EPA on December 13, 2006, as a SIP revision, which
extended VOC control requirements to facilities
located in Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, and
Rockwall counties. This rulemaking subjected
affected VOC sources in the five counties
mentioned above, to the same emissions limitation,
control, monitoring, testing, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements in effect in the four core
counties. As a result of this action, which EPA is
proposing to approve in a separate action, these
new VOC control requirements will be consistent
for all nine counties in the DFW area. Approval of
VOC RACT for the DFW area is contingent upon
final approval of this related rulemaking, which
extends VOC controls from the four core counties
to the five additional counties.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Appendices to the SIP submittal
identified the sources and the currently
applicable controls, which EPA had
previously approved as meeting RACT
for the 1-hour standard, and included an
analysis of whether additional RACT
controls were required for both CTG and
non-CTG sources.
To ensure RACT was in place for all
major sources, the State first searched
its permitting database to identify all
sources that emit or have the potential
to emit at least 50 tpy of VOC in the
DFW 8-hour ozone nonattainment area.
The State then provided a list of each
major source in a source category
covered by a CTG/ACT and the State
VOC RACT Rule applicable to such
major sources. The State analyzed
whether the existing CTG/ACT VOC
RACT rules should be more stringent.
Second, the State listed potential major
sources in source categories possibly not
covered by a CTG/ACT, and the State
provided further technical analysis for
these.
The State’s RACT SIP analysis was
available for public comment prior to
adoption by the State. EPA evaluated
the following elements of TCEQ’s VOC
RACT SIP submittal for the DFW Area:
• State Rules Addressing VOC RACT
Requirements for Sources Covered by a
CTG/ACT.
• Potential Major VOC Emissions
Sources possibly not covered by a CTG/
ACT.
A list of documents used to support
our review and evaluation is available
in the TSD.
The State’s submittal included a table
of all of the CTG and ACT documents
that have been issued by EPA and the
corresponding State Rules, contained at
30 TAC 115, which establish RACT
rules for the sources identified in each
CTG or ACT. For two of the VOC source
categories (shipbuilding and rubber tire
manufacturing), TCEQ provided a
negative declaration certifying that there
are no sources of VOCs for those
categories in the DFW area. Texas
concluded that all other CTG sources
currently have RACT-level controls.
Since RACT can change over time as
new technology becomes available or
the cost of existing technology
decreases, it is important that states
review new technologies. As clarified in
EPA’s Phase 2 Rule, ‘‘States and other
interested parties should consider
available information that may
supplement the CTG and ACT
documents’’ (70 FR 71655). In
developing this submittal, TCEQ
reviewed new technologies and current
control technologies and methodologies
implemented as RACT in other ozone
nonattainment areas. TCEQ found that
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Texas’ VOC RACT rules for CTG/ACT
covered sources are consistent with or
more stringent than the current control
technologies and methodologies
implemented in other ozone
nonattainment areas, which were
determined to fulfill RACT
requirements. EPA agrees that the VOC
controls in place for DFW meet RACT.
Please see the TSD for additional
information and analysis.
As previously discussed, as part of
addressing moderate area 1-hour ozone
requirements, EPA approved the Texas
VOC rules implementing RACT for all
required CTG or ACT categories in the
four core counties and for major sources
emitting 100 tpy or more VOC. The
State extended the previously approved
moderate provisions to the five new
nonattainment counties, added as part
of the DFW 1997 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area. Additionally, the
State had adopted for the four core
counties, which comprised the 1-hour
nonattainment area, and we had
proposed to approve RACT rules for all
sources emitting 50 tpy or more VOC as
part of addressing the 1-hour serious
area requirements.
For the CTG/ACT categories, based on
EPA’s review of the State submittal, we
conclude that the VOC controls in place
meet RACT. EPA finds that a negative
declaration for two categories
(shipbuilding and rubber tire
manufacturing) in the DFW area is
appropriate. Based on (1) this analysis,
and (2) final approval of the rule
extending the CTG VOC controls
throughout the 9-county DFW area (see
footnote 9), EPA believes the DFW area
has met all the applicable requirements
to have VOC RACT rules for all CTG
sources.
The State’s submittal also included a
list of all potential major sources of VOC
emissions within source categories
possibly not covered by a CTG (or ACT)
in the DFW area, together with a
demonstration of how each source was
determined to fulfill RACT
requirements. Given its classification as
a moderate ozone nonattainment area,
TCEQ was required to ensure RACT is
in place for all sources that emit or have
the potential to emit at least 100 tpy
(section 182(d) of the Act). TCEQ looked
at sources with a potential to emit as
low as 50 tpy of VOC to ensure RACT
was in place for major sources not
covered by a CTG or ACT. The TCEQ’s
analysis shows how each major source
meets VOC RACT based on currently
applicable controls and why no
additional RACT controls should be
required.
The State identified 36 potentially
major sources of VOC emissions in the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:45 Jul 11, 2008
Jkt 214001
DFW area, based on the 2002 emissions
inventory. Of these 36 potential sources,
20 were determined by TCEQ to be
covered by rules that meet RACT, and
one was shut down in 2004 (please see
the TSD). Based upon further analysis of
the remaining 15 sources, the State
determined that three of the sources
were not major sources. Their allowable
emissions are less than 100 tpy and
therefore are not subject to the RACT
requirements; these are two asphalt
roofing companies and a brick kiln.
Eleven of the 15 sources are major
sources, but fall within a source
category covered by the State’s VOC
RACT rules. One of the 11 sources,
Rock-Tenn Corporation, is subject to the
State’s VOC RACT paper coating rule.
The other 10 sources are subject to the
State’s VOC RACT vent gas rule: Dartco,
Chaparral Steel, Hensley Industries,
Johns Manville International, OwensCorning Waxahachie, Exide, Ex-Tex
LaPorte LP, TXU Generation Co,
Midlothian Energy, and Holcim. The
only comment the State received
regarding the need for additional VOC
RACT controls was that a thermal
oxidizer should be used to control VOC
emissions from the cement kiln.
However, a cost analysis of the use of
thermal oxidizers shows the cost to be
beyond RACT. Detailed cost information
is available in the TSD. The TCEQ’s
analysis shows that no additional RACT
controls are required.
The remaining source out of the
original 15 was determined to be major
and not within a source category
controlled by the State’s VOC RACT
rules: A beverage alcohol production
facility (Miller Brewing). Most of this
facility’s VOC emissions are fugitive
emissions due to product loss in the
packaging area. In its RACT
determination for Miller Brewing Co,
Texas stated, ‘‘VOC emissions are
controlled per BACT in NSR Permit No.
3133. Additional control for RACT is
not economically feasible’’ (TCEQ
Appendix J). These types of sources
have an economic incentive to operate
efficiently, in order to reduce leakage of
product, with the result in minimization
of VOC emissions. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to find that this beverage
alcohol production facility meets RACT.
EPA is proposing to find that the DFW
1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area
SIP meets the VOC RACT requirements
based on current applicable rules for all
sources addressed by a CTG and all
major non-CTG sources. EPA proposes
to approve the State’s submittals
demonstrating that the DFW area meets
the VOC RACT requirements for the 1hour ozone standard and the 1997 8hour ozone standard.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40227
VII. Proposed Action
We propose to conditionally approve
the 1997 8-hour ozone attainment
demonstration SIP revision for the DFW
1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area,
submitted by the State on May 30, 2007,
and supplemented on April 23, 2008.
