Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Attainment Demonstration for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area, 55037-55046 [2013-21886]
Download as PDF
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
55038
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
8. Additional Evidence
9. Attainment Demonstration Evaluation
B. Control Measures Relied Upon in the
Attainment Demonstration
1. MECT
2. HECT
3. VMEP Measures and TCMs
4. Previously Approved State Measures
and Federal Measures
5. Summary Regarding Control Measures
Relied Upon in the Attainment
Demonstration
C. RACM
D. Contingency Measures
E. MVEB
F. General Air Quality Definitions
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
I. Background
A. The 1997 Ozone NAAQS and the
HGB Area
Ground level ozone is formed when
NOX and volatile organic compounds
(VOC) react in the presence of sunlight.
These two pollutants, referred to as
ozone precursors, are emitted by many
types of pollution sources, including onroad and non-road motor vehicles and
engines, power plants and industrial
facilities, and smaller area sources such
as lawn and garden equipment and
paints. See 77 FR 30088, 30089 (May 21,
2012). Breathing ozone can trigger a
variety of health problems including
chest pain, coughing, throat irritation,
and congestion. It can worsen
bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma.
Ground level ozone also can reduce
lung function and inflame the linings of
the lungs. Repeated exposure may
permanently scar lung tissue. See 77 FR
30088, 30089 (May 21, 2012). For more
information on ground level ozone
please see https://epa.gov/airquality/
ozonepollution.
In 1979, under section 109 of the
CAA, EPA established primary and
secondary NAAQS for ozone at 0.12
parts per million (ppm) averaged over a
1-hour period. See 44 FR 8202 (February
8, 1979). Primary standards are set to
protect human health while secondary
standards are set to protect public
welfare. On July 18, 1997, EPA revised
the primary and secondary NAAQS for
ozone to set the acceptable level of
ozone in the ambient air at 0.08 ppm,
averaged over an 8-hour period. See 62
FR 38856 (July 18, 1997). EPA set the 8hour ozone standard based on scientific
evidence demonstrating that ozone
causes adverse health effects at lower
concentrations and over longer periods
of time than was understood when the
pre-existing 1-hour ozone standard was
set. EPA determined that the 8-hour
standard would be more protective of
human health, especially children and
adults who are active outdoors, and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Sep 06, 2013
Jkt 229001
individuals with a pre-existing
respiratory disease, such as asthma.1
In 2004, we classified the HGB area
(Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend,
Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery
and Waller counties) as a moderate
ozone nonattainment area for the 1997
ozone NAAQS. See 69 FR 23858 (April
30, 2004). In 2007, at the request of the
State, and under CAA section 181(b)(3),
we reclassified the HGB area to severe
calling for attainment as expeditiously
as practicable but no later than June 15,
2019. See 73 FR 56983 (October 1,
2008). Since 2018 is the first full year
before the attainment deadline, we will
judge attainment based on data through
the end of 2018 and therefore, we refer
to 2018 as the attainment year.
B. CAA and Regulatory Requirements
for Ozone Nonattainment SIPs
States must implement the 1997 8hour ozone standard under Title 1, Part
D of the CAA, which includes section
172, ‘‘Nonattainment plan provisions,’’
and subpart 2, ‘‘Additional Provisions
for Ozone Nonattainment Areas’’
(sections 181–185). We promulgated a
regulation to implement the 1997 ozone
NAAQS at 40 CFR part 51, subpart X
(Provisions for Implementation of 8hour Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard). The regulation
addresses the requirements for modeling
and attainment demonstrations,
reasonably available control technology
and measures (RACT and RACM),
reasonable further progress (RFP),
contingency measures, and new source
review.
