Approval and Promulgation of Implementation; Texas; Houston: Reasonable Further Progress Plan, Contingency Measures, and Transportation Conformity Budgets for the 1997 8-Hour Severe Ozone Nonattainment Area, 55029-55037 [2013-21883]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
relating to, or affecting the disposition
of firearms from the estate.
Dated: August 29, 2013.
Eric H. Holder, Jr.,
Attorney General.
[FR Doc. 2013–21661 Filed 9–6–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–FY–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52
[EPA–R06–OAR–2010–0333; FRL–9900–83–
Region 6]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation; Texas; Houston:
Reasonable Further Progress Plan,
Contingency Measures, and
Transportation Conformity Budgets for
the 1997 8-Hour Severe Ozone
Nonattainment Area
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The EPA is proposing to
approve revisions to the Texas State
Implementation Plan to the emissions
inventory (EI), the reasonable further
progress (RFP) plan and contingency
measures, the vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) offset analysis, and
transportation conformity motor vehicle
emissions budgets associated with the
reasonable further progress portion of
these revisions. The EPA is proposing to
approve these revisions because they
satisfy the EI, the RFP, the VMT offset,
and transportation conformity
requirements for areas classified as
severe nonattainment for the 1997 8hour ozone national ambient air quality
standard and demonstrate further
progress in reducing ozone precursors.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before October 9, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06–
OAR–2010–0333, 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.
• Email: 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.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Sep 06, 2013
Jkt 229001
• 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 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 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–2010–
0333. The 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 through
www.regulations.gov or email,
information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an
‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means the EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an email
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, the 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 the EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
the 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 the 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 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
55029
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in
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.
Sandra Rennie, Air Planning Section
(6PD–L), Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733,
telephone (214) 665–7367; fax number
(214) 665–7263; email address
rennie.sandra@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ means EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What action is EPA proposing?
II. What is the background for this action?
III. What is EPA’s evaluation of the revisions?
A. Base Year Emissions Inventory
B. Adjusted Base Year Inventory and 2008
RFP Target Levels
C. Projected Inventories and Determination
of RFP
D. Control Measures and Emission
Reductions for RFP
E. Contingency Measures
F. Vehicle Miles Traveled Offset Analysis
G. Transportation Conformity Budgets
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is EPA proposing?
The EPA is proposing to approve a
revision to the Texas State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for the
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB)
ozone nonattainment area submitted by
the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality on April 1, 2010,
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
55030
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
and an updated revision using the
MOVES2010a 1 mobile model submitted
on May 6, 2013. We are proposing to
approve the following SIP elements: The
revised emission inventory (EI); the
reasonable further progress plan (RFP)
and contingency measures; the vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) offset analysis;
and the associated motor vehicle
emission budget (MVEB) for
transportation conformity. The SIP
revision satisfies the EI, RFP, VMT
offset, and MVEB requirements for areas
classified as severe nonattainment for
the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient
air quality standard (NAAQS) and
demonstrates reasonable further
progress in reducing ozone precursors.
We are proposing to take this action
pursuant to section 110 and part D of
the Clean Air Act (Act or CAA) and
EPA’s regulations.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
II. What is the background for this
action?
In 1997 (62 FR 38856), the EPA
revised the health-based NAAQS for
ozone, setting it at 0.08 parts per million
(ppm) averaged over an 8-hour time
frame. The EPA set the 8-hour ozone
standard based on scientific evidence
demonstrating that ozone causes
adverse health effects at lower ozone
concentrations and over a longer period
of time than was understood when the
pre-existing 1-hour ozone standard was
set. The EPA determined that the 8-hour
standard would be more protective of
human health, especially children and
adults who are active outdoors, and
individuals with a pre-existing
respiratory disease, such as asthma.
On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858), the
EPA finalized its attainment/
nonattainment designations for areas
across the country with respect to the 8hour ozone standard. These actions
became effective on June 15, 2004.
Among those areas designated as
nonattainment is HGB.
This designation triggered the CAA’s
section 110(a)(1) requirement that states
must submit attainment demonstrations
for their nonattainment areas to the EPA
by no later than three years after the
promulgation of the NAAQS.
Accordingly, EPA’s phase I 8-hour
ozone implementation rule (Phase I
Rule), published on April 30, 2004 (69
FR 23951), specified that states must
submit attainment demonstrations for
their nonattainment areas to the EPA by
no later than three years from the
1 MOVES is an acronym for MOtor Vehicle
Emission Simulator. This new emission modeling
system released September 23, 2011, estimates
emissions for mobile sources covering a broad range
of pollutants and allows multiple scale analysis of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Sep 06, 2013
Jkt 229001
effective date of designation, that is, by
June 15, 2007.
Pursuant to the Phase 1 rule, an area
was classified under subpart 2 of the
CAA based on its 8-hour design value if
that area had a 1-hour design value at
or above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour
design value in Table 1 of subpart 2).
Based on this criterion, the HGB
nonattainment area was classified as a
moderate nonattainment area.
On November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612),
and as revised on June 8, 2007 (72 FR
31727), EPA published the final Phase
2 Rule for implementation of the 8-hour
standard (Phase 2 rule). The Phase 2
rule addressed the RFP control and
planning obligations as they apply to
areas designated nonattainment for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Among other things, the Phase 1 and
Phase 2 rules outline the SIP
requirements and deadlines for various
requirements in areas designated as
moderate and above nonattainment. The
rule further requires that modeling and
attainment demonstrations, RFP plans,
reasonably available control measures
(RACM), projection year emission
inventories, MVEB, and contingency
measures were all due by June 15, 2007
(See 40 CFR 51.908(a), (c)).
Section 182(b)(1) of the CAA and
EPA’s 1997 8-hour ozone
implementation rule (40 CFR 51.910)
require each 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area designated moderate
and above to submit an EI and RFP plan,
for review and approval into its SIP, that
describe how the area will achieve
actual emissions reductions of VOC and
NOX from a baseline emissions
inventory.
On June 15, 2007, the EPA received a
request from Texas Governor Perry
seeking voluntary reclassification of the
HGB nonattainment area from moderate
to severe nonattainment under the 1997
8-hour ozone standard. The EPA
reclassified the eight-county HGB area
from a moderate to a severe
nonattainment area for the 1997 eighthour ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) effective on
October 31, 2008. (73 FR 56983).
Reclassification of the HGB area to
severe required Texas to develop and
submit a revised RFP SIP and a VMT
offset analysis.
III. What is EPA’s evaluation of the
revisions?
The EPA’s analysis and findings are
discussed in this proposed rulemaking.
emissions estimates from cars, trucks &
motorcycles. Use of the MOVES model in SIPs was
required as of March 2, 2013.
2 November 18, 2002 EPA memorandum ‘‘2002
Base Year Emission Inventory SIP Planning: 8-Hour
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
A more detailed discussion is contained
in the Technical Support Document
(TSD) for this Proposal, which is
available on line at https://
www.regulations.gov, Docket number
EPA–R06–OAR–2010–0333.
On April 1, 2010, Texas submitted an
updated emission inventory, a plan
demonstrating 18 percent RFP for the
period 2002–2008, contingency
measures for RFP, and on-road VOC and
NOX MVEBs. In addition, the RFP
demonstrated 9% reductions from 2009
through 2011; 9% reductions from 2012
through 2014; 9% reductions from 2015
through 2017; 3% reductions in 2018;
and 3% reductions in 2019 for
contingency purposes. These
accompanied an attainment
demonstration which is the subject of a
separate rulemaking. These SIP
revisions were subject to notice and
comment by the public, and the State of
Texas addressed the comments received
on the proposed SIP revisions. The State
revised the EI and the RFP in a
submittal dated May 6, 2013, using
EPA’s MOVES2010a mobile model in
place of MOBILE6 that was used in the
2010 submittal.
A. Base Year Emissions Inventory
An emissions inventory is a
comprehensive, accurate, current
inventory of actual emissions from all
sources of the relevant pollutant or
pollutants in an area and is required by
section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. For ozone
nonattainment areas, the emissions
inventory needs to contain VOC and
NOX emissions because these pollutants
are precursors to ozone formation. In the
Phase 2 implementation rule, the EPA
recommended 2002 as the base year
emissions inventory,2 and is therefore
the starting point for calculating RFP.
Texas submitted the 2002 base year
inventories for all state nonattainment
areas on May 13, 2005. The EPA
approved the HGB emission inventory
on April 22, 2009 (74 FR 18298). The
April 2010 and May 2013 submittals
provide an updated base year inventory
using MOVES2010a.
EPA is proposing to approve revisions
to the 2002 Base Year Emissions
Inventory. Table 1 provides the 2002
emissions inventory as previously
submitted in 2005 and approved in 2009
with the updated 2010 inventory
revised and adopted by Texas in 2013
for approval into the SIP.
Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze Programs,
available at https://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/
2002baseinven_102502new.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
55031
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—REVISIONS TO THE 2002 RFP BASE YEAR EMISSIONS INVENTORY
[Tons/day]
Source type
NOX
Submittal date
2005
VOC
2010
2005
2010
Point .................................................................................................................
Area .................................................................................................................
On-road Mobile ................................................................................................
Non-road Mobile ..............................................................................................
339.48
40.15
283.20
167.74
339.29
89.11
371.89
156.98
297.12
219.51
114.30
112.37
316.62
407.61
124.47
84.32
Total ..........................................................................................................
830.57
957.27
743.30
933.02
A summary of the updated 2002 base
year inventory submitted May 6, 2013 is
shown in Table 2 below.
TABLE 2—RFP 2002 BASELINE EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY
Uncontrolled
Controlled
Source type
NOX
VOC
NOX
VOC
339.29
89.11
552.30
166.98
316.62
407.61
205.76
100.15
339.29
89.11
371.89
156.98
316.62
407.61
124.47
84.32
Total ..........................................................................................................
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Point .................................................................................................................
Area .................................................................................................................
On-road Mobile ................................................................................................
Non-road Mobile ..............................................................................................