Our proposed approval of the 8-hour
DFW SIP is conditioned on Texas
adopting and submitting to EPA prior to
March 2009, a complete SIP revision to
limit the use of DERCs, beginning March
1, 2009. Our proposed conditional
approval is contingent upon Texas
submitting the failure-to-attain
contingency measures plan SIP as
specified in this proposal prior to the
time EPA takes final action on the
attainment demonstration SIP. We are
proposing to find that all RACM for
VOC and NOX have been implemented
in the DFW area. We found the
attainment MVEBs to be adequate on
March 21, 2008 (73 FR 15152) and
propose to approve the 2009 attainment
MVEBs into the DFW SIP. We are
proposing to approve into the DFW SIP
the VMEP and TCMs submitted on May
30, 2007. We cannot finalize conditional
approval of the DFW 1997 8-hour ozone
attainment demonstration SIP unless
and until (1) the State meets the
contingency regarding the failure-toattain contingency measure requirement
as specified in this proposal, and (2) we
have approved the DFW RFP Plan and
all of the control strategies relied upon
in the attainment demonstration. The
control strategies are specifically listed
below:
a. The DFW area’s RFP plan,
associated MVEBs, and RFP
contingency measures;
b. The April 9, 2003, Alcoa Federal
Consent Decree;
c. The rich burn gas-fired engine rule
in the 33 counties east of DFW;
d. The DFW major source rule;
e. The DFW minor source rule;
f. The DFW gas-fired engine rule;
g. The DFW EGUs rule;
h. The DFW non-EGUs rule;
i. The Auxiliary steam boilers in the
5 counties;
j. The Stationary gas turbines rule in
the 5 counties;
k. The VOC Rules adopted on 11/15/
06 by TCEQ;
l. The DFW Energy Efficiencies
Program;
m. The Cement kiln rules;
n. The finding that DFW is meeting
RACM;
o. The VMEP;
p. The TCMs; and
q. The failure-to-attain Contingency
Measures Plan, revised as specifically
described today.
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
40228
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 135 / Monday, July 14, 2008 / Proposed Rules
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
r. An enforceable mechanism to limit
the use of DERCs, as specifically
described today.
We are taking action on a number of
the items listed above in separate
Federal Register actions.
We are proposing to approve that
VOC rules implemented in all nine
counties meet the RACT requirements.
These rules will result in emissions
reductions needed to help the DFW area
attain the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone.
EPA is proposing to approve and
conditionally approve these various
plans in accordance with section 110
and part D of the Act and EPA’s
regulations.
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
state choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely
proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:45 Jul 11, 2008
Jkt 214001
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxides, Ozone, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 1, 2008.
Richard E. Greene,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. E8–15805 Filed 7–11–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–RO3–OAR–2008–0068; FRL–8691–4]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Delaware; Control of Stationary
Combustion Turbine Electric
Generating Unit Emissions
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve
a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of
Delaware. This revision pertains to
controlling nitrogen oxides emissions
from stationary combustion turbine
electric generating units. This action is
being taken under the Clean Air Act
(CAA).
Written comments must be
received on or before August 13, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
RO3–OAR–2008–0068 by one of the
following methods:
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
B. E-mail: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov.
C. Mail: EPA–RO3–OAR–2008–0068,
Cristina Fernandez, Chief, Air Quality
Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket’s normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–RO3–OAR–2008–
0068. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change, and may be
made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov
or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an e-mail
comment directly to EPA without going
through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public
docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact
information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or
E:\FR\FM\14JYP1.SGM
14JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 135 (Monday, July 14, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40203-40228]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-15805]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R06-OAR-2007-0524; FRL-8690-7]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Texas; Attainment Demonstration for the Dallas/Fort Worth 1997 8-Hour
Ozone Nonattainment Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the 1997 8-hour
ozone attainment demonstration State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
for the Dallas/Fort Worth moderate 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (DFW
area) submitted by the State of Texas on May 30, 2007 and supplemented
on April 23, 2008. We are also proposing to approve the associated
attainment Motor Vehicle
[[Page 40204]]
Emissions Budgets (MVEBs), the Reasonably Available Control Measures
(RACM) demonstration, and two local control measures relied upon in the
attainment demonstration. The proposed approval of the attainment
demonstration is conditioned on Texas adopting and submitting to EPA
prior to March 2009, a complete SIP revision to limit the use of
Discrete Emission Reduction Credits (DERCs), beginning in March 2009.
Final conditional approval of the DFW 1997 8-hour ozone attainment
demonstration SIP is contingent upon Texas adopting and submitting to
EPA an approvable SIP revision for the attainment demonstration SIP's
failure-to-attain contingency measures plan that meets section
172(c)(9) of the Clean Air Act (the Act).
We also are proposing to fully approve the DFW area SIP as meeting
the Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirement for
volatile organic compounds (VOCs). EPA is proposing these actions in
accordance with section 110 and part D of the Act and EPA's
regulations.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 13, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-
OAR-2007-0524, by one of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
U.S. EPA Region 6 ``Contact Us'' Web site: https://epa.gov/
region6/r6coment.htm. Please click on ``6PD'' (Multimedia) and select
``Air'' before submitting comments.
E-mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson at donaldson.guy@epa.gov. Please
also send a copy by email to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section below.
Fax: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), at fax number 214-665-7263.
Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air
Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are
accepted only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays except
for legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries
of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2007-0524. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through https://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/
epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning
Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by
appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal
holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT paragraph below to make an appointment. If possible, please
make the appointment at least two working days in advance of your
visit. There will be a fee of 15 cents per page for making photocopies
of documents. On the day of the visit, please check in at the EPA
Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.
The State submittal, which is part of the EPA record, is also
available for public inspection at the State Air Agency listed below
during official business hours by appointment: Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality, Office of Air Quality, 12124 Park 35 Circle,
Austin, Texas 78753.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carrie Paige, Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-6521; fax
number 214-665-7263; e-mail address paige.carrie@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' means EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What Has the State Submitted?
II. What Action Is EPA Proposing?
A. What Must Happen Before We Can Finalize Conditional Approval?
III. Why Is This Proposed Approval Conditional and What Are the
Implications of a Conditional Approval?
IV. Background.
A. What Are the National Ambient Air Quality Standards?
B. What Is a SIP?
C. What Is Ozone and Why Do We Regulate It?
D. Background of the Texas SIP for the DFW Area.
E. Background of This SIP Revision To Address the 1997 Ozone
NAAQS.
F. What Is an Attainment Demonstration?
V. Evaluation of the DFW 1997 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration
SIP.
A. Legal Requirements for Approval
B. Eight-Hour Attainment Demonstration Modeling and Weight of
Evidence.
a. What Were the Results of the Photochemical Modeling
Attainment Demonstration?
i. What Is a Photochemical Grid Model?
ii. What Episode Did Texas Choose to Model?
iii. How Well Did the Model Perform?
iv. Once the Base Case Is Determined To Be Acceptable, How Do
You Use the Modeling for the Attainment Demonstration?
v. What Modeling Approaches Were Used for This Attainment
Demonstration?
vi. What Did the Results of TCEQ's Combo 10 Modeling Show?
vii. Evaluation of Other Modeling Projections Without Benefit of
Measures With a 2010 Compliance Date
viii. Refinements and Adjustments to Future Year (2009) Emission
Inventory and Modeling-Based Projected Changes to the SIP Modeling
FDVs
ix. What are EPA's Conclusions of the Modeling Demonstration?