When we reclassified the HGB area,
we also identified the SIP requirements
for the area. The requirements being
addressed in this notice are: (1) An
attainment demonstration (40 CFR
51.908), (2) provisions for RACM (40
CFR 51.912), and (3) contingency
measures to be implemented in the
event of failure to attain the standard by
the applicable attainment date (CAA
172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9)). In order to
approve the attainment demonstration
for the area we must also approve: (1)
The measures relied on as necessary to
demonstrate attainment, (2) an
attainment MVEB for transportation
conformity purposes, and (3) the RFP
plan and the RFP contingency measures.
See Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155,
163, (D.C. Cir. 2002). Some measures,
relied upon as necessary for attainment,
1 Subsequently, we lowered the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS to 0.075 ppm and classified the Houston
area as a marginal nonattainment area for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008);
77 FR 30088, 30089 (May 21, 2012). This
rulemaking does not address the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
have been previously approved (section
II.B.5). We are proposing to approve
additional measures relied on as
necessary to demonstrate attainment,
and an attainment MVEB for 2018. In a
separate proposal, we are addressing the
RFP and RFP contingency measures
requirements.2 Current information on
the status of HGB area SIP requirements
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS can be
found at: https://epa.gov/air/urbanair/
sipstatus.
CAA section 172(c)(6) requires the
attainment demonstration to include
enforceable emission limitations, and
such other control measures, means or
techniques as well as schedules and
timetables for compliance, as may be
necessary to provide for attainment by
the applicable attainment date. In order
to be considered in the modeling, the
measures must be permanent,
enforceable and quantifiable. See 57 FR
13498, 13567 (April 16, 1992).
CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and
110(l) require a state to provide
reasonable public notice and
opportunity for public hearing prior to
the adoption and submission of a SIP or
SIP revision. To meet this requirement,
every SIP submittal should include
evidence that adequate public notice
was given and an opportunity for a
public hearing was provided consistent
with EPA’s implementing regulations in
40 CFR 51.102.
C. State SIP Submittals
On April 6, 2010, Texas submitted for
the HGB area: (1) An attainment
demonstration, (2) revisions to the
MECT program to protect the integrity
of the NOX cap in the HGB area, (3)
revisions to the HECT program to
reduce the HRVOC cap by 25% in
Harris County and provide for a more
equitable distribution of the HECT
allowances, and (4) revisions to the
General Air Quality definitions
applicable to the entire Texas SIP.
On May 6, 2013, Texas submitted an
update to the attainment demonstration.
The update included: (1) Revised onroad mobile source emissions
inventories and MVEBs using the more
recent EPA MOVES mobile source
emissions estimation model, (2) an
update of the contingency measures
analysis, and (3) updated discussions of
emissions inventory, photochemical
modeling, control strategies and
required elements, and weight-ofevidence that the area will attain by its
attainment date.
In addition to the revisions submitted
on April 6, 2010, Texas previously
2 See docket EPA–R06–OAR–2010–0333 in
www.regulations.gov.
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
submitted SIP revisions to the General
Air Quality Definitions (30 TAC 101.1)
on August 16, 2007. Texas later
submitted additional revisions to 30
TAC 101.1 on March 11, 2011.
Each of the above identified
submittals was given proper hearing and
public notice by Texas as required by 40
CFR 51.102 and evidence of this was
provided in the SIP submittal. Please
see the submittals found in the
electronic docket and our technical
support document (TSD).
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
II. EPA’s Evaluation
We have prepared a TSD for this
rulemaking which details our
evaluation. Our TSD may be accessed
online at https://www.regulations.gov,
Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–2013–0387.
A. Attainment Demonstration Modeling
and Weight-of-Evidence
Below, we briefly discuss the steps
necessary to build an attainment
demonstration, including
photochemical modeling and
supplemental weight of evidence and
our evaluation of Texas’ performance of
these steps. Please see the TSD for this
action for our full evaluation and
conclusions.