1147.68
1030.14
957.27
933.02
B. Adjusted Base Year Inventory and
2008 RFP Target Levels
The process for determining the
emissions baseline from which the RFP
reductions are calculated is described in
section 182(b)(1) of the CAA and 40 CFR
51.910. This baseline value is the 2002
adjusted base year inventory. Sections
182(b)(1)(B) and (D) require the
exclusion from the base year inventory
of emissions benefits resulting from the
Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program
(FMVCP) regulations promulgated by
January 1, 1990, and the Reid Vapor
Pressure (RVP) regulations promulgated
June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23666). The
FMVCP and RVP emissions reductions
are determined by the State using EPA’s
highway mobile source emissions model
software, MOVES2010a. The FMVCP
and RVP emission reduction are then
removed from the base year inventory
by the State, resulting in an adjusted
base year inventory. The emission
reductions needed to satisfy the RFP
requirement are then calculated from
the adjusted base year inventory. The
reductions are then subtracted from the
adjusted base year inventory to establish
the emissions target for the RFP
milestone year (2018).
For severe areas like the HGB
nonattainment area, the CAA
§ 182(c)(2)(B) specifies a 15 percent
reduction in ozone precursor emissions
over an initial six-year period, and an
additional three percent per year for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Sep 06, 2013
Jkt 229001
every year thereafter until the
attainment year. In the Phase 2 rule,
EPA provided that areas that were also
designated nonattainment and classified
as moderate or higher for the 1-hour
ozone standard and that have the same
boundaries as an area for which the EPA
fully approved a 15 percent plan for the
1-hour NAAQS, are considered to have
met the requirement of section 182(b)(1)
of the CAA for the 8-hour NAAQS. In
this situation, a severe nonattainment
area is subject to RFP under 172(c)(2) of
the CAA and shall submit, no later than
three years after designation for the 8hour NAAQS, a SIP revision that meets
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.910(b)(2).
The RFP SIP revision must provide for
a 15 percent emission reduction (of NOX
and/or VOC) accounting for any growth
that occurs during the six year period
following the baseline emissions
inventory year, i.e., 2002–2008.
The HGB nonattainment area had the
same boundary under the 1-hour ozone
standard as that of the 8-hour ozone
standard. The HGB area under the 1hour ozone standard was classified as
severe. The EPA approved the HGB 15
percent RFP plan on April 22, 2009 (74
FR 18298). Therefore, according to the
Phase 2 Rule, the RFP plan for the HGB
nonattainment area may use either NOX
or VOC emissions reductions (or both)
to achieve the 15 percent emission
reduction requirement.
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
According to section 182(b)(1)(D) of
the CAA, emission reductions that
resulted from the FMVCP and RVP rules
promulgated prior to 1990 are not
creditable for achieving RFP emission
reductions. Therefore, the 2002 base
year inventory is adjusted by subtracting
the VOC and NOX emission reductions
that area expected to occur between
2002 and the future milestone years due
to FMVCP and RVP rules.
Texas sets out its calculations for the
adjusted base year (ABY) inventory and
milestone target levels in Chapter 2,
section 2.5.3 of the 2010 submittal and
Chapter 2, section 2.5 of the 2013
submittal, according to the following
method. See the calculations in Table 3
below.
Step 1. Estimate the actual
anthropogenic base year inventory for
both VOC and NOX in 2002 with all
2002 control programs in place.
Step 2. Using the same highway
vehicle activity inputs used to calculate
the actual 2002 inventory, run the
appropriate motor vehicle emissions
model for 2002 and for 2008 with all
post-1990 CAA measures turned off.
Any other local inputs for vehicle
inspection and maintenance (I/M)
programs should be set according to the
program that was required to be in place
in 1990. Fuel RVP should be set at 9.0
or 7.8 depending on the RVP required
in the local area as a result of fuel RVP
regulations promulgated in June 1990.
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
55032
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Step 3. Calculate the difference
between 2002 and 2008 VOC emissions
factors calculated in Step 2 and
multiply by 2002 VMT. The result is the
VOC emissions reductions that will
occur between 2002 and 2008 without
the benefits of any post-1990 CAA
measures. These are the non-creditable
VOC reductions that occur over this
period. Calculate the difference between
2002 and 2008 NOX emissions factors
calculated in Step 2 and multiply by
2002 VMT. This result is the NOX
emissions reductions that will occur
between 2002 and 2008 without the
benefits of any post-1990 CAA
measures. These are the non-creditable
NOX reductions that occur over this
period.
Step 4. Subtract the non-creditable
VOC reductions calculated in Step 3
from the actual anthropogenic 2002
VOC inventory estimated in Step 1.
Subtract the non-creditable NOX
reductions calculated in Step 3 from the
actual anthropogenic 2002 NOX
inventory estimated in Step 1. These
adjusted VOC and NOX inventories are
the basis for calculating the target level
of emissions in 2008.
Step 5. The target level of VOC and
NOX emissions in 2008 needed to meet
the 2008 rate of progress ROP
requirement is any combination of VOC
and NOX reductions from the adjusted
inventories calculated in Step 4 that
total 18 percent.
TABLE 3—HGB NAA 2008 RFP TARGET LEVEL CALCULATIONS WITH NOX SUBSTITUTION
[Ozone Season tpd]
Description
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Formula
2002 Rate-of Progress Base Year Inventory ........................................................................
2002 On-road ABY emissions inventory ...............................................................................
FMVCP/RVP Reductions Between 2002 and 2008 ..............................................................
2008 On-road ABY emissions inventory ...............................................................................
2008 ABY emission inventory ...............................................................................................
RFP Ratio ..............................................................................................................................
Emissions Reductions Required Between 2002 & 2008 ......................................................
Target Level for 2008 ...........................................................................................................
C. Projected Inventories and
Determination of RFP
Texas describes its methods used for
developing its 2018 projected VOC and
NOX inventories in Chapter 2 of the
2010 SIP submittal. EPA reviewed the
procedures Texas used to develop its
projected inventories and found them to
be reasonable.
........................
........................
B¥C
........................
........................
........................
E×F
A¥G
NOX
VOC
957.27
552.30
¥25.99
578.29
983.26
17%
167.15
816.10
933.02
205.76
¥0.13
205.89
933.15
1%
9.33
923.82
Projected controlled 2018 emissions
for the HGB nonattainment area are
summarized in Tables 4 and 5.
TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF HGB RFP NOX EMISSION REDUCTIONS IN TONS PER DAY
Control strategy description
2008
Mass Emissions Cap and Trade Program (MECT) .............
Tank Landing Loss Rule ......................................................
Federal Portable Fuel Container (PFC) Rule ......................
Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) ..............
Federal Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) ................................
Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) .......................................
On-road Texas Low Emission Diesel (TxLED) ....................
Tier I and II Locomotive NOX standards .............................
Small Non-Road Spark Ignition (SI) Phase I .......................
Heavy-duty Non-Road Engines ...........................................
Tier 2 and 3 Non-Road Diesel Engines ..............................
Federal Standards for New Small Non-Road Spark Ignition
(SI) Engines (Phase II) .....................................................
Federal Standards for New Large Non-road SI and Recreational Marine ................................................................
Non-road TxLED ..................................................................
Non-road RFG .....................................................................
Tier 4 Federal Standards for Diesel Engines ......................
Federal Marine Diesel Tier 2 ...............................................
Sum of Control Reductions ..................................................
2011
2014
2017
2018
219.83
0.00
0.00
150.64
150.64
17.35
6.03
11.74
1 ¥0.30
5.76
8.13
227.65
0.00
0.00
319.72
189.54
16.62
5.08
12.75
1 ¥0.39
7.91
14.01
243.87
0.00
0.00
409.05
213.44
11.80
3.52
14.09
1 ¥0.47
9.64
18.76
263.23
0.00
0.00
486.84
235.00
8.03
2.55
15.24
1 ¥0.56
12.02
23.25
269.94
0.00
0.00
510.15
241.29
7.10
2.36
16.04
1 ¥0.58
12.56
24.29
1.25
1.65
1.85
1.99
2.04
12.27
2.87
0.00
0.00
1.96
678.70
20.30
2.59
0.00
0.52
3.23
821.18
27.01
2.14
0.00
4.67
4.72
964.09
31.10
1.73
0.00
10.96
6.20
1097.58
32.13
1.59
0.00
12.82
6.90
1138.63
1The negative NO emissions reductions number from Small Non-Road SI Phase I engines is attributed to fleet growth in light of more strinX
gent standards.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF HGB RFP VOC EMISSION REDUCTIONS IN TONS PER DAY
Control strategy description
2008
Mass Emissions Cap and Trade Program (MECT) .............
Tank Landing Loss Rule ......................................................
Federal Portable Fuel Container (PFC) Rule ......................
Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) ..............
Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) .............................................
Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) .......................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Sep 06, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00063
2011
0.00
0.00
0.00
109.17
22.03
9.56
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
0.00
11.50
3.68
148.83
22.79
9.77
2014
2017
0.00
11.50
9.65
188.98
17.27
7.99
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
0.00
11.50
10.10
222.89
14.12
6.86
2018
0.00
11.50
10.25
232.44
13.48
6.51
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
55033
TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF HGB RFP VOC EMISSION REDUCTIONS IN TONS PER DAY—Continued
Control strategy description
2008
On-road Texas Low Emission Diesel (TxLED) ....................
Tier I and II Locomotive NOX standards .............................
Small Non-Road Spark Ignition (SI) Phase I .......................
Heavy-Duty Non- Road Engines .........................................
Tier 2 and 3 Non-Road Diesel Engines ..............................
Small Non-Road Spark Ignition (SI) Engines (Phase II) .....
Large Non-Road SI and Recreational Marine .....................
Non-road TxLED ..................................................................
Non-road RFG .....................................................................
Tier 4 Diesel Engines ..........................................................
Federal Marine Diesel Tier 2 ...............................................
Sum of Control Reductions ..................................................