[[Page 40205]]
b. What Weight of Evidence Has Been Evaluated?
i. What Additional Modeling-Based Evidence Did Texas Provide?
1. Texas Emission Reduction Plan
2. Compressor Engines
ii. Other Non-Modeling WOE From TCEQ
iii. EPA WOE Analysis
1. EPA Meteorological Adjusted Trends Analysis
iv. Other WOE Items From Texas Not Currently Quantified:
Additional Programs/Reductions
1. AirCheckTexas
2. Local Quantified and Unquantified Measures
c. Is the 8-Hour Attainment Demonstration Approvable?
C. Control Measures Relied Upon by the State in the Attainment
Demonstration SIP
D. Local Measures Relied Upon in the Control Strategy Modeling
a. Voluntary Mobile Source Emission Reduction Programs
b. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs)
c. Measures Discussed in the April 23, 2008 Letter From TCEQ
i. Texas Emission Reduction Plan (TERP)
ii. Discrete Emission Credits (DECs)
E. Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM)
F. Failure-To-Attain Contingency Measures
G. Attainment Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets
H. Section 110(l) Analysis
VI. Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
VII. Proposed Action
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Has the State Submitted?
On May 30, 2007, Texas submitted a plan designed to attain the 8-
hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone adopted in
1997 (the 1997 8-hour ozone standard). Texas supplemented this
submission with additional information in a letter dated April 23,
2008. The attainment demonstration relies on a variety of controls on
minor and major stationary sources and controls on mobile source
emissions. The emissions reductions are achieved through a combination
of Federal, State and Local measures. These measures are projected to
reduce emissions of NOX, a precursor to ozone formation, in
the DFW area by over 50% from 1999 levels. Some of the measures that
have been relied on in this demonstration are being reviewed in this
Federal Register (FR). Many are being reviewed or have been reviewed in
other FR notices. All of the measures that are relied on in the plan
must be approved before we can finalize our approval. The Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) used photochemical modeling
and other corroborative evidence to predict the improvement in ozone
levels that will occur due to these controls while taking into account
the growth in the DFW area.
The State's submission does not directly address the new ozone
standard issued March 12, 2008. The new ozone standard is more
protective and will require further reductions to attain, but the Texas
plan will provide progress toward this new standard.
II. What Action Is EPA Proposing?
The EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the 1997 8-hour ozone
attainment demonstration SIP revision for the DFW area (8-hour DFW SIP)
submitted on May 30, 2007 and supplemented on April 23, 2008. This
submittal provides photochemical modeling, corroborative analyses,
additional control measures not explicitly accounted for in the
photochemical modeling, and a combination of adopted Federal, State,
and local measures to demonstrate that the DFW area will attain the
1997 8-hour ozone standard by June 15, 2010. It also includes, as part
of the attainment demonstration SIP, an attainment MVEB, a RACM
analysis, and control measures. In today's action, we are proposing to
approve two local measures relied upon in the attainment
demonstration--the Voluntary Mobile Source Emission Reduction Program
(VMEP) and Transportation Control Measures (TCMs); we are proposing to
adopt the attainment MVEBs into the DFW SIP; and we are proposing to
approve the demonstration that all RACM have been adopted for the DFW
area. Finally, in today's action, EPA also is proposing to fully
approve the VOC RACT submissions for both the 1-hour and the 1997 8-
hour ozone standards.
A. What Must Happen Before We Can Finalize Conditional Approval?
Before finalizing conditional approval of the attainment
demonstration SIP, we must fully approve all of the control measures
relied on in the attainment demonstration and the Reasonable Further
Progress (RFP) Plan. In the 8-hour DFW SIP, the State included new
NOX emissions reductions measures and rules (found in Title
30 of the Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 117--denoted 30 TAC 117 or
Chapter 117), a VMEP, and TCMs. The revisions to Chapter 117 include
NOX reductions from the following sources: Industrial,
Commercial, and Institutional (ICI) Sources, Minor Sources, Electric
Generating Facilities (EGFs), Cement Kilns and East Texas Combustion
Sources. The measures in the 8-hour DFW SIP also include rules that
were adopted under the 1-hour ozone standard, which have been extended
to the larger 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (NAA). These previously
adopted rules were approved in earlier actions and are listed in
section V-C of today's rulemaking. In separate rulemakings, we are
proposing to approve the 2007 RFP SIP and the remaining control
measures including NOX controls submitted on May 30, 2007,
for point and area sources, which include ICI Sources, EGFs, Minor
Sources, Cement Kilns and East Texas Combustion Sources. We will also
take action on other emissions reduction measures submitted on May 13,
2005, which include the April 9, 2003 Alcoa Federal consent decree, an
Energy Efficiencies Program and NOX rules.
A description of all the measures that must be approved by EPA
before any final approval of the attainment demonstration SIP is in
section V of today's action.
In addition, we cannot finalize the proposed conditional approval
until Texas submits an approvable SIP revision to satisfy the section
172(c)(9) requirement for contingency measures that would be triggered
if the area fails to attain the 8-hour ozone standard by its attainment
date. This SIP revision (the contingency for final conditional
approval) must be a complete approvable failure-to-attain contingency
measures plan. Texas has committed to adopt and submit a plan that
relies upon three VOC SIP rules for Offset Lithographic Printing;
Degassing or Cleaning of Stationary, Marine and Transport Vessels; and
Petroleum Dry Cleaning, as well as fleet turnover from mobile sources
after 2009 as contingency measures. These measures are more fully
described in a commitment letter submitted by the State, dated June 13,
2008 (this letter is in the docket for this action). If the State
submits a complete failure-to-attain contingency measures plan that
relies upon the four above-noted control measures, EPA could proceed
with a final conditional approval of the attainment demonstration SIP.
Any comments concerning whether these four measures are sufficient to
meet the failure-to-attain contingency measure requirement should be
raised at this time. EPA does not plan to provide an additional
opportunity for comment unless the State modifies these measures or
submits a failure-to-attain contingency measures plan relying on other
measures.
[[Page 40206]]
III. Why Is This Proposed Approval Conditional and What Are the
Implications of a Conditional Approval?
Our proposed approval of the attainment demonstration SIP is
conditional because the attainment demonstration submitted in May 2007
relies upon unlimited usage of DERCs, whereas the April 2008
supplemented attainment demonstration relies upon a limited usage of
DERCs; as yet there is no State rule implementing this change. The
condition is based on a commitment by the State of Texas to adopt and
submit by March 1, 2009, a complete SIP revision that includes an
enforceable mechanism that would allow no more than 3.2 tons per day
(tpd) of DERCs to be used in 2009 in the DFW area. If Texas intends to
allow for more than 3.2 tpd of DERCs to be used beginning January 1,
2010, then the SIP revision must also provide appropriate limits on the
use of DERCs and a detailed justification explaining how the future
adjustments to the allowed DERC usage will be consistent with continued
attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. The justification must provide
sufficient detail such that the public can be assured that attainment
will continue to be projected in future years. For further explanation
of the limitation on DERCs, see section V-D.
Under section 110(k) of the Act, EPA may conditionally approve a
plan based on a commitment from the State to adopt specific enforceable
measures within one year from the date of approval. The TCEQ submitted
a commitment letter to EPA committing to adopt and submit to EPA by
March 1, 2009, a SIP revision addressing the DERC restrictions for 2009
and addressing the use of DERCs in subsequent years. This letter, dated
June 13, 2008, is in the docket for this action.