1. Attainment Demonstration General.
CAA 182 (c)(2)(A), and 40 CFR 51.908,
51.112, and Part 51 Appendix W—
Guideline on Air Quality Models
require that attainment demonstrations
for ozone nonattainment areas classified
as moderate or higher (severe in this
case) be conducted with photochemical
grid modeling or an equivalent
technique approved by EPA. The CAA
and regulations (including Appendix W)
do not prescribe a specific
photochemical grid model, but allow for
EPA to judge the suitability of a model
by considering multiple factors. These
factors include choice of episode(s),
emissions and meteorological inputs,
model formulation, databases used, and
how the model is used in the attainment
test. Texas used the Comprehensive Air
Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx)
photochemical grid model in its
demonstration that the control strategies
for the HGB area will achieve
attainment by 2018. The Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ) also included a TSD, a number
of appendices, and numerous electronic
files that document model formulation,
databases used, assumptions,
judgements, evaluations of control
strategy impacts, etc. EPA reviewed the
available information and concluded
that the use of CAMx is acceptable and
TCEQ’s modeling and documentation
meets the photochemical modeling
demonstration requirements of the CAA
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Sep 06, 2013
Jkt 229001
and 40 CFR 51.908, 51.112, and Part 51
Appendix W. Also, as allowed under
EPA policy, TCEQ has introduced other
evidence, referred to as weight of
evidence, to supplement the modeling
analysis.
2. Photochemical Grid Modeling.
Photochemical grid models are the stateof-the-art method for predicting the
effectiveness of control strategies in
reducing ozone levels. The model uses
a three-dimensional grid to represent
conditions in the area of interest. In this
case, TCEQ has developed a grid system
that stretches from beyond Austin to the
West, to the Atlantic Ocean to the East,
to southern Canada to the North and
into the Gulf of Mexico to the South.
The model uses nested grid cells of 36
kilometers (km) on the outer portions,
12 km in east Texas and portions of
nearby States, a 4 km grid cell covering
the HGB and Beaumont Port Arthur
(BPA) areas and a refined 2 km grid
covering the HGB area. For more
information on the modeling domain,
please see Appendix A of the TSD. The
model simulates the movement of air
and emissions into and out of the threedimensional grid cells (advection and
dispersion); mixes pollutants upward
and downward among layers; injects
new emissions from sources such as
point, area, mobile (both on-road and
non-road), and biogenic into each cell;
and uses chemical reaction equations to
calculate ozone concentrations based on
the concentration of ozone precursors
and incoming solar radiation within
each cell. Running the model requires
large amounts of data regarding the
emissions and meteorological
conditions during an episode. Air
quality planners choose historical
episodes with high ozone levels to test
the model. Modeling to duplicate
conditions during a historical episode is
referred to as the base case modeling
and is used to verify that the model
system can predict the historical ozone
levels with an acceptable degree of
accuracy. If the model can predict the
ozone levels in the base case, it can then
be used to project future ozone levels
and the response of future ozone levels
to proposed emission control strategies.
3. Modeling Episodes. Texas chose six
recent historical episodes (2005: 5/19–6/
3, 6/17–6/30, and 7/26–8/8; 2006: 5/31–
6/15, 8/13–9/15, 9/16–10/11) that
encompassed much of the time period
of the Texas Air Quality Study (TexAQS
II) 2005/6. During this study period,
researchers from around the country
participated in an intensive study of
ozone formation in the HGB area,
collecting additional meteorological and
chemical data with the last two episodes
occurring when the intensive field
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
55039
campaign occurred. This study provided
a wealth of information to test the
assumptions in the model. EPA believes
that these episodes are acceptable
episodes for development of the 1997 8hour attainment plan. The episodes
encompass a large number of
exceedance days (55 days) and contain
a variety of meteorological conditions
which resulted in high concentrations of
ozone in the area as measured on both
a 1-hour and 8-hour basis. Day specific
evaluation of these episode days
confirms that overall, these episodes are
representative of the conceptual model
for high ozone in the HGB area. In
summary, these episodes include most
meteorological conditions that occur
when ozone exceedances are monitored
in HGB and the modeling and analyses
were enhanced by having the TexAQS
II field study data.