To determine if 2018 RFP is met in
the HGB nonattainment area, the total
projected controlled emissions must be
compared to the target levels calculated
2011
0.00
0.27
1.77
4.73
0.95
16.70
4.14
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.08
169.44
0.00
0.34
2.50
6.82
1.68
20.81
7.96
0.00
0.13
0.03
0.12
236.96
in the previous section of this
document. As show below in Table 6,
the total VOC and NOX emission
projections meet the 2018 emission
2014
2017
0.00
0.43
3.23
8.54
2.32
22.72
11.37
0.00
0.22
0.26
0.18
284.66
0.00
0.53
3.95
10.17
2.95
24.13
14.03
0.00
0.30
0.52
0.24
322.29
2018
0.00
0.59
4.19
10.58
3.10
24.57
14.76
0.00
0.33
0.59
0.26
333.15
targets. Therefore, the 2018 RFP in the
HGB nonattainment area is
demonstrated.
TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF RFP DEMONSTRATION FOR HGB
[Tons/Day]
Inventory
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2018 Target ................................................................................................................................................
2018 Uncontrolled Emissions ....................................................................................................................
2008–2017 RFP Emission Reductions ......................................................................................................
2017–2018 RFP Emission Reductions ......................................................................................................
Controlled RFP Emissions Forecast (Line 2 minus Line 3 minus Line 4) ................................................
Amount of Creditable Reductions Reserved for 2009–2018 Contingency ................................................
2018 Projected Emissions after RFP Reductions (Add Lines 5 and 6) ....................................................
Excess(+)/Shortfall(¥) (Line1 minus Line 7) .............................................................................................
RFP Met? (Line 7 < Line 1) .......................................................................................................................
D. Control Measures and Emission
Reductions for RFP
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
NOX
The control measures upon which
Texas relies for credit to demonstrate
RFP requirements for the HGB
nonattainment area are described in
Chapter 4 of the 2010 SIP submittal. To
demonstrate RFP for the HGB
nonattainment area, Texas used a
combination of (1) stationary point, (2)
highway mobile, and (3) non-road
mobile source control measures.
Stationary point source NOX
reductions are from the mass emissions
cap and trade program (MECT). The
MECT program is mandatory for
stationary facilities that emit NOX in the
HGB ozone nonattainment area (at sites
that have a collective design capacity of
10 tons per year or more) and which are
subject to the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality NOX rules as
found at 30 TAC Chapter 117. Non-road
emission reductions are from Federal
controls on non-road engines. Reduction
in on-road mobile source emissions are
from the inspection and maintenance (I/
M) program, summer reformulated
gasoline, the Federal Motor Vehicle
Control Program (FMVCP), and the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Sep 06, 2013
Jkt 229001
Texas low emission diesel (TxLED)
program.
The EPA initially approved the MECT
rules on November 14, 2001 (66 FR
571252). The most recent revision to
these rules was on July 16, 2009 (74 FR
34503). All non-road, summer RFG and
the FMVCP are federal programs. The I/
M program was initially approved
November 14, 2001 (66 FR 57268), with
the most recent revision on September
6, 2006 (71 FR 52670). The TxLED
program was initially approved
November 14, 2001 (66 FR 57196), with
the most recent revision on May 6, 2013
(78 FR 26255). Emission reductions
from these control measures are
summarized in Tables 5 and 6 above.
E. Contingency Measures
Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA requires
a state with a moderate or above ozone
nonattainment area to include sufficient
additional contingency measures in its
RFP plan in case the HGB
nonattainment area fails to meet RFP
requirements. The same provision of the
CAA also requires that the contingency
measures must be fully adopted control
measures or rules. Upon failure to meet
and RFP milestone requirement, the
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
555.22
1636.21
1097.60
41.03
497.59
24.58
522.17
+33.04
Yes
VOC
907.50
1210.28
302.46
10.86
896.95
4.67
901.62
+5.88
Yes
state must be able to implement the
contingency measures without any
further rulemaking activities. Upon
implementation of these measures,
additional emission reductions of at
least 3 percent of the adjusted 2002
baseline must be achieved. For more
information on contingency measures,
see the April 16, 1992 General Preamble
(57 FR 13498, at 13512) and the
November 29, 2005 Phase 2 8-hour
ozone implementation rule (70 FR
71612).
To meet the requirements for
contingency emission reductions, the
EPA interprets the CAA to allow for the
use of early implementation of control
measures as contingency measures. The
EPA also interprets the CAA to allow for
the substitution of NOX emission
reductions for VOC emission reductions
in the contingency plans (by any
combination of NOX and VOC, as long
as the 3 percent reduction is achieved
and 0.50 percent of the total is
attributable to VOCs as prescribed by
Texas).
The RFP contingency requirement
may be met by including in the RFP
plan a demonstration of 27 percent VOC
and NOX RFP reductions. The
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
55034
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
additional 12 percent above the 15
percent requirement must be attributed
to specific measures. Texas elected to
use emission reductions in excess of
those needed for RFP as the contingency
measures for the HGB RFP SIP. Tables
7–47 and 7–48 in the state’s submittal
show how this is done. Table 7 below
summarizes these calculations and
results for the 2018 attainment year.
Contingency measures for the 2008–
2017 milestone years were calculated in
a similar manner.
TABLE 7—CONTINGENCY MEASURE DEMONSTRATION FOR THE 2018 ATTAINMENT YEAR
[Tons/Day]
Description
NOX
VOC
2018 ABY Emission Inventory .........................................................................................................................
Percent for contingency calculation (total of 3%) ............................................................................................
3% needed for contingency (2018–2019) .......................................................................................................
Control reductions to meet contingency requirements ....................................................................................
Surplus reductions from 2018 RFP demonstration .........................................................................................
Subtract 2018 RFP MVEB safety margin from surplus reductions from 2018 RFP demonstration ...............
State and federal control measures (see TSD) ..............................................................................................
Total contingency reductions ...........................................................................................................................
Contingency excess (+) or shortfall (¥) ..........................................................................................................
Contingency met? ............................................................................................................................................
1003.92
2.50
25.10
............................
33.04
¥11.00
33.00
55.04
+29.95
Yes
935.59
0.50
4.68
............................
5.88
¥5.18
10.83
11.53
+6.85
Yes
To determine if Texas meets the 3
percent contingency measure
requirement for the HGB nonattainment
area, the total projected controlled
emissions (including growth, but
excluding reductions from the noncreditable pre-1990 FMVCP) must be
compared to the contingency measure
target levels calculated above. Texas has
sufficient early contingency measures in
place to meet the contingency measure
requirement for the HGB nonattainment
area for purposes of demonstrating RFP
in the attainment year and in the
milestone years.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
F. Vehicle Miles Traveled Offset
Analysis
1. What is a VMT offset analysis?
Section 182(d)(1)(A) of the Act directs
states containing ozone nonattainment
areas classified as severe, pursuant to
section 181(a) of the Act, to adopt
specific enforceable transportation
control strategies (TCSs) and
transportation control measures (TCMs)
to offset increases in emissions resulting
from growth in vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) or numbers of vehicle trips and
to obtain reductions in motor vehicle
emissions as necessary (in combination
with other emission reduction
requirements) to comply with the Act’s
RFP milestones (sections 182(b)(1) and
(c)(2)(B)) and attainment demonstration
requirements (section 182(c)(2)(A)).
Section 182(d)(1)(A) of the Act directs
states to submit the VMT Offset SIP by
November 15, 1992, for any severe and
above ozone nonattainment area. Texas
has one severe 1997 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area, the HGB area, with
an attainment deadline of 2018.
The EPA originally interpreted
section 182(d)(1)(A) in the April 16,
1992, General Preamble to Title I of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Sep 06, 2013
Jkt 229001
Act (57 FR 13498, 13521–13523). In that
interpretation, EPA allowed areas to
meet the requirement by using the
aggregate motor vehicle emissions from
a prior year as the appropriate baseline
against which to measure the change in
emissions to determine whether VMT
offsets are required. In other words, a
plan was approvable if it showed
decreases in aggregate year-over-year
motor vehicle emissions from a base
year through the applicable attainment
year. EPA applied this interpretation in
approving numerous states’ VMT offset
demonstrations, including our 2001
approval of the HGB area’s first VMT
offset demonstration. Although a
commenter objected to this
interpretation in our 2001 approval, it
did not challenge it in court. However,
EPA’s historical interpretation of section
182(d)(1)(A), as applied to California’s
2003 South Coast 1-Hour Ozone SIP,
was finally challenged in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. In 2011,
that court rejected EPA’s interpretation,
stating that section 182(d)(1)(A) requires
VMT offsets if there is ‘‘any increase in
the level of emissions solely from VMTs
(italics added).’’ 3 The court explained
that EPA incorrectly interpreted the
phrase ‘‘growth in emissions’’ as
meaning a growth in ‘‘aggregate motor
vehicle emissions’’ versus a growth
solely from VMT. As a result, the court
held that EPA should have required the
State to implement TCMs to offset
growth in emissions from growth in
VMT. However, the Court
acknowledged that ‘‘clean car
technology’’ advances could result in
there being no increase in emissions
even in the face of VMT growth, which
3 Association
of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 632
F.3d 584, at 596–597 (9th Cir. 2011), reprinted as
amended on January 27, 2012.
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
would then allow VMT to increase
without triggering the requirement to
adopt offsetting TCMs. In response to
the court’s decision, EPA provided new
guidance for states with severe or above
areas. The guidance, Implementing
Clean Air Act Section 182(d)(1)(A):
Transportation Control Measures and
Transportation Control Strategies To
Offset Growth in Emissions Due to
Growth in Vehicle Miles Travelled,4
recommends that both TCSs and TCMs
should be included in calculations for
the purpose of determining the degree to
which any hypothetical growth in
emissions due to growth in VMT should
be offset.
The approved HGB 1-hour ozone
attainment demonstration (November
14, 2001, 66 FR 57160) relies on the
EPA approval of a VMT Offset analysis
dated November 14, 2001 (66 FR 57247).
On May 6, 2013, the State submitted an
analysis based on the new EPA
guidance, which demonstrates how the
HGB area meets the VMT Offset
requirement of CAA 182(d)(1)(A). This
was done in concert with the revised
emission inventory, the RFP, and the
MVEBs for 2018.