If EPA issues a final conditional approval of the SIP before March
1, 2009 and Texas subsequently fails to adopt and submit the DERC SIP
revision as committed to in its letter, EPA will issue a letter to the
State converting the conditional approval of the 1997 8-hour ozone DFW
attainment demonstration SIP to a disapproval. Such disapproval will
start the 18-month clock for sanctions in accordance with section
179(b) and 40 CFR 52.31 and the 2-year clock for a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) under section 110(c). EPA would publish in
the Federal Register a notice regarding the disapproval of the SIP and
the start of sanctions and FIP clocks for the DFW area, and would
revise the provisions in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to
reflect the disapproval of the SIP.
The State anticipates the DERC and contingency measure SIP
revisions to be proposed for public review and comment in Summer 2008,
and final adoption of the revisions is expected early in 2009 in order
to meet the commitment to submit the revisions to EPA by March 1, 2009.
If EPA finds that the submitted DERC SIP rule is approvable, we will
propose approval of the rule and could proceed with final full approval
of the attainment demonstration. Final conditional approval of the
attainment demonstration SIP would remain in effect until EPA takes
final action to convert the conditional approval to a full approval or
disapproval of the attainment demonstration. If EPA cannot fully
approve the revision concerning the use of DERCs in the DFW area, EPA
will propose disapproval of the submitted SIP rule and the attainment
demonstration SIP for the DFW area. The 18-month clock for sanctions
and the 2-year clock for a FIP start on the date of final disapproval.
IV. Background
A. What Are the National Ambient Air Quality Standards?
Section 109 of the Act requires EPA to establish National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or standards) for pollutants that ``may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare,'' and
to develop a primary and secondary standard for each NAAQS. The primary
standard is designed to protect human health with an adequate margin of
safety, and the secondary standard is designed to protect public
welfare and the environment. EPA has set NAAQS for six common air
pollutants, referred to as criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide, lead,
nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. These
standards present State and local governments with the minimum air
quality levels they must meet to comply with the Act. Also, these
standards provide information to residents of the United States about
the air quality in their communities.
B. What Is a SIP?
The SIP is a set of air pollution regulations, control strategies,
other means or techniques, and technical analyses developed by the
State, to ensure that the State meets the NAAQS. The SIP is required by
section 110 and other provisions of the Act. These SIPs can be
extensive, containing State regulations or other enforceable documents
and supporting information such as emissions inventories, monitoring
networks, and modeling demonstrations. Each State must submit these
regulations and control strategies to EPA for approval and
incorporation into the federally-enforceable SIP. Each Federally-
approved SIP protects air quality primarily by addressing air pollution
at its point of origin.
C. What Is Ozone and Why Do We Regulate It?
Ozone is a gas composed of three oxygen atoms. Ground-level ozone
is generally not emitted directly from a vehicle's exhaust or an
industrial smokestack, but is created by a chemical reaction between
NOX and VOCs in the presence of sunlight and high ambient
temperatures. Thus, ozone is known primarily as a summertime air
pollutant. NOX and VOCs are precursors of ozone. Motor
vehicle exhaust and industrial emissions, gasoline vapors, chemical
solvents and natural sources emit NOX and VOCs. Urban areas
tend to have high concentrations of ground-level ozone, but areas
without significant industrial activity and with relatively low
vehicular traffic are also subject to increased ozone levels because
wind carries ozone and its precursors hundreds of miles from their
sources.
Repeated exposure to ozone pollution may cause lung damage. Even at
very low concentrations, ground-level ozone triggers a variety of
health problems including aggravated asthma, reduced lung capacity, and
increased susceptibility to respiratory illnesses like pneumonia and
bronchitis. It can also have detrimental effects on plants and
ecosystems.
D. Background of the Texas SIP for the DFW Area
The original Texas SIP was submitted to EPA by the Texas Air
Control Board (renamed twice and known today as the TCEQ), on January
31, 1972. On May 31, 1972, EPA conditionally approved the SIPs for all
States in Volume 37 of the Federal Register beginning on page 10842
(denoted 37 FR 10842). The Texas SIP was conditionally approved (37 FR
10842, 10895) and the status of the Texas SIP was codified in Title 40,
Part 52 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (denoted 40 CFR 52),
Subpart SS, sections 52.2270 to 52.2280. Since 1972, many revisions for
the DFW area have been submitted by the State and approved by EPA.
These include numerous control measures implemented under the 1-hour
ozone standard to reduce NOX and VOC emissions from area,
point and mobile
[[Page 40207]]
sources; the Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress (ROP) Plan; and the 15% ROP
Plan. As a result of the implementation of these measures, the area's
1-hour ozone values have declined significantly in the past several
years; the 2004-2006 1-hour design value for the DFW area is 124 parts
per billion (ppb) and the preliminary \1\ 1-hour design value for 2005-
2007 is also 124 ppb, which meets the 1-hour standard, although this
standard was revoked in 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The value is considered preliminary because TCEQ has not
certified that it has completed the quality assurance and quality
control checks. We expect the data certification by by July 1, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Background of This SIP Revision To Address the 1997 Ozone NAAQS
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone standard
of 0.08 parts per million (ppm), which is more protective than the
previous 1-hour ozone standard (62 FR 38855).\2\ Under EPA regulations
at 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, the 1997 8-hour ozone standard is
attained when the 3-year average of the annual fourth highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ambient ozone concentrations is less than or
equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm when rounding is considered). For
ease of communication, many reports of ozone concentrations are given
in parts per billion (ppb); ppb = ppm x 1,000. Thus, 0.084 ppm becomes
84 ppb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ EPA issued a revised 8-hour ozone standard on March 27, 2008
(73 FR 16436). The designation and implementation process for that
standard is just starting and does not affect EPA's action here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA published the 1997 8-hour ozone designations and
classifications on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858). The DFW area was
designated nonattainment, classified as moderate, and includes nine
counties: Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant counties (these
constitute the former 1-hour ozone NAA, hereafter referred to as the
core counties), and Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker and Rockwall
counties. The effective date of designation for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS was June 15, 2004. The attainment demonstration for the DFW area
was due by June 15, 2007 and was submitted on time. The attainment date
for the DFW area is June 15, 2010.
EPA also published the first rule governing implementation of the
8-hour ozone standard (Phase 1 Rule) on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951).
The Phase 1 Rule addresses classifications for the 8-hour NAAQS;
revocation for the 1-hour NAAQS; how anti-backsliding principles will
ensure continued progress toward attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS;
attainment dates; and the timing of emissions reductions needed for
attainment.
On December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit vacated EPA's Phase 1 Rule in South Coast Air Quality
Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006). On June 8,
2007, in response to several petitions for rehearing, the court
modified the scope of vacatur of the Phase 1 Rule. See 489 F.3d 1245
(D.C. Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S.Ct. 1065 (2008). The court
vacated those portions of the Phase 1 Rule that provide for regulation
of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in some nonattainment areas under
Subpart 1 in lieu of Subpart 2 and that allowed areas to revise their
SIPs to no longer require certain programs as they applied for purposes
of the 1-hour NAAQS; new source review, section 185 penalties, and
contingency plans for failure to meet RFP and attainment milestones.