4. Modeling Emissions Inventory.
TCEQ followed acceptable procedures
for the development of the basecase
inventory, following or building upon
EPA guidance. They also included
emissions during upsets and other day
specific emissions. Despite these efforts,
one of the original findings of the
TexAQS 2000 study was that observed
concentrations of certain compounds,
especially light olefins such as ethylene
and propylene, were much larger than
represented in the reported emission
inventory. As a result, TCEQ created an
‘imputed’ inventory (approximately 5.8
times the reported levels for these
HRVOC species) in its 1-hour ozone
attainment SIP. TCEQ also instituted
rules to better regulate the industrial
point sources that emit these
compounds with ‘‘HRVOC rules’’ in a
2004 SIP modification approved by EPA
(71 FR 52656, September 6, 2006). The
more recent 2005/6 field study
confirmed that these measures resulted
in lower levels of these pollutants
(approximately 42% lower on average
than 2000 levels) but the HRVOC levels
were still under reported with ambient
measurements indicating that actual
emissions were an average of 2–3 times
reported levels. Field study data also
confirmed that emission inventory
estimates of other VOCs, in addition to
the HRVOCs, were also under estimated,
but these VOCs are harder to attribute to
a specific category as they could be
emitted from mobile, area, and non-road
categories in addition to industrial point
sources. As a result, TCEQ adjusted the
estimates of the HRVOCs in the 2005/6
basecase emission inventories. This
reconciliation with ambient data was
performed using a combination of wind
data and measurements from the Auto
Gas Chromatographs that measure 56
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
55040
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
different VOC species. The
reconciliation resulted in upward
adjustments of facility HRVOC
emissions better match the ambient
data. The adjustments ranged from less
than two times greater than reported to
more than ten times greater than
reported in some cases.
We believe that the method TCEQ has
used to reconcile ambient HRVOC
emissions data with reported emissions
is a reasonable approach to addressing
the concern that reported emissions,
despite being based on accepted
estimation technologies, do not result in
emission estimates that are consistent
with ambient measurements. In
addition, the ‘‘reconciliation’’ approach
is more sophisticated and more accurate
than the ‘‘imputed’’ approach used in
past SIP revisions for the HGB area. The
inventory, based on this reconciliation
technique, also improved model
performance. We continue to encourage
TCEQ to find and resolve the issues that
are resulting in these discrepancies
between reported and actual emissions.
As TCEQ works on attaining the 2008 8hour ozone NAAQS, resolving these
underestimated emissions of HRVOCs
and other VOCs will continue to be very
important.
5. Model Performance. Model
performance is a term used to describe
how well the basecase model predicts
the ozone levels in a historical
episode(s). As models have to make
numerous simplifying assumptions and
the system being modeled is very
complex, model predictions will never
be perfect. EPA and TCEQ evaluate a
number of times series, diagnostic, and
statistical metrics for the meteorological
analysis that is used in the
photochemical modeling analysis. EPA
has developed various diagnostic,
statistical and graphical analyses that
TCEQ employed to evaluate the model’s
performance and determine if the model
is working adequately to test control
strategies. Overall the modeling overpredicted some maxima on lower ozone
days and under-estimated some maxima
on the higher ozone days. In addition,
modeled ozone values at night do not
drop as much as monitored ozone
levels. EPA notes that the model’s
general tendency to under-predict on
high days and over-predict on low days
raises some uncertainty in the control
strategy modeling. While the model had
some problems with predicting the
maxima in the HGB area, overall, the
performance was adequate for moving
forward using 37 of the initial 55
exceedance days in the control strategy
analysis.
6. Future Year Modeling. Once the
basecase/baseline modeling of historical
episodes has been completed, the
periods (days) with acceptable model
performance can then be used to project
future year ozone levels by replacing the
basecase/baseline emissions with
emissions estimates for future years.