2. How is the VMT offset requirement
satisfied?
The August 2012 guidance cited
above explains how States may
demonstrate that the VMT offset
requirement is satisfied. States are
recommended to estimate emissions for
two different years: The nonattainment
area’s base year and three different
scenarios for the attainment year. One
emission inventory is developed for the
4 Office of Transportation and Air Quality, EPA–
420–B–12–053, August 2012. This guidance is
available at https://www.epa.gov/otaq/
stateresources/policy/general/420b12053.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
base year and three different inventory
scenarios are developed for the
attainment year. For the attainment year
the state would present three emissions
estimates, two of which would represent
hypothetical emissions scenarios that
would provide the basis to identify the
‘‘growth in emissions’’ due solely to
growth in VMT, and one that would
represent projected actual motor vehicle
emissions after fully accounting for
projected VMT growth and offsetting
emissions reductions obtained by all
creditable TCMs and TCSs. See the
guidance for specific details on how
states might conduct the calculations.
To properly construct these inventories,
a special version of MOVES2010 was
provided to the State,
MOVES2010bROP, which was designed
by EPA to be used exclusively for VMT
Offset demonstrations.
MOVES2010bROP is identical to the
original April 2012 release of
MOVES2010b except that it allows users
to set a base year other than 1990 for the
purposes of the VMT offset calculation.
The base year (2002) on-road VOC
emissions should be based on VMT in
that year and it should reflect all
enforceable TCSs and TCMs in place in
the base year. This would include the
vehicle emissions standards, State and
local control programs such as
inspection and maintenance programs
or fuel rules, and any additional
implemented TCSs and TCMs that were
already required by or credited in the
SIP as of that base year.
The first of the attainment year
emissions calculations for the
attainment year (2018) would be based
on the projected VMT for that year, and
assume that no new TCSs or TCMs
beyond those already credited in the
base year inventory have been put in
place since the base year. This
calculation demonstrates how emissions
would hypothetically change if no new
TCSs or TCMs were implemented, and
VMT was allowed to grow at the
projected rate from the base year. This
estimate would show the potential for
an increase in emissions due solely to
growth in VMT. This represents a no–
action-taken scenario. Emissions in the
attainment year may be lower than those
in the base year due to the fleet that was
on the road in the base year gradually
being replaced through fleet turnover,
but they would still be higher than they
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Sep 06, 2013
Jkt 229001
would have been assuming VMT had
held constant.
The second of the attainment year’s
emissions calculations for the
attainment year would also assume that
no new TCSs or TCMs beyond those
already credited were added or
implemented after the base year and
would also assume that there was no
growth in VMT between the base year
and attainment year. This estimate
would reflect the hypothetical
emissions level that would have
occurred had no further TCMs or TCSs
been adopted or implemented and had
VMT levels held constant. Like the first
estimate, emissions in the attainment
year may be lower than those in the base
year due to the fleet that was on the
road in the base year gradually being
replaced through fleet turnover, but in
this case they would not be influenced
by any growth in VMT. This emissions
estimate would reflect a ceiling on the
emissions that should be allowed to
occur under the statute as interpreted by
the Court in the attainment year because
it shows what would happen under a
scenario in which no new TCSs or
TCMs are put in place and VMT is
‘‘held constant’’ during the period from
the area’s base year to its attainment
year. This represents a VMT ceiling
scenario. This hypothetical status quo is
a necessary step in identifying the target
level of emissions from which states
would determine whether further TCMs
or TCSs would need to be adopted and
implemented in order to offset ‘‘any
increase in emissions due solely to
VMT’’ as shown by the first calculation.
The comparison of these first two
calculations would thus identify
whether there is a hypothetical growth
in emissions from growth in VMT that
would need to be offset.
Finally, the state would present the
emissions that are actually expected to
occur in the area’s attainment year,
giving credit to all enforceable postbaseline-year added and credited TCSs
and TCMs that have actually been
adopted. This estimate would be based
on the VMT that is expected to occur in
the attainment year (i.e., the VMT level
from the first estimate) and all of the
TCSs and TCMs that are in reality
expected to be in place and for which
the SIP will take credit in the area’s
attainment year, including any TCMs
and TCSs adopted and credited since
the baseline year. This represents the
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
55035
Attainment Year scenario (or the
‘‘actual’’ scenario). If this emissions
estimate is less than or equal to the
emissions ceiling that was established
in the second of the attainment year
calculations, the credited TCSs or TCMs
for the attainment year would be
sufficient to already offset the
hypothetical growth in emissions
represented by comparing the first two
calculations. If, instead, the estimated
attainment year emissions are greater
than the ceiling which was established
in the second of the emissions
attainment year calculations, the state
would need to implement additional
TCSs or TCMs to further offset the
growth in emissions and bring the
actual emissions down to at least the
‘‘had VMT held constant’’ ceiling
estimated in the second of the
attainment year calculations.
3. What does Texas’ demonstration
show?
The May 6, 2013 VMT analysis
provides a 2002 base year inventory
based on VMT in that year and includes
all enforceable TCSs and TCMs in place
in that base year of 2002. It also
provides the three different scenarios for
the attainment year inventories
including the No-Action scenario, the
VMT Offset Ceiling scenario, and the
2018 Attainment Year (actual) scenario,
as described above. These were
prepared using MOVES2010bROP, as
provided by EPA specifically for the
VMT offset analysis. In addition, for the
actual scenario, the State clearly
identified all enforceable post-base year
TCMs and TCSs, relied upon in the
attainment demonstration SIP submittal.
These include, among other things, the
vehicle inspection and maintenance,
federal on-road and non-road emission
control programs, and state and federal
clean fuel programs.5 A comparison of
the 2018 attainment year inventory with
the VMT Offset Ceiling scenario’s
results (step 3 in the guidance) shows
that the emissions level calculated in
step 4 is less than the emissions level
calculated in step 3. See Table 8 below
and Table 7–45 in the May 6, 2013
submittal.
5 Approval of the VMT Offset Plan requires
approval of all the TCSs and TCMs that Texas relies
on in the actual scenario. EPA has previously
approved all such TCSs and TCMs. November 14,
2001, 66 FR 57195, 66 FR 57196, and 66 FR 57 261.
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
55036
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 8—VMT OFFSET INVENTORY SCENARIOS AND RESULTS
VMT Offset scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
Scenario
1
2
3
4
Description
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
.........................................
Base Year ........................................
No Action ..........................................
VMT Offset Ceiling ...........................
Attainment Year ...............................
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
In this case, any increased emissions
due to solely increased VMT identified
in the difference between the levels of
the No Action and VMT Offset Ceiling
scenarios have been adequately offset by
TCSs and TCMs used to identify
emissions levels in the Attainment Year
scenario. That is, the credited TCSs or
TCMs for the attainment year will be
sufficient to offset the hypothetical
growth in emissions represented by
comparing the first two calculations. So,
the VMT Offset requirement is met, and
no additional offsetting TCSs or TCMs
beyond those already identified are
required.
Therefore, we propose to approve the
VMT Offset analysis for the HGB ozone
nonattainment area.
G. Transportation Conformity Budgets
Transportation conformity is required
by CAA section 176(c). The EPA’s
conformity rule requires that
transportation plans, programs and
projects conform to state air quality
implementation plans and establishes
the criteria and procedure for
determining whether they do or not.
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. The
MVEB is the mechanism to determine if
the future transportation plans conform
to the SIP. A MVEB is the maximum
amount of emissions allowed in the SIP
for on-road motor vehicles. The MVEB
establishes an emissions ceiling for the
regional transportation network. States
must establish VOC and NOX MVEBs for
each of the milestone years up to the
attainment year and submit the mobile
budgets to the EPA for approval. Upon
an adequacy determination or approval
by the EPA, states must conduct
transportation conformity analyses for
their Transportation Improvement
Programs and long range transportation
plans to ensure highway vehicle
emissions will not exceed relevant
MVEBs.
Texas discusses MVEBs in Chapter 7
of the 2013 submittal and Chapter 5 in
the 2010 submittal. The State worked
with the Houston-Galveston Area
Council to establish the budgets for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Sep 06, 2013
VMT Year
Jkt 229001
2002
2018
2002
2018
2008 and beyond. The mobile emission
inventory was calculated using EPA’s
MOVES2010a mobile source emissions
model.
Table 9 shows the total projected
transportation emissions for milestone
years 2008–2018, as submitted in Tables
7–43 through 7–47 of the 2013 SIP
Submittal.
TABLE 9—RFP MOTOR VEHICLE
EMISSIONS BUDGETS FOR HGB
Year
2008
2011
2014
2017
2018
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
NOX
(Tons/Day)
261.95
234.92
171.63
130.00
120.99
VOC
(Tons/Day)
102.50
93.56
71.56
59.76
57.02
For the budgets to be approvable, they
must meet, at a minimum, EPA’s
adequacy criteria (See 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4)). The Notice of Adequacy
Determination for these RFP MVEBs
finding the revised 2010 RFP MVEBs
(also termed transportation conformity
budgets) adequate because they meet all
of the criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)
was signed by the Regional
Administrator on July 19, 2013. In
addition to the budgets being adequate
for transportation conformity purposes,
EPA found the procedures Texas used to
develop the MVEBs to be reasonable. In
this action we propose to approve the
revised budgets submitted on May 6,
2013.
We are proposing to find that the
MVEBs are fully consistent with RFP,
and proposing to find that the RFP plan
is fully approvable, as it sets the
allowable on-road mobile emissions the
HGB area can produce and use to
continue to demonstrate RFP. These
budgets are approvable because they
conform to the emissions inventory
projections provided for this RFP.
Therefore, the 2013 budgets are
proposed for approval.
IV. Proposed Action
The EPA’s review of the 2008–2018
emission inventory, the RFP plan, the
RFP contingency measures, the VMT
Offset Plan, and the 2008–2018
transportation conformity budgets
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Control year
2002
2002
2002
2018
Fleet turnover
year
VOC
Emissions
2002
2018
2018
2018
124.47
87.32
58.15
51.84
contained in the April 1, 2010 and May
6, 2013, submittals for the HGB
nonattainment area fully address the
CAA requirements, EPA’s regulations,
and are consistent with EPA guidance.