The decision does not affect the requirements for areas classified
under subpart 2, such as the DFW area, to submit an attainment
demonstration plan for 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and to attain the NAAQS
no later than the outside date for attainment required for the area's
classification.
EPA published a second rule governing implementation of the 8-hour
ozone standard (Phase 2 Rule) on November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612), as
revised on June 8, 2007 (72 FR 31727). The Phase 2 Rule addresses,
among other things, the following control and planning obligations as
they apply to areas designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS: RACT, RACM, photochemical modeling, and attainment
demonstrations. EPA issued the Phase 2 Rule so States and Tribes would
know how these statutory control and planning obligations apply and
when SIP revisions are due for these obligations so that the States
could develop timely submissions consistent with the statutory
obligations and attain the NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but
no later than the attainment dates specified for each area's
classification. Litigation on the Phase 2 Rule is pending before the
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
On May 23, 2007, the TCEQ approved revisions to the SIP for the DFW
8-hour ozone nonattainment area. The SIP revisions were submitted to
EPA on May 30, 2007 and supplemented on April 23, 2008. Today we are
addressing the 1997 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP for the
DFW area and a RACT finding for both the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone
standards.
F. What Is an Attainment Demonstration?
In general, an ozone attainment demonstration includes a
photochemical modeling analysis and other evidence (referred to as
``weight of evidence'') showing how an area will achieve the standard
as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the attainment date
specified for its classification. For purposes of the 8-hour ozone
standard, a determination of attainment (or failure to attain) is based
on the most recent three complete years of data prior to the area's
attainment date. Thus, since the DFW moderate area has a maximum
attainment date of June 15, 2010, the most recent three years of data
for determining attainment in the DFW area will be from the three
preceding calendar years, i.e., the air quality monitoring data from
2007, 2008 and 2009. Alternatively, an area may qualify for up to two
one-year extensions. The first extension can be granted if the area's
4th highest daily 8-hour average is 0.084 ppm or less. The second can
be granted if the 4th highest value averaged over the attainment year
and the extension year is 0.084 ppm or less (40 CFR 51.907).
To demonstrate attainment, an area must predict that emissions
during the ozone season preceding the attainment date will meet the
standard. EPA requires areas to implement all the measures necessary to
demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable, but no later
than the start of the final complete ozone season preceding the area's
attainment date (40 CFR 51.908). The DFW area's ozone season runs from
March 1st through October 31st (62 FR 30270, June 3, 1997 and 40 CFR
part 58, Appendix D); therefore, all of the control strategies relied
upon in the attainment demonstration must be implemented by March 1,
2009.
In addition to the approvable modeling and weight of evidence
components of an attainment demonstration SIP, for the attainment
demonstration SIP to be approvable, it must contain the following
elements which must also be approved: attainment MVEBs for
transportation conformity purposes; the measures relied on as necessary
to demonstrate attainment; RACM; an RFP plan and the RFP/failure-to-
attain contingency measures requirements for the area. (See Sierra Club
v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 163 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
[[Page 40208]]
V. Evaluation of the DFW 1997 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP
Below, we discuss the statutory and regulatory requirements that
prescribe our review of the State's attainment demonstration, the
elements in the State's submittal, and our evaluation of those elements
comprising the attainment demonstration SIP. Separate from our review
of the State's attainment demonstration SIP is our review of the
State's VOC RACT demonstration, and we discuss the VOC RACT statutory
and regulatory requirements in section VI.
A. Legal Requirements for Approval
The Act requires SIPs for nonattainment areas to demonstrate that
the area will attain the 8-hour ozone standard as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than outside dates established by the Act.
The Phase 2 Rule provides timing and guidance for this requirement for
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and identifies the modeling guidance
available to make the demonstration. Moderate 1997 8-hour ozone
nonattainment areas must attain the standard no later than June 15,
2010. An attainment demonstration SIP must include technical analyses
to locate and identify sources of emissions that are causing violations
of the NAAQS within nonattainment areas; adopted measures with
schedules for implementation and other means and techniques necessary
and appropriate for attainment; and contingency measures required under
section 172(c)(9) of the Act that can be implemented without further
action by the State or the Administrator to cover failures to meet RFP
milestones and/or attainment. The attainment demonstration SIP must
include a demonstration that the area is meeting RACM. An attainment
demonstration SIP must also identify MVEBs for transportation
conformity purposes. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.908(c) specifically
require that areas classified as moderate and above submit a modeled
attainment demonstration based on a photochemical grid modeling
evaluation or any other analytical method determined by the
Administrator to be at least as effective as photochemical modeling.
Section 51.908(c) also requires each attainment demonstration to be
consistent with the provisions of section 51.112, including Appendix W
to 40 CFR part 51 (i.e., ``EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models,'' 68
FR 18440, April 15, 2003). See also EPA's ``Guidance on the Use of
Models and Other Analyses in Attainment Demonstrations for the 8-hour
Ozone NAAQS,'' October 2005 and ``Guidance on the Use of Models and
Other Analyses for Air Quality Goals in Attainment Demonstrations for
Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze,'' April 2007 (hereafter referred to as
``EPA's 2005 and 2007 A.D. guidance documents''), which describe
criteria that an air quality model and its application should meet to
qualify for use in an 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration. For the
detailed review of modeling and the Weight of Evidence (WOE) analyses
and EPA's conclusions on the DFW 8-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration
see the ``Modeling and Other Analyses Attainment Demonstration''
(MOAAD) Technical Support Document (TSD). The MOAAD TSD also includes a
complete list of applicable modeling guidance documents. These guidance
documents provide the overall framework for the components of the
attainment demonstration, how the modeling and other analyses should be
conducted, and overall guidance on the technical analyses for
attainment demonstrations.
As with any predictive tool, there are inherent uncertainties
associated with photochemical modeling. EPA's guidance recognizes these
limitations and provides approaches for considering other analytical
evidence to help assess whether attainment of the NAAQS is likely. This
process is called a WOE determination. EPA's modeling guidance (updated
in 1996, 1999, and 2002) discusses various WOE approaches. EPA's
modeling guidance has been further updated in 2005 and 2007 for the
1997 8-hour attainment demonstration procedures to include a WOE
analysis as an integral part of any attainment demonstration. This
guidance strongly recommends that all attainment demonstrations include
supplemental analyses beyond the recommended modeling. These
supplemental analyses would provide additional information such as data
analyses, and emissions and air quality trends, which would help
strengthen the overall conclusion from the photochemical modeling. A
WOE analysis is specifically recommended to be included as part of any
attainment demonstration SIP where the modeling results predict Future
Design Values (FDVs) ranging from 82 to less than 88 ppb (EPA's 2005
and 2007 A.D. guidance documents). EPA's interpretation of the Act to
allow a WOE analysis has been upheld. See 1000 Friends of Maryland v.
Browner, 265 F.3d 216 (4th Cir. 2001) and BCCA Appeal Group v. EPA, 355
F.3d 817 (5th Cir. 2003).
Since much of TCEQ's initial work was conducted prior to the 2005
guidance document, the earlier draft 1999 modeling guidance document
(EPA-454/R-99-004, May 1999; ``DRAFT Guidance on the Use of Models and
Other Analyses in Attainment Demonstrations for the 8-Hour Ozone
NAAQS'') was also used by TCEQ and EPA prior to the October 2005
guidance issuance. There are two main changes compared to EPA's
modeling attainment demonstration guidance issued in 1991. First, EPA
recommends a modeled attainment test in which model predictions are
used in a relative rather than absolute sense. Second, the role of the
WOE determination, when used, has been expanded. That is, where the use
of WOE was previously considered optional, it is now strongly
recommended as an integral part of an attainment demonstration in
addition to the modeled attainment test.