TCEQ developed a 2018 emission
inventory using recent emission data
information and projection tools. TCEQ
used the meteorology files from the
basecase episodes for the 2018 modeling
estimates. Using meteorology from
historical episodes allows one to assess
whether the lower projected 2018
emission levels would be expected to
result in attainment of the standard if
the same meteorology occurs. For
further details about 2018 emissions
estimates and how they were generated,
see our TSD and TCEQ’s materials
supporting this action.
7. Results of 2018 Future Year
Modeling. The results of 2018 modeling
are shown in Table 1. In estimating if
the modeling is predicting attainment or
nonattainment in the future year, we use
a ratio that is based on the average of the
8-hour daily maximums predicted
around a monitor in the future divided
by the average of the 8-hour daily
maximum predicted in the basecase.
This ratio is called a Relative Response
Factor (RRF). The RRF for a monitor is
multiplied by the basecase 5-year
average Design Value (DV) to obtain a
future 5-year average DV.
Table 1 shows that all of the
regulatory monitors except Deer Park
and Bayland Park are predicted to have
2018 DVs below the 1997 8-hour
NAAQS. For a full explanation of how
these projections were calculated, see
our TSD. Table 1 also shows that the
Wallisville Rd. monitor that TCEQ has
labeled as non-regulatory is also
projected to be above the 1997 8-hour
NAAQS in 2018 modeled DV
projections. We have evaluated TCEQ’s
DV projections and confirm that they
followed EPA’s attainment
demonstration guidance and methods as
required by 40 CFR 51.112 and
Appendix W of Part 51.
TABLE 1—FUTURE YEAR (2018) PROJECTED DESIGN VALUES
[Using the RRFs from the modeling]
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Monitor designation
Site code
Houston East (CAMS 1) ..................................................................................
Aldine (CAMS 8) ..............................................................................................
Channelview (CAMS 15) .................................................................................
Northwest Harris County (CAMS 26) ..............................................................
Galveston Airport (CAMS 34) ..........................................................................
Deer Park (CAMS 35) ......................................................................................
Seabrook Friendship Park (CAMS 45) ............................................................
Bayland Park (CAMS 53) ................................................................................
Conroe Relocated (CAMS 78) .........................................................................
Houston Regional Office (CAMS 81) ...............................................................
Manvel Croix Park (CAMS 84) ........................................................................
Clinton (CAMS 403) .........................................................................................
North Wayside (CAMS 405) ............................................................................
Swiss and Monroe (CAMS 406) ......................................................................
Lang (CAMS 408) ............................................................................................
Croquet (CAMS 409) .......................................................................................
Shell Westhollow (CAMS 410) ........................................................................
Houston Texas Avenue (CAMS 411) ..............................................................
Haden Road (CAMS 603) * .............................................................................
Wallisville Road (CAMS 617) * ........................................................................
Danciger (CAMS 618) * ...................................................................................
Mustang Bayou (CAMS 619) * .........................................................................
Texas City (CAMS 620) * .................................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Sep 06, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2006 DVB
(ppb) **
HOEA
HALC
HCHV
HNWA
GALC
DRPK
SBFP
BAYP
CNR2
HROC
MACP
C35C
HWAA
HSMA
HLAA
HCQA
SHWH
HTCA
H03H
WALV
DNCG
MSTG
TXCT
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
80.3
85.0
82.7
89.0
81.7
92.0
85.3
96.7
83.0
79.7
90.7
79.0
76.3
90.3
77.7
87.0
92.3
79.3
84.0
92.0
80.3
84.7
84.3
09SEP1
RRF
0.942
0.916
0.937
0.877
0.927
0.936
0.924
0.899
0.877
0.949
0.890
0.947
0.932
0.917
0.897
0.897
0.868
0.937
0.943
0.935
0.881
0.901
0.921
2018 DVF
(ppb) **
75.6
77.9
77.5
78.1
75.7
86.1
78.8
87.0
72.8
75.6
80.7
74.8
71.2
82.9
69.6
78.1
80.1
74.3
79.2
86.0
70.8
76.2
77.7
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
55041
TABLE 1—FUTURE YEAR (2018) PROJECTED DESIGN VALUES—Continued
[Using the RRFs from the modeling]
Monitor designation
Site code
Lynchburg Ferry (CAMS 1015) .......................................................................