Therefore, the EPA is proposing
approval of these specific elements of
the HGB 8-hour ozone plan. The EPA is
soliciting public comments on the
issues discussed in this document.
These comments will be considered
before taking final action.
V. 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 CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus in reviewing SIP
submissions, the EPA’s role is to
approve state choices, provided that
they meet the criteria of the CAA.
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, these proposed actions:
• Are not ‘‘significant regulatory
actions’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• do not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• are 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.);
• do 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);
• do not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• are not economically significant
regulatory actions based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
• are not a significant regulatory
action subject to Executive Order 13211
(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• are 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
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• do 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
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
Ozone, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile
organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: August 28, 2013.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2013–21883 Filed 9–6–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
[EPA–R06–OAR–2013–0387; FRL–9900–80–
Region 6]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Texas;
Attainment Demonstration for the
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 1997 8Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Sep 06, 2013
Jkt 229001
ACTION:
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submittals from the State of Texas for
the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 1997 8hour ozone nonattainment area (HGB
area). EPA is proposing approval of the
following SIP Clean Air Act required
elements from Texas for the HGB area:
The attainment demonstration for the
1997 ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS), the
reasonably available control measures
(RACM) demonstration for the NAAQS,
the contingency measures plan in the
event of failure to attain the NAAQS by
the applicable attainment date, and a
Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget
(MVEB) for 2018, which is the
attainment year for the area. EPA is also
proposing to approve revisions to the air
pollution control measures and General
Air Quality Definitions in the Texas SIP.
The revisions to the air pollution
control measures include revisions to
the Mass Emissions Cap and Trade
(MECT) program for nitrogen oxides
(NOX), revisions to the highly reactive
volatile organic compound (HRVOC)
emissions cap and trade (HECT)
program, Voluntary Mobile Emissions
Program (VMEP) measures, and
Transportation Control Measures
(TCMs). EPA is proposing these actions
in accordance with section 110 and part
D of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before October 9, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket No. EPA–R06–
OAR–2013–0387, by one of the
following methods:
• www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions.
• Email: r6air_hgbozone@epa.gov.
Please also send a copy by email to the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section below.
• Mail or delivery: Mr. Guy
Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section
(6PD–L), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,
Dallas, Texas 75202–2733.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–2013–0387.
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 through
www.regulations.gov or email that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
55037
protected. 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
email 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 docket
are listed in the 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
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. Contact the person listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT paragraph below to make an
appointment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl
Young, Air Planning Section (6PD–L),
telephone (214) 665–6645, email
young.carl@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document wherever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. The 1997 Ozone NAAQS and the HGB
Area
B. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for
Ozone Nonattainment SIPs
C. State SIP Submittals
II. EPA’s Evaluation
A. Attainment Demonstration Modeling
and Weight-of-Evidence
1. Attainment Demonstration General
2. Photochemical Grid Modeling
3. Modeling Episodes
4. Modeling Emissions Inventory
5. Model Performance
6. Future Year Modeling
7. Results of 2018 Future Year Modeling
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 174 (Monday, September 9, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55029-55037]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21883]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52
[EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0333; FRL-9900-83-Region 6]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation; Texas; Houston:
Reasonable Further Progress Plan, Contingency Measures, and
Transportation Conformity Budgets for the 1997 8-Hour Severe Ozone
Nonattainment Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Texas State
Implementation Plan to the emissions inventory (EI), the reasonable
further progress (RFP) plan and contingency measures, the vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) offset analysis, and transportation conformity motor
vehicle emissions budgets associated with the reasonable further
progress portion of these revisions. The EPA is proposing to approve
these revisions because they satisfy the EI, the RFP, the VMT offset,
and transportation conformity requirements for areas classified as
severe nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standard and demonstrate further progress in reducing ozone
precursors.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 9, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-
OAR-2010-0333, 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.
Email: 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 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 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-
2010-0333. The 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 through
www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email 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, the 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 the EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the
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 the
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
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 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. Sandra Rennie, Air Planning
Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-7367;
fax number (214) 665-7263; email address rennie.sandra@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' means EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What action is EPA proposing?
II. What is the background for this action?
III. What is EPA's evaluation of the revisions?
A. Base Year Emissions Inventory
B. Adjusted Base Year Inventory and 2008 RFP Target Levels
C. Projected Inventories and Determination of RFP
D. Control Measures and Emission Reductions for RFP
E. Contingency Measures
F. Vehicle Miles Traveled Offset Analysis
G. Transportation Conformity Budgets
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is EPA proposing?
The EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Texas State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB)
ozone nonattainment area submitted by the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality on April 1, 2010,
[[Page 55030]]
and an updated revision using the MOVES2010a \1\ mobile model submitted
on May 6, 2013. We are proposing to approve the following SIP elements:
The revised emission inventory (EI); the reasonable further progress
plan (RFP) and contingency measures; the vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
offset analysis; and the associated motor vehicle emission budget
(MVEB) for transportation conformity. The SIP revision satisfies the
EI, RFP, VMT offset, and MVEB requirements for areas classified as
severe nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS) and demonstrates reasonable further progress
in reducing ozone precursors. We are proposing to take this action
pursuant to section 110 and part D of the Clean Air Act (Act or CAA)
and EPA's regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ MOVES is an acronym for MOtor Vehicle Emission Simulator.
This new emission modeling system released September 23, 2011,
estimates emissions for mobile sources covering a broad range of
pollutants and allows multiple scale analysis of emissions estimates
from cars, trucks & motorcycles. Use of the MOVES model in SIPs was
required as of March 2, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. What is the background for this action?
In 1997 (62 FR 38856), the EPA revised the health-based NAAQS for
ozone, setting it at 0.08 parts per million (ppm) averaged over an 8-
hour time frame. The EPA set the 8-hour ozone standard based on
scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone causes adverse health
effects at lower ozone concentrations and over a longer period of time
than was understood when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone standard was
set. The EPA determined that the 8-hour standard would be more
protective of human health, especially children and adults who are
active outdoors, and individuals with a pre-existing respiratory
disease, such as asthma.
On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858), the EPA finalized its attainment/
nonattainment designations for areas across the country with respect to
the 8-hour ozone standard. These actions became effective on June 15,
2004. Among those areas designated as nonattainment is HGB.
This designation triggered the CAA's section 110(a)(1) requirement
that states must submit attainment demonstrations for their
nonattainment areas to the EPA by no later than three years after the
promulgation of the NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA's phase I 8-hour ozone
implementation rule (Phase I Rule), published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR
23951), specified that states must submit attainment demonstrations for
their nonattainment areas to the EPA by no later than three years from
the effective date of designation, that is, by June 15, 2007.
Pursuant to the Phase 1 rule, an area was classified under subpart
2 of the CAA based on its 8-hour design value if that area had a 1-hour
design value at or above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour design value in
Table 1 of subpart 2). Based on this criterion, the HGB nonattainment
area was classified as a moderate nonattainment area.
On November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612), and as revised on June 8, 2007
(72 FR 31727), EPA published the final Phase 2 Rule for implementation
of the 8-hour standard (Phase 2 rule). The Phase 2 rule addressed the
RFP control and planning obligations as they apply to areas designated
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Among other things, the Phase 1 and Phase 2 rules outline the SIP
requirements and deadlines for various requirements in areas designated
as moderate and above nonattainment. The rule further requires that
modeling and attainment demonstrations, RFP plans, reasonably available
control measures (RACM), projection year emission inventories, MVEB,
and contingency measures were all due by June 15, 2007 (See 40 CFR
51.908(a), (c)).
Section 182(b)(1) of the CAA and EPA's 1997 8-hour ozone
implementation rule (40 CFR 51.910) require each 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area designated moderate and above to submit an EI and
RFP plan, for review and approval into its SIP, that describe how the
area will achieve actual emissions reductions of VOC and NOX
from a baseline emissions inventory.
On June 15, 2007, the EPA received a request from Texas Governor
Perry seeking voluntary reclassification of the HGB nonattainment area
from moderate to severe nonattainment under the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. The EPA reclassified the eight-county HGB area from a
moderate to a severe nonattainment area for the 1997 eight-hour ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) effective on October 31,
2008. (73 FR 56983). Reclassification of the HGB area to severe
required Texas to develop and submit a revised RFP SIP and a VMT offset
analysis.
III. What is EPA's evaluation of the revisions?
The EPA's analysis and findings are discussed in this proposed
rulemaking. A more detailed discussion is contained in the Technical
Support Document (TSD) for this Proposal, which is available on line at
https://www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0333.
On April 1, 2010, Texas submitted an updated emission inventory, a
plan demonstrating 18 percent RFP for the period 2002-2008, contingency
measures for RFP, and on-road VOC and NOX MVEBs. In
addition, the RFP demonstrated 9% reductions from 2009 through 2011; 9%
reductions from 2012 through 2014; 9% reductions from 2015 through
2017; 3% reductions in 2018; and 3% reductions in 2019 for contingency
purposes. These accompanied an attainment demonstration which is the
subject of a separate rulemaking. These SIP revisions were subject to
notice and comment by the public, and the State of Texas addressed the
comments received on the proposed SIP revisions. The State revised the
EI and the RFP in a submittal dated May 6, 2013, using EPA's MOVES2010a
mobile model in place of MOBILE6 that was used in the 2010 submittal.
A. Base Year Emissions Inventory
An emissions inventory is a comprehensive, accurate, current
inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant
pollutant or pollutants in an area and is required by section 172(c)(3)
of the CAA. For ozone nonattainment areas, the emissions inventory
needs to contain VOC and NOX emissions because these
pollutants are precursors to ozone formation. In the Phase 2
implementation rule, the EPA recommended 2002 as the base year
emissions inventory,\2\ and is therefore the starting point for
calculating RFP. Texas submitted the 2002 base year inventories for all
state nonattainment areas on May 13, 2005. The EPA approved the HGB
emission inventory on April 22, 2009 (74 FR 18298). The April 2010 and
May 2013 submittals provide an updated base year inventory using
MOVES2010a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ November 18, 2002 EPA memorandum ``2002 Base Year Emission
Inventory SIP Planning: 8-Hour Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional
Haze Programs, available at https://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/2002baseinven_102502new.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the 2002 Base Year
Emissions Inventory. Table 1 provides the 2002 emissions inventory as
previously submitted in 2005 and approved in 2009 with the updated 2010
inventory revised and adopted by Texas in 2013 for approval into the
SIP.