TCEQ submitted the DFW attainment demonstration SIP with
photochemical modeling and WOE analyses. The results of the
photochemical modeling and WOE analyses are discussed below in
Subsection B. The projected growth rates and emissions reductions (or
increases) for the control measures and other means relied upon in the
modeling are discussed in Subsection C.
B. Eight-Hour Attainment Demonstration Modeling and Weight of Evidence
a. What Were the Results of the Photochemical Modeling Attainment
Demonstration?
i. What Is a Photochemical Grid Model?
Photochemical grid models are the state-of-the-art method for
predicting the effectiveness of control strategies in reducing ozone
levels. The models use a three-dimensional grid to represent conditions
in the area of interest. TCEQ chose to use the Comprehensive Air Model
with Extensions (CAMx), Version 4.31 photochemical model for this
attainment demonstration SIP. The model is based on well-established
treatments of advection, diffusion, deposition, and chemistry. Another
important feature is that NOX emissions from large point
sources can be treated with the plume-in-grid sub-model that helps
avoid the artificial diffusion that occurs when point source emissions
are inserted into a grid volume. The use of the newer version improves
the plume dispersion algorithms and adds full NOX and VOC
chemistry in the plumes. TCEQ has used the CAMx model in other SIPs and
EPA has approved many SIPs using CAMx based modeling analyses. Part 51
Appendix W indicates that photochemical grid models should be used for
ozone SIPs and lists a
[[Page 40209]]
number of factors to be considered in selecting a photochemical grid
model to utilize. EPA has reviewed TCEQ reasons for selecting CAMx and
EPA agrees with the choice by TCEQ to utilize CAMx for this SIP.
In this case, TCEQ has developed a grid system that consists of
three nested grids. The outer grid stretches from west of Austin to
Maine and parts of the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and from parts of
southern Canada in the north to the southern tip of Texas and the Gulf
of Mexico on the southern edge. The model uses nested grid cells of 36
km on the outer portions, 12 km in east Texas and portions of nearby
States and a 4-km grid cell covering the DFW Nonattainment Area. For
more information on the modeling domain, see the MOAAD TSD. The model
simulates the movement of air and emissions into and out of the three-
dimensional grid cells (advection and dispersion); mixes pollutants
upward and downward among layers; injects new emissions from sources
such as point, area, mobile (both on-road and nonroad), and biogenic
into each cell; and uses chemical reaction equations to calculate ozone
concentrations based on the concentration of ozone precursors and
incoming solar radiation within each cell. Air quality planners choose
historical time period(s) (episode(s)) of high ozone levels to apply
the model. Running the model requires large amounts of data inputs
regarding the emissions and meteorological conditions during an
episode.
Modeling to duplicate conditions during an historical time period
is referred to as the base case modeling and is used to verify that the
model system can predict historical ozone levels with an acceptable
degree of accuracy. It requires the development of a base case
inventory, which represents the emissions during the time period for
the meteorology that is being modeled. These emissions are used for
model performance evaluations. Texas modeled a 1999 episode, so the
base case emissions and meteorology are for 1999. If the model can
adequately replicate the ozone levels in the base case and responds
adequately to diagnostic tests, it can then be used to project the
response of future ozone levels to proposed emission control
strategies.
ii. What Episode Did Texas Choose To Model?
Texas chose an historical episode, August 13-22, 1999, that had
been previously used in modeling for the Early Action Compact modeling
of the Northeast Texas Area. The episode encompasses ten days with 8-
hour ozone exceedances every day, except for the first day which is one
of the two spin-up days. The first two days are considered spin-up days
that are usually not used in the modeling analysis because it
ordinarily takes 1-2 days to work out the initial condition biases. Of
the eight days (ten days minus the two spin-up days) that have
exceedances, all but one day have multiple monitors with exceedances
(2-7 of the nine monitors). On average, the eight exceedance days have
four monitors exceeding the standard each day. This episode contains a
variety of meteorological conditions which resulted in high
concentrations of ozone in the area as measured on both a 1-hour and 8-
hour basis, and many of the days had conditions similar to the
predominant types of meteorological conditions that yield high ozone in
the DFW NAA.
We evaluated Texas' episode selection for consistency with our
modeling guidance (1991, Draft 1999, 2005, and 2007 versions). Among
items that we considered were the ozone levels during the selected
period compared to the Design Value \3\ (DV) at the time; how did the
meteorological conditions during the proposed episode match with the
conceptual model of ozone exceedances that drive the area's DV; were
enough days modeled; and was the time period selected robust enough to
represent the area's problem for evaluating future control strategies.
EPA's guidance indicates that all of these items should be considered
when evaluating available episodes and selecting episodes to be
modeled. EPA believes that the episode from August 13-22, 1999, is an
acceptable episode for development of the 8-hour ozone attainment plan.
It has a number of meteorological conditions that match the conditions
that yield high ozone in the conceptual model for the DFW NAA, and was
among the episode periods evaluated with the highest number of ozone
exceedances. In selecting episodes, it is advantageous to select
episodes with several exceedance days and with multiple monitors
exceeding the standard each day when possible. This episode was among
the best episodes for the periods evaluated when the selection was
being conducted initially, and also had the benefit that significant
work was being conducted for this period for the Early Action Compact
for the Tyler/Longview/Marshall area of Northeast Texas. See the MOAAD
TSD for further discussion and analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The design value is the 3-year average of the annual fourth
highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration (40 CFR 50,
Appendix D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. How Well Did the Model Perform?
Model performance is a term used to describe how well the model
predicts the meteorological and ozone levels in an historical episode.
EPA has developed various diagnostic, statistical and graphical
analyses that TCEQ has performed to evaluate the model's performance to
determine if the model is working adequately to test control
strategies. TCEQ has done many analyses of both interim model runs and
the final base case model run and deemed the model's performance
adequate for control strategy development. As described below, we agree
with their assessment.
From 2003 to 2005, several iterations of the modeling were
preformed incorporating various improvements to the meteorological
modeling, the 1999 base case emissions inventory, and other model
parameters. These iterations totaled over 40 combinations as TCEQ
worked to refine the modeling. EPA reviewed these interim modeling
steps and provided comments and suggestions. When TCEQ felt the model
performance was acceptable, EPA (Region 6 and the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards) and TCEQ had a detailed meeting on February 1,
2005 to cover all aspects of the episode selected and model performance
(meteorological, emissions, and photochemical). TCEQ shared a compact
disc with detailed statistical and graphical analysis of the different
modeling (meteorology and photochemical). This data included analysis
of meteorological outputs compared to benchmark statistical parameters
that TCEQ previously developed as target values that are being used in
many areas of the country. TCEQ also shared graphical analyses of the
meteorology. TCEQ also shared extensive analyses of the photochemical
modeling for several base case modeling runs that included: diagnostic
tests with reductions/increases of precursor emissions, time series of
1-hour and 8-hour ozone, EPA 1-hour statistics, EPA 8-hour statistics,
ozone spatial plots, quantile-quantile plots, ozone pre-cursor data,
and ozone animations.