[[Page 55031]]
Table 1--Revisions to the 2002 RFP Base Year Emissions Inventory
[Tons/day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source type NOX VOC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submittal date 2005 2010 2005 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point........................................... 339.48 339.29 297.12 316.62
Area............................................ 40.15 89.11 219.51 407.61
On-road Mobile.................................. 283.20 371.89 114.30 124.47
Non-road Mobile................................. 167.74 156.98 112.37 84.32
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 830.57 957.27 743.30 933.02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A summary of the updated 2002 base year inventory submitted May 6,
2013 is shown in Table 2 below.
Table 2--RFP 2002 Baseline Emissions Inventory Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uncontrolled Controlled
Source type ---------------------------------------------------------------
NOX VOC NOX VOC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point........................................... 339.29 316.62 339.29 316.62
Area............................................ 89.11 407.61 89.11 407.61
On-road Mobile.................................. 552.30 205.76 371.89 124.47
Non-road Mobile................................. 166.98 100.15 156.98 84.32
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 1147.68 1030.14 957.27 933.02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Adjusted Base Year Inventory and 2008 RFP Target Levels
The process for determining the emissions baseline from which the
RFP reductions are calculated is described in section 182(b)(1) of the
CAA and 40 CFR 51.910. This baseline value is the 2002 adjusted base
year inventory. Sections 182(b)(1)(B) and (D) require the exclusion
from the base year inventory of emissions benefits resulting from the
Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) regulations promulgated
by January 1, 1990, and the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) regulations
promulgated June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23666). The FMVCP and RVP emissions
reductions are determined by the State using EPA's highway mobile
source emissions model software, MOVES2010a. The FMVCP and RVP emission
reduction are then removed from the base year inventory by the State,
resulting in an adjusted base year inventory. The emission reductions
needed to satisfy the RFP requirement are then calculated from the
adjusted base year inventory. The reductions are then subtracted from
the adjusted base year inventory to establish the emissions target for
the RFP milestone year (2018).
For severe areas like the HGB nonattainment area, the CAA Sec.
182(c)(2)(B) specifies a 15 percent reduction in ozone precursor
emissions over an initial six-year period, and an additional three
percent per year for every year thereafter until the attainment year.
In the Phase 2 rule, EPA provided that areas that were also designated
nonattainment and classified as moderate or higher for the 1-hour ozone
standard and that have the same boundaries as an area for which the EPA
fully approved a 15 percent plan for the 1-hour NAAQS, are considered
to have met the requirement of section 182(b)(1) of the CAA for the 8-
hour NAAQS. In this situation, a severe nonattainment area is subject
to RFP under 172(c)(2) of the CAA and shall submit, no later than three
years after designation for the 8-hour NAAQS, a SIP revision that meets
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.910(b)(2). The RFP SIP revision must
provide for a 15 percent emission reduction (of NOX and/or
VOC) accounting for any growth that occurs during the six year period
following the baseline emissions inventory year, i.e., 2002-2008.
The HGB nonattainment area had the same boundary under the 1-hour
ozone standard as that of the 8-hour ozone standard. The HGB area under
the 1-hour ozone standard was classified as severe. The EPA approved
the HGB 15 percent RFP plan on April 22, 2009 (74 FR 18298). Therefore,
according to the Phase 2 Rule, the RFP plan for the HGB nonattainment
area may use either NOX or VOC emissions reductions (or
both) to achieve the 15 percent emission reduction requirement.
According to section 182(b)(1)(D) of the CAA, emission reductions
that resulted from the FMVCP and RVP rules promulgated prior to 1990
are not creditable for achieving RFP emission reductions. Therefore,
the 2002 base year inventory is adjusted by subtracting the VOC and
NOX emission reductions that area expected to occur between
2002 and the future milestone years due to FMVCP and RVP rules.
Texas sets out its calculations for the adjusted base year (ABY)
inventory and milestone target levels in Chapter 2, section 2.5.3 of
the 2010 submittal and Chapter 2, section 2.5 of the 2013 submittal,
according to the following method. See the calculations in Table 3
below.
Step 1. Estimate the actual anthropogenic base year inventory for
both VOC and NOX in 2002 with all 2002 control programs in
place.
Step 2. Using the same highway vehicle activity inputs used to
calculate the actual 2002 inventory, run the appropriate motor vehicle
emissions model for 2002 and for 2008 with all post-1990 CAA measures
turned off. Any other local inputs for vehicle inspection and
maintenance (I/M) programs should be set according to the program that
was required to be in place in 1990. Fuel RVP should be set at 9.0 or
7.8 depending on the RVP required in the local area as a result of fuel
RVP regulations promulgated in June 1990.
[[Page 55032]]
Step 3. Calculate the difference between 2002 and 2008 VOC
emissions factors calculated in Step 2 and multiply by 2002 VMT. The
result is the VOC emissions reductions that will occur between 2002 and
2008 without the benefits of any post-1990 CAA measures. These are the
non-creditable VOC reductions that occur over this period. Calculate
the difference between 2002 and 2008 NOX emissions factors
calculated in Step 2 and multiply by 2002 VMT. This result is the
NOX emissions reductions that will occur between 2002 and
2008 without the benefits of any post-1990 CAA measures. These are the
non-creditable NOX reductions that occur over this period.
Step 4. Subtract the non-creditable VOC reductions calculated in
Step 3 from the actual anthropogenic 2002 VOC inventory estimated in
Step 1. Subtract the non-creditable NOX reductions
calculated in Step 3 from the actual anthropogenic 2002 NOX
inventory estimated in Step 1. These adjusted VOC and NOX
inventories are the basis for calculating the target level of emissions
in 2008.
Step 5. The target level of VOC and NOX emissions in
2008 needed to meet the 2008 rate of progress ROP requirement is any
combination of VOC and NOX reductions from the adjusted
inventories calculated in Step 4 that total 18 percent.
Table 3--HGB NAA 2008 RFP Target Level Calculations With NOX Substitution
[Ozone Season tpd]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description Formula NOX VOC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 2002 Rate-of Progress Base Year Inventory..................... .............. 957.27 933.02
B 2002 On-road ABY emissions inventory.......................... .............. 552.30 205.76
C FMVCP/RVP Reductions Between 2002 and 2008.................... B-C -25.99 -0.13
D 2008 On-road ABY emissions inventory.......................... .............. 578.29 205.89
E 2008 ABY emission inventory................................... .............. 983.26 933.15
F RFP Ratio..................................................... .............. 17% 1%
G Emissions Reductions Required Between 2002 & 2008............. E x F 167.15 9.33
Target Level for 2008.......................................... A-G 816.10 923.82
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Projected Inventories and Determination of RFP
Texas describes its methods used for developing its 2018 projected
VOC and NOX inventories in Chapter 2 of the 2010 SIP
submittal. EPA reviewed the procedures Texas used to develop its
projected inventories and found them to be reasonable.
Projected controlled 2018 emissions for the HGB nonattainment area
are summarized in Tables 4 and 5.
Table 4--Summary of HGB RFP NOX Emission Reductions in Tons per Day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control strategy description 2008 2011 2014 2017 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mass Emissions Cap and Trade 219.83 227.65 243.87 263.23 269.94
Program (MECT).................
Tank Landing Loss Rule.......... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Federal Portable Fuel Container 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
(PFC) Rule.....................
Federal Motor Vehicle Control 150.64 319.72 409.05 486.84 510.15
Program (FMVCP)................
Federal Reformulated Gasoline 150.64 189.54 213.44 235.00 241.29
(RFG)..........................
Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) 17.35 16.62 11.80 8.03 7.10
On-road Texas Low Emission 6.03 5.08 3.52 2.55 2.36
Diesel (TxLED).................
Tier I and II Locomotive NOX 11.74 12.75 14.09 15.24 16.04
standards......................
Small Non-Road Spark Ignition \1\ -0.30 \1\ -0.39 \1\ -0.47 \1\ -0.56 \1\ -0.58
(SI) Phase I...................
Heavy-duty Non-Road Engines..... 5.76 7.91 9.64 12.02 12.56
Tier 2 and 3 Non-Road Diesel 8.13 14.01 18.76 23.25 24.29
Engines........................
Federal Standards for New Small 1.25 1.65 1.85 1.99 2.04
Non-Road Spark Ignition (SI)
Engines (Phase II).............
Federal Standards for New Large 12.27 20.30 27.01 31.10 32.13
Non-road SI and Recreational
Marine.........................
Non-road TxLED.................. 2.87 2.59 2.14 1.73 1.59
Non-road RFG.................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Tier 4 Federal Standards for 0.00 0.52 4.67 10.96 12.82
Diesel Engines.................
Federal Marine Diesel Tier 2.... 1.96 3.23 4.72 6.20 6.90
Sum of Control Reductions....... 678.70 821.18 964.09 1097.58 1138.63
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The negative NOX emissions reductions number from Small Non-Road SI Phase I engines is attributed to fleet
growth in light of more stringent standards.
Table 5--Summary of HGB RFP VOC Emission Reductions in Tons per Day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control strategy description 2008 2011 2014 2017 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mass Emissions Cap and Trade 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Program (MECT).................
Tank Landing Loss Rule.......... 0.00 11.50 11.50 11.50 11.50
Federal Portable Fuel Container 0.00 3.68 9.65 10.10 10.25
(PFC) Rule.....................
Federal Motor Vehicle Control 109.17 148.83 188.98 222.89 232.44
Program (FMVCP)................