After extensive review, EPA was satisfied that the meteorological
modeling was meeting most of the statistical benchmarks, and was
transporting air masses in the appropriate locations for most of the
days of the episode. EPA also conducted a thorough review of the
model's performance in predicting ozone and ozone pre-cursors and found
that
[[Page 40210]]
performance was within the recommended 1-hour ozone statistics for
almost all days and all statistics. We also evaluated the 8-hour
statistics, results of diagnostic and sensitivity tests, and multiple
graphical analyses and determined that overall the ozone performance
was acceptable for Texas to move forward with future year modeling and
development of an attainment demonstration. EPA's acceptance of the
modeling is documented in a June 6, 2005 letter.
Subsequently, TCEQ made further minor refinements to the modeling
which are discussed in the MOAAD TSD. EPA agrees that after these minor
refinements, the overall model performance remains acceptable. The
final base case modeling evaluation, Run 46 using CAMx 4.31, further
reduced negative bias and reduced the total errors in the modeling
system. EPA agrees that the overall model performance (Run 46) is
adequate, but notes that even with the refinements, the modeling still
tends to have some bias on the higher ozone days. This bias may make
future year assessments conservative, i.e., the amount of ozone
reduction predicted is likely less than will actually occur, if the
modeling is not fully replicating local ozone generation. See the MOAAD
TSD for further analysis.
iv. Once the Base Case Is Determined To Be Acceptable, How Do You Use
the Modeling for the Attainment Demonstration?
Once the base case modeling is determined to be consistent with
EPA's guidance and acceptable for replicating the ozone levels observed
in the 1999 episode period, the modeling can be used as the basis for
developing the future year modeling. TCEQ then evaluated the base case
emission inventory, and made some minor adjustments to the inventory to
account for things that would not be expected to occur again or that
were not normal (example: inclusion of EGUs that were not operating due
to temporary shutdown during the base case period but were expected to
be operating in 2009). This emission inventory is called the 1999
baseline emission inventory. The photochemical model is then executed
again to obtain a 1999 baseline model projection.
EPA's guidance recommends using 2002 as the baseline inventory
year, but there are several possible methodologies available to
calculate baseline design values. For example, if a state models
episodes from other years it can project (or back-cast) to 2002 to
provide a starting point for future year projections. Alternatively, a
state may use a baseline year earlier than 2002 for the following
reasons: (1) Availability of air quality and meteorological data from
an intensive field study, (2) the desire to use meteorological data
that may be ``more representative'' of typical ozone conditions
compared to the baseline design value period, and (3) availability of a
past modeling analysis in which the model performed well. Texas chose
1999 as the baseline year. There was extensive air quality and
meteorological modeling available for the 1999 episode from Early
Action Compact Modeling in Northeast Texas; 1999's meteorology
represented typical ozone conditions. Therefore, EPA and TCEQ weighed
the pros and cons and concurred, based upon the above-noted reasons,
that it was not necessary to attempt to project to a 2002 baseline
emission inventory in this specific case.
The baseline emission inventory is also used as the basis, along
with other data, to project and estimate the future case emission
inventory along with consideration of any state and Federal regulations
that result in emission changes from the 1999 period. Since DFW is
classified as a moderate NAA, the attainment deadline is as
expeditiously as practicable but no later than June 15, 2010. Any
emissions reductions must be implemented no later than the beginning of
the previous ozone season; in this case, March 1, 2009, which is the
beginning of the final full ozone season preceding the attainment date,
if the reductions are to support attainment. The meteorological
modeling that has been reviewed and determined to be acceptable for the
base case is also used for the meteorological conditions in the future
year modeling (no changes are made). The future case modeling uses the
base case meteorology and estimated 2009 emissions to assess the impact
of economic growth in the region and State and Federal control measures
that will become effective during the modeling period from 1999 to
March 1, 2009. After the State develops a 2009 future baseline emission
inventory, photochemical modeling is conducted to get the 2009 baseline
ozone levels. The State then begins conducting modeling sensitivities
and modeling assessments of potential additional emission reductions to
aid in the planning of a control strategy that will demonstrate
attainment.
The 8-hour ozone modeling guidance changed the attainment test to
use the modeling analysis in a relative sense instead of an absolute
sense as was done in 1-hour ozone demonstrations. To predict ozone
levels in the future, we estimate a value that we refer to as the FDV.
First, we need to calculate a Base Design Value (BDV). The BDV is
calculated for each monitor that was operating in the base period by
averaging the three DVs that include the base year (1999); that would
be the DV for 1997-1999, 1998-2000, and 1999-2001 to result in a
center-weighted BDV.
To estimate the FDV, a value is also calculated for each monitor
that is called the Relative Response Factor (RRF) using the baseline
and future modeling. The RRF value is calculated by taking the ratio of
the sum of the daily highest 8-hour ozone value predicted around a
monitor in 2009 and dividing by the sum of the daily highest 8-hour
ozone value predicted around the same monitor in the 1999 baseline
analysis. ``Around the monitor'' for DFW modeling (4km grid) is defined
as the 7x7 array of grid cells surrounding the monitor (with the
monitor in the middle). EPA's guidance indicates that only days that
had a baseline value above a threshold concentration (TCEQ used 70 ppb,
which is the minimum value indicated by EPA guidance) should be used in
the RRF calculations. For each monitor, EPA recommends adding up all
the daily maximum 8-hour ozone values (for days that the maximum 8-hour
ozone value in the baseline were above the threshold in the area around
the monitor) and dividing that sum by the sum of the daily maximum 8-
hour ozone values predicted in 2009 around the monitor. This
calculation yields the RRF for that monitor. The RRF is then multiplied
by the Base Design Value (BDV) for that monitor to yield the FDV for
that monitor. This step is conducted for each monitor. The modeled
values for each monitor may be calculated to the hundredths of a ppb
which is rounded to get to tenths of a ppb, which is then truncated to
an integer (in ppb) at the end of the process (as recommended by EPA's
guidance). The truncated values are included in the tables in this
notice (Example: Modeled value of 84.94 is rounded to 84.9 and then
truncated to 84; Example 2: Modeled value of 84.95 is rounded to 85.0
and then truncated to 85).
v. What Modeling Approaches Were Used for This Attainment
Demonstration?
TCEQ submitted photochemical modeling labeled Combo 10 in its
attainment demonstration SIP. Combo 10 contains the control measures
outlined in Section D, including additional control measures with
compliance deadlines of March 1, 2010. The 2010 compliance dates apply
to
[[Page 40211]]
certain rich-burn natural gas fired engines for oil and gas compressors
in 33 Texas counties, all of which are outside the DFW NNA. Despite the
fact that the controls noted above are not required to be implemented
until 2010, Combo 10 assumes that all control measures will be in
effect by the beginning of the 2009 ozone season. TCEQ assumed that
early compliance would occur as a result of incentive grants for early
compliance provided by the State Legislature. Texas SB2000 provides an
appropriation of $4 million to compensate operators of the regulated
oil and gas compressors who comply with new emission reduction
standards early. There is also a large population of emission units in
this category and it is also likely that a percentage of these will be
controlled before the 2009 ozone season, or before the beginning of the
core part of the ozone season. Due to the large number of emission
units in this category and the incentive for early compliance, TCEQ
believes these units will provide significant reductions by 2009.