Reformulated Gasoline (RFG)..... 22.03 22.79 17.27 14.12 13.48
Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) 9.56 9.77 7.99 6.86 6.51
[[Page 55033]]
On-road Texas Low Emission 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Diesel (TxLED).................
Tier I and II Locomotive NOX 0.27 0.34 0.43 0.53 0.59
standards......................
Small Non-Road Spark Ignition 1.77 2.50 3.23 3.95 4.19
(SI) Phase I...................
Heavy-Duty Non- Road Engines.... 4.73 6.82 8.54 10.17 10.58
Tier 2 and 3 Non-Road Diesel 0.95 1.68 2.32 2.95 3.10
Engines........................
Small Non-Road Spark Ignition 16.70 20.81 22.72 24.13 24.57
(SI) Engines (Phase II)........
Large Non-Road SI and 4.14 7.96 11.37 14.03 14.76
Recreational Marine............
Non-road TxLED.................. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Non-road RFG.................... 0.04 0.13 0.22 0.30 0.33
Tier 4 Diesel Engines........... 0.00 0.03 0.26 0.52 0.59
Federal Marine Diesel Tier 2.... 0.08 0.12 0.18 0.24 0.26
Sum of Control Reductions....... 169.44 236.96 284.66 322.29 333.15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To determine if 2018 RFP is met in the HGB nonattainment area, the
total projected controlled emissions must be compared to the target
levels calculated in the previous section of this document. As show
below in Table 6, the total VOC and NOX emission projections
meet the 2018 emission targets. Therefore, the 2018 RFP in the HGB
nonattainment area is demonstrated.
Table 6--Summary of RFP Demonstration for HGB
[Tons/Day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inventory NOX VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2018 Target....................... 555.22 907.50
2 2018 Uncontrolled Emissions....... 1636.21 1210.28
3 2008-2017 RFP Emission Reductions. 1097.60 302.46
4 2017-2018 RFP Emission Reductions. 41.03 10.86
5 Controlled RFP Emissions Forecast 497.59 896.95
(Line 2 minus Line 3 minus Line 4).
6 Amount of Creditable Reductions 24.58 4.67
Reserved for 2009-2018 Contingency.
7 2018 Projected Emissions after RFP 522.17 901.62
Reductions (Add Lines 5 and 6).....
8 Excess(+)/Shortfall(-) (Line1 +33.04 +5.88
minus Line 7)......................
9 RFP Met? (Line 7 < Line 1)........ Yes Yes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Control Measures and Emission Reductions for RFP
The control measures upon which Texas relies for credit to
demonstrate RFP requirements for the HGB nonattainment area are
described in Chapter 4 of the 2010 SIP submittal. To demonstrate RFP
for the HGB nonattainment area, Texas used a combination of (1)
stationary point, (2) highway mobile, and (3) non-road mobile source
control measures.
Stationary point source NOX reductions are from the mass
emissions cap and trade program (MECT). The MECT program is mandatory
for stationary facilities that emit NOX in the HGB ozone
nonattainment area (at sites that have a collective design capacity of
10 tons per year or more) and which are subject to the Texas Commission
on Environmental Quality NOX rules as found at 30 TAC
Chapter 117. Non-road emission reductions are from Federal controls on
non-road engines. Reduction in on-road mobile source emissions are from
the inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, summer reformulated
gasoline, the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP), and the
Texas low emission diesel (TxLED) program.
The EPA initially approved the MECT rules on November 14, 2001 (66
FR 571252). The most recent revision to these rules was on July 16,
2009 (74 FR 34503). All non-road, summer RFG and the FMVCP are federal
programs. The I/M program was initially approved November 14, 2001 (66
FR 57268), with the most recent revision on September 6, 2006 (71 FR
52670). The TxLED program was initially approved November 14, 2001 (66
FR 57196), with the most recent revision on May 6, 2013 (78 FR 26255).
Emission reductions from these control measures are summarized in
Tables 5 and 6 above.
E. Contingency Measures
Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA requires a state with a moderate or
above ozone nonattainment area to include sufficient additional
contingency measures in its RFP plan in case the HGB nonattainment area
fails to meet RFP requirements. The same provision of the CAA also
requires that the contingency measures must be fully adopted control
measures or rules. Upon failure to meet and RFP milestone requirement,
the state must be able to implement the contingency measures without
any further rulemaking activities. Upon implementation of these
measures, additional emission reductions of at least 3 percent of the
adjusted 2002 baseline must be achieved. For more information on
contingency measures, see the April 16, 1992 General Preamble (57 FR
13498, at 13512) and the November 29, 2005 Phase 2 8-hour ozone
implementation rule (70 FR 71612).
To meet the requirements for contingency emission reductions, the
EPA interprets the CAA to allow for the use of early implementation of
control measures as contingency measures. The EPA also interprets the
CAA to allow for the substitution of NOX emission reductions
for VOC emission reductions in the contingency plans (by any
combination of NOX and VOC, as long as the 3 percent
reduction is achieved and 0.50 percent of the total is attributable to
VOCs as prescribed by Texas).
The RFP contingency requirement may be met by including in the RFP
plan a demonstration of 27 percent VOC and NOX RFP
reductions. The
[[Page 55034]]
additional 12 percent above the 15 percent requirement must be
attributed to specific measures. Texas elected to use emission
reductions in excess of those needed for RFP as the contingency
measures for the HGB RFP SIP. Tables 7-47 and 7-48 in the state's
submittal show how this is done. Table 7 below summarizes these
calculations and results for the 2018 attainment year. Contingency
measures for the 2008-2017 milestone years were calculated in a similar
manner.
Table 7--Contingency Measure Demonstration for the 2018 Attainment Year
[Tons/Day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description NOX VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 ABY Emission Inventory......... 1003.92 935.59
Percent for contingency calculation 2.50 0.50
(total of 3%)......................
3% needed for contingency (2018- 25.10 4.68
2019)..............................
Control reductions to meet ................ ................
contingency requirements...........
Surplus reductions from 2018 RFP 33.04 5.88
demonstration......................
Subtract 2018 RFP MVEB safety margin -11.00 -5.18
from surplus reductions from 2018
RFP demonstration..................
State and federal control measures 33.00 10.83
(see TSD)..........................
Total contingency reductions........ 55.04 11.53
Contingency excess (+) or shortfall +29.95 +6.85
(-)................................
Contingency met?.................... Yes Yes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To determine if Texas meets the 3 percent contingency measure
requirement for the HGB nonattainment area, the total projected
controlled emissions (including growth, but excluding reductions from
the non-creditable pre-1990 FMVCP) must be compared to the contingency
measure target levels calculated above. Texas has sufficient early
contingency measures in place to meet the contingency measure
requirement for the HGB nonattainment area for purposes of
demonstrating RFP in the attainment year and in the milestone years.
F. Vehicle Miles Traveled Offset Analysis
1. What is a VMT offset analysis?
Section 182(d)(1)(A) of the Act directs states containing ozone
nonattainment areas classified as severe, pursuant to section 181(a) of
the Act, to adopt specific enforceable transportation control
strategies (TCSs) and transportation control measures (TCMs) to offset
increases in emissions resulting from growth in vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) or numbers of vehicle trips and to obtain reductions in motor
vehicle emissions as necessary (in combination with other emission
reduction requirements) to comply with the Act's RFP milestones
(sections 182(b)(1) and (c)(2)(B)) and attainment demonstration
requirements (section 182(c)(2)(A)). Section 182(d)(1)(A) of the Act
directs states to submit the VMT Offset SIP by November 15, 1992, for
any severe and above ozone nonattainment area. Texas has one severe
1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, the HGB area, with an attainment
deadline of 2018.
The EPA originally interpreted section 182(d)(1)(A) in the April
16, 1992, General Preamble to Title I of the Act (57 FR 13498, 13521-
13523). In that interpretation, EPA allowed areas to meet the
requirement by using the aggregate motor vehicle emissions from a prior
year as the appropriate baseline against which to measure the change in
emissions to determine whether VMT offsets are required. In other
words, a plan was approvable if it showed decreases in aggregate year-
over-year motor vehicle emissions from a base year through the
applicable attainment year. EPA applied this interpretation in
approving numerous states' VMT offset demonstrations, including our
2001 approval of the HGB area's first VMT offset demonstration.
Although a commenter objected to this interpretation in our 2001
approval, it did not challenge it in court. However, EPA's historical
interpretation of section 182(d)(1)(A), as applied to California's 2003
South Coast 1-Hour Ozone SIP, was finally challenged in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. In 2011, that court rejected EPA's
interpretation, stating that section 182(d)(1)(A) requires VMT offsets
if there is ``any increase in the level of emissions solely from VMTs
(italics added).'' \3\ The court explained that EPA incorrectly
interpreted the phrase ``growth in emissions'' as meaning a growth in
``aggregate motor vehicle emissions'' versus a growth solely from VMT.
As a result, the court held that EPA should have required the State to
implement TCMs to offset growth in emissions from growth in VMT.
However, the Court acknowledged that ``clean car technology'' advances
could result in there being no increase in emissions even in the face
of VMT growth, which would then allow VMT to increase without
triggering the requirement to adopt offsetting TCMs. In response to the
court's decision, EPA provided new guidance for states with severe or
above areas. The guidance, Implementing Clean Air Act Section
182(d)(1)(A): Transportation Control Measures and Transportation
Control Strategies To Offset Growth in Emissions Due to Growth in
Vehicle Miles Travelled,\4\ recommends that both TCSs and TCMs should
be included in calculations for the purpose of determining the degree
to which any hypothetical growth in emissions due to growth in VMT
should be offset.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 632 F.3d 584, at
596-597 (9th Cir. 2011), reprinted as amended on January 27, 2012.
\4\ Office of Transportation and Air Quality, EPA-420-B-12-053,
August 2012. This guidance is available at https://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/policy/general/420b12053.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The approved HGB 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration (November
14, 2001, 66 FR 57160) relies on the EPA approval of a VMT Offset
analysis dated November 14, 2001 (66 FR 57247). On May 6, 2013, the
State submitted an analysis based on the new EPA guidance, which
demonstrates how the HGB area meets the VMT Offset requirement of CAA
182(d)(1)(A). This was done in concert with the revised emission
inventory, the RFP, and the MVEBs for 2018.