A small portion of the point source NOX Controls in the
DFW NAA, that yield about 2.4 tpd of NOX reductions, also
have 2010 compliance dates. TCEQ did not attempt to assess the
potential impact of not having these additional point source reductions
in place by the beginning of the 2009 ozone season. The 2.4 tpd of
NOX reductions from these sources is less than 10% of the
NOX emission reductions adopted for the DFW NAA. EPA also
notes that some of these 2.4 tpd NOX reductions are in the
western part of the DFW NAA and would not directly affect the modeled
impact at the monitors with the highest modeled FDVs (Frisco and Denton
monitors) for this episode, but would be expected to help reduce ozone
impacts at other monitors in Parker and Tarrant counties that have been
added to the DFW area monitoring network since 1999.
For a more complete description of the modeling procedures
conclusions and EPA's evaluation of these procedures and conclusions,
see the MOAAD TSD in the Docket for this action (EPA-RO6-OAR-2007-
0524).
vi. What Did the Results of TCEQ's Combo 10 Modeling Show?
The results of modeling the final control strategy runs are shown
in Table 1. As previously discussed, the State submitted modeling
(Combo 10) that took into account all the reductions from adopted
regulations, including those with 2010 compliance dates. TCEQ has
proposed an alternative RRF calculation method that calculated a daily
RRF for each monitor and then averaged the values to yield the RRF that
was multiplied by the BDV to yield the FDV. In the following Table 1,
we evaluate the model FDV calculations using both EPA's guidance method
for RRF calculation and the alternate RRF calculation approach that
TCEQ had developed. Details on the two methods are included in the TSD.
For most monitors, the alternate FDV calculations make only minor
differences. We have calculated the FDVs in the following tables using
the final truncated numbers in accordance with EPA guidance. Since the
TCEQ RRF calculation method did not make significant differences in the
FDVs and with the truncation to whole numbers, we have used the TCEQ
RRFs for the final assessment with consideration of the FDVs using
EPA's RRF method. The results of EPA's RRF method are contained in the
MOAAD TSD. Table 1 includes the modeling projections prior to
evaluating any other modeling runs, any additional model based
projections, and any WOE considerations for the Combo 10 modeling run.
Table 1 also includes the results from the two methodologies to
calculate the FDVs.
Table 1.--June 15, 2007 SIP Control Strategy Modeling Projections for 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FDV 1999 Combo 10
Monitor BDV 1999 -------------------------------
EPA TCEQ
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frisco......................................................... 100.3 89 88
Dallas Hinton C60.............................................. 92 85 85
Dallas North C63............................................... 93 84 84
Dallas Exec C402............................................... 88 78 78
Denton......................................................... 101.5 88 88
Midlothian..................................................... 92.5 83 83
Arlington...................................................... 90.5 80 80
Ft Worth C13................................................... 98.3 85 85
Ft Worth C17................................................... 96 84 84
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first column is the Base DV for the 1999 period that is used
with the modeling RRFs for calculating the FDVs. For Combo 10, the
analysis shows that 5 of the 9 monitors are projected to be in
attainment (at or below 84 ppb); two monitors (Ft. Worth C13 and Dallas
Hinton C60) are projected to be very near attainment with 85 ppb; and
projections for the other two monitors are 88 ppb for Denton and 88/89
ppb for the Frisco monitor. As shown in Table 1, the FDVs are on the
order of 8-12 ppb less than the Base DVs, which is a large reduction in
ozone levels due to existing State and Federal measures and the newly
adopted measures.
For a more complete description of the modeling procedures
conclusions and EPA's evaluation of these procedures and conclusions,
see the MOAAD TSD in the Docket for this action (EPA-RO6-OAR-2007-
0524).
In addition to the modeling results, TCEQ has presented other
evidence to demonstrate that attainment will be reached. These
additional WOE analyses are evaluated in Section 2 below. Since TCEQ's
May 30, 2007 submittal, TCEQ has also provided additional information
dated April 23, 2008 that supplements the modeling analysis (discussed
in part h below) and also the WOE (also discussed in section 2 below).
vii. Evaluation of Other Modeling Projections Without Benefit of
Measures With a 2010 Compliance Date
Due to our concerns that not all control measures relied on in the
Combo 10 analysis are required to be implemented prior to the 2009
ozone season, we also reviewed an alternative photochemical modeling
analysis. The additional modeling, which we refer to as Photochemical
Dispersion Modeling Reanalysis 2009 (PDMR 2009), evaluates the ozone
levels in 2009 based on the TCEQ control measures with
[[Page 40212]]
compliance dates of March 1, 2009 or earlier and does not consider the
impact from the adopted rules that have compliance dates after March 1,
2009. The adopted SIP included 2.4 tpd of NOX emission
reductions in the DFW NAA with a 2010 compliance date, while the
adopted reductions within the DFW NAA with a 2009 compliance date of
March 1, 2009 or earlier yield 23.48 tpd of NOX reductions.
The adopted SIP also included 22.4 tpd of NOX reductions
outside the DFW NAA due to the control of rich-burn compressor engines
with a compliance date after March 1, 2009. Since these emission
reductions occur outside the DFW NAA, they would not be expected to
yield the same amount of ozone benefit as similar reductions in the DFW
NAA would yield. The PDMR 2009 modeling helps to assess the potential
impacts of these 2010 compliance rules.
This evaluation of PDMR 2009 sets the lower bound of model
predictions for the FDV in 2009 and the Combo 10 run sets the upper
bound. This approach is consistent with attempting to consider the
bounds of potential benefit from the adopted measures included in the
SIP.
Table 2 includes the modeling projections for both the Combo 10 and
PDMR 2009 modeling runs.
Table 2.--June 15, 2007 SIP Control Strategy Modeling Projections for 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FDV Combo 10 FDV PDMR 2009
Monitor BDV 1999 -------------------------------
TCEQ RRF TCEQ RRF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frisco......................................................... 100.3 88 88
Dallas Hinton C60.............................................. 92 85 85
Dallas North C63............................................... 93 84 85
Dallas Exec C402............................................... 88 78 79
Denton......................................................... 101.5 88 88
Midlothian..................................................... 92.5 83 84
Arlington...................................................... 90.5 80 81
Ft Worth C13................................................... 98.3 85 85
Ft Worth C17................................................... 96 84 85
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For PDMR 2009, the analysis shows that 3 of the 9 monitors are
projected to be in attainment (at or below 84 ppb); four monitors (Ft.
Worth C13, Ft. Worth C17, Dallas North C63, and Dallas Hinton C60) are
projected to be very near attainment with 85 ppb; and projections for
the other two monitors are 88 ppb for the Denton and Frisco monitors.
This analysis indicates a slightly worse air quality picture than the
results from the Combo 10 analysis. The FDVs for several monitors were
higher, but the actual difference is only a few tenths of a ppb at most
monitors of concern. The largest difference between the PDMR 2009
modeling and the Combo 10 modeling was an increase of 0.3 ppb at the
Frisco monitor.
As previously discussed, reductions from rules with a March 2010
compliance date are included in the Combo 10 run. Due to the incentives
for early compliance and consideration that some sources will likely be
controlled early, we conclude some of the reductions from rules with a
March 2010 compliance date will likely be completed early. Therefore,
we have evaluated the modeling outputs based on an approach that looks
at both the PDMR 2009 outputs, which predicts ozone levels that are
slightly worse than what actually will occur and Combo 10 outputs which
may be somewhat optimistic