2. How is the VMT offset requirement satisfied?
The August 2012 guidance cited above explains how States may
demonstrate that the VMT offset requirement is satisfied. States are
recommended to estimate emissions for two different years: The
nonattainment area's base year and three different scenarios for the
attainment year. One emission inventory is developed for the
[[Page 55035]]
base year and three different inventory scenarios are developed for the
attainment year. For the attainment year the state would present three
emissions estimates, two of which would represent hypothetical
emissions scenarios that would provide the basis to identify the
``growth in emissions'' due solely to growth in VMT, and one that would
represent projected actual motor vehicle emissions after fully
accounting for projected VMT growth and offsetting emissions reductions
obtained by all creditable TCMs and TCSs. See the guidance for specific
details on how states might conduct the calculations. To properly
construct these inventories, a special version of MOVES2010 was
provided to the State, MOVES2010bROP, which was designed by EPA to be
used exclusively for VMT Offset demonstrations. MOVES2010bROP is
identical to the original April 2012 release of MOVES2010b except that
it allows users to set a base year other than 1990 for the purposes of
the VMT offset calculation.
The base year (2002) on-road VOC emissions should be based on VMT
in that year and it should reflect all enforceable TCSs and TCMs in
place in the base year. This would include the vehicle emissions
standards, State and local control programs such as inspection and
maintenance programs or fuel rules, and any additional implemented TCSs
and TCMs that were already required by or credited in the SIP as of
that base year.
The first of the attainment year emissions calculations for the
attainment year (2018) would be based on the projected VMT for that
year, and assume that no new TCSs or TCMs beyond those already credited
in the base year inventory have been put in place since the base year.
This calculation demonstrates how emissions would hypothetically change
if no new TCSs or TCMs were implemented, and VMT was allowed to grow at
the projected rate from the base year. This estimate would show the
potential for an increase in emissions due solely to growth in VMT.
This represents a no-action-taken scenario. Emissions in the attainment
year may be lower than those in the base year due to the fleet that was
on the road in the base year gradually being replaced through fleet
turnover, but they would still be higher than they would have been
assuming VMT had held constant.
The second of the attainment year's emissions calculations for the
attainment year would also assume that no new TCSs or TCMs beyond those
already credited were added or implemented after the base year and
would also assume that there was no growth in VMT between the base year
and attainment year. This estimate would reflect the hypothetical
emissions level that would have occurred had no further TCMs or TCSs
been adopted or implemented and had VMT levels held constant. Like the
first estimate, emissions in the attainment year may be lower than
those in the base year due to the fleet that was on the road in the
base year gradually being replaced through fleet turnover, but in this
case they would not be influenced by any growth in VMT. This emissions
estimate would reflect a ceiling on the emissions that should be
allowed to occur under the statute as interpreted by the Court in the
attainment year because it shows what would happen under a scenario in
which no new TCSs or TCMs are put in place and VMT is ``held constant''
during the period from the area's base year to its attainment year.
This represents a VMT ceiling scenario. This hypothetical status quo is
a necessary step in identifying the target level of emissions from
which states would determine whether further TCMs or TCSs would need to
be adopted and implemented in order to offset ``any increase in
emissions due solely to VMT'' as shown by the first calculation. The
comparison of these first two calculations would thus identify whether
there is a hypothetical growth in emissions from growth in VMT that
would need to be offset.
Finally, the state would present the emissions that are actually
expected to occur in the area's attainment year, giving credit to all
enforceable post-baseline-year added and credited TCSs and TCMs that
have actually been adopted. This estimate would be based on the VMT
that is expected to occur in the attainment year (i.e., the VMT level
from the first estimate) and all of the TCSs and TCMs that are in
reality expected to be in place and for which the SIP will take credit
in the area's attainment year, including any TCMs and TCSs adopted and
credited since the baseline year. This represents the Attainment Year
scenario (or the ``actual'' scenario). If this emissions estimate is
less than or equal to the emissions ceiling that was established in the
second of the attainment year calculations, the credited TCSs or TCMs
for the attainment year would be sufficient to already offset the
hypothetical growth in emissions represented by comparing the first two
calculations. If, instead, the estimated attainment year emissions are
greater than the ceiling which was established in the second of the
emissions attainment year calculations, the state would need to
implement additional TCSs or TCMs to further offset the growth in
emissions and bring the actual emissions down to at least the ``had VMT
held constant'' ceiling estimated in the second of the attainment year
calculations.
3. What does Texas' demonstration show?
The May 6, 2013 VMT analysis provides a 2002 base year inventory
based on VMT in that year and includes all enforceable TCSs and TCMs in
place in that base year of 2002. It also provides the three different
scenarios for the attainment year inventories including the No-Action
scenario, the VMT Offset Ceiling scenario, and the 2018 Attainment Year
(actual) scenario, as described above. These were prepared using
MOVES2010bROP, as provided by EPA specifically for the VMT offset
analysis. In addition, for the actual scenario, the State clearly
identified all enforceable post-base year TCMs and TCSs, relied upon in
the attainment demonstration SIP submittal. These include, among other
things, the vehicle inspection and maintenance, federal on-road and
non-road emission control programs, and state and federal clean fuel
programs.\5\ A comparison of the 2018 attainment year inventory with
the VMT Offset Ceiling scenario's results (step 3 in the guidance)
shows that the emissions level calculated in step 4 is less than the
emissions level calculated in step 3. See Table 8 below and Table 7-45
in the May 6, 2013 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Approval of the VMT Offset Plan requires approval of all the
TCSs and TCMs that Texas relies on in the actual scenario. EPA has
previously approved all such TCSs and TCMs. November 14, 2001, 66 FR
57195, 66 FR 57196, and 66 FR 57 261.
[[Page 55036]]
Table 8--VMT Offset Inventory Scenarios and Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fleet turnover
VMT Offset scenario Description VMT Year Control year year VOC Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scenario 1.................... Base Year....... 2002 2002 2002 124.47
Scenario 2.................... No Action....... 2018 2002 2018 87.32
Scenario 3.................... VMT Offset 2002 2002 2018 58.15
Ceiling.
Scenario 4.................... Attainment Year. 2018 2018 2018 51.84
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this case, any increased emissions due to solely increased VMT
identified in the difference between the levels of the No Action and
VMT Offset Ceiling scenarios have been adequately offset by TCSs and
TCMs used to identify emissions levels in the Attainment Year scenario.
That is, the credited TCSs or TCMs for the attainment year will be
sufficient to offset the hypothetical growth in emissions represented
by comparing the first two calculations. So, the VMT Offset requirement
is met, and no additional offsetting TCSs or TCMs beyond those already
identified are required.
Therefore, we propose to approve the VMT Offset analysis for the
HGB ozone nonattainment area.
G. Transportation Conformity Budgets
Transportation conformity is required by CAA section 176(c). The
EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation plans, programs and
projects conform to state air quality implementation plans and
establishes the criteria and procedure for determining whether they do
or not. 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. The MVEB is the mechanism to
determine if the future transportation plans conform to the SIP. A MVEB
is the maximum amount of emissions allowed in the SIP for on-road motor
vehicles. The MVEB establishes an emissions ceiling for the regional
transportation network. States must establish VOC and NOX
MVEBs for each of the milestone years up to the attainment year and
submit the mobile budgets to the EPA for approval. Upon an adequacy
determination or approval by the EPA, states must conduct
transportation conformity analyses for their Transportation Improvement
Programs and long range transportation plans to ensure highway vehicle
emissions will not exceed relevant MVEBs.
Texas discusses MVEBs in Chapter 7 of the 2013 submittal and
Chapter 5 in the 2010 submittal. The State worked with the Houston-
Galveston Area Council to establish the budgets for 2008 and beyond.
The mobile emission inventory was calculated using EPA's MOVES2010a
mobile source emissions model.
Table 9 shows the total projected transportation emissions for
milestone years 2008-2018, as submitted in Tables 7-43 through 7-47 of
the 2013 SIP Submittal.
Table 9--RFP Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for HGB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year NOX (Tons/Day) VOC (Tons/Day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008.................................... 261.95 102.50
2011.................................... 234.92 93.56
2014.................................... 171.63 71.56
2017.................................... 130.00 59.76
2018.................................... 120.99 57.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the budgets to be approvable, they must meet, at a minimum,
EPA's adequacy criteria (See 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)). The Notice of
Adequacy Determination for these RFP MVEBs finding the revised 2010 RFP
MVEBs (also termed transportation conformity budgets) adequate because
they meet all of the criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) was signed by the
Regional Administrator on July 19, 2013. In addition to the budgets
being adequate for transportation conformity purposes, EPA found the
procedures Texas used to develop the MVEBs to be reasonable. In this
action we propose to approve the revised budgets submitted on May 6,
2013.
We are proposing to find that the MVEBs are fully consistent with
RFP, and proposing to find that the RFP plan is fully approvable, as it
sets the allowable on-road mobile emissions the HGB area can produce
and use to continue to demonstrate RFP. These budgets are approvable
because they conform to the emissions inventory projections provided
for this RFP. Therefore, the 2013 budgets are proposed for approval.
IV. Proposed Action
The EPA's review of the 2008-2018 emission inventory, the RFP plan,
the RFP contingency measures, the VMT Offset Plan, and the 2008-2018
transportation conformity budgets contained in the April 1, 2010 and
May 6, 2013, submittals for the HGB nonattainment area fully address
the CAA requirements, EPA's regulations, and are consistent with EPA
guidance. Therefore, the EPA is proposing approval of these specific
elements of the HGB 8-hour ozone plan. The EPA is soliciting public
comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will
be considered before taking final action.
V. 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 CAA and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 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, these proposed actions:
Are not ``significant regulatory actions'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
are 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.);
do 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);
do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
[[Page 55037]]
are not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
are 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 application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
do 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
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Ozone,
Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR Part 81
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: August 28, 2013.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2013-21883 Filed 9-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P