Lake Jackson (CAMS 1016) ............................................................................
2006 DVB
(ppb) **
LYNF
LKJK
81.7
77.0
RRF
0.942
0.891
2018 DVF
(ppb) **
76.9
68.6
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
* Non-regulatory, industry-sponsored monitor.
** Values 85 parts per billion (ppb) or greater are shown in bold. The 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS is 0.08 ppm, which equates to 84 ppb when
rounding is considered.
EPA’s 2007 Modeling Guidance also
recommends that areas not near
monitoring locations (unmonitored
areas) in a nonattainment area be
analyzed in an ‘‘unmonitored area
(UMA) analysis’’ to determine if these
areas would be expected to reach
attainment. The standard attainment test
(results in the table above) only applies
at monitor locations, and the UMA
analysis is intended to identify any
areas not near a monitoring location that
are at risk of not reaching attainment.
The TCEQ chose to use its own
procedure to conduct the UMA analysis
instead of using EPA’s Modeled
Attainment Test Software (MATS).
TCEQ’s analysis uses similar
approaches and we propose to accept its
use for this SIP. TCEQ’s UMA indicates
that there are no areas in the HGB
nonattainment area outside of the
specific areas evaluated in the monitor
based attainment test analysis that are at
risk of not reaching attainment. In
summary, EPA finds that TCEQ’s
photochemical modeling analysis
indicates that all the monitors in HGB
area will either be attaining or near
attainment levels in 2018, all HGB
unmonitored areas will be attainment,
and TCEQ’s evaluations conform with
EPA’s regulations and guidance.
8. Additional Evidence. The EPA’s
1996 guidance entitled ‘‘Guidance on
Use of Modeled Results to Demonstrate
Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS’’
allows for the use of alternative
analyses, called weight-of-evidence
(WOE), to provide additional evidence
that the proposed control strategy,
although not modeling attainment, is
nonetheless expected to achieve
attainment by the attainment date. EPA
continued to support WOE analyses in
the 2007 Modeling Guidance. The intent
of these guidance documents was to be
cognizant of the fact that, under the
structure of the standard some
exceedances of the ozone NAAQS are
allowed each year. Thus, even though
the specific control strategy modeling
may predict some areas to be above the
NAAQS, this does not necessarily mean
that with the implementation of the
control strategy monitored attainment
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Sep 06, 2013
Jkt 229001
will not be achieved. In addition, as
with other predictive tools, there are
inherent uncertainties associated with
modeling and its results. For example,
there are uncertainties in the
meteorological and emissions inputs
and in the methodology used to assess
the severity of an exceedance at
individual sites. The EPA’s guidance
recognizes these limitations and
provides a means for considering other
evidence to help assess whether
attainment of the NAAQS is likely.
Since the future control case modeling
in the Texas SIP revision predicts some
areas still exceeding the ozone NAAQS,
the TCEQ followed EPA Modeling
Guidance to supplement the control
strategy modeling with WOE analyses.
The strongest parts of the WOE
analysis are the most recent 8-hour
ozone monitoring trends and the
continued reductions expected from
vehicle fleet turnover. Ozone Design
Value trends at most of the monitors in
the HGB area show significant decreases
over time and many of the monitors are
currently attaining the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard. Furthermore, the ozone
precursor trends are generally showing
a decrease that supports the HGB area’s
impact on ozone levels that exceed the
standard is continuing to decrease.
The HGB area’s most recent design
value is 88 ppb through 2012.
Additional reductions of precursor
emissions are expected with six more
years of fleet turnover bringing cleaner
cars and off road equipment into the
fleet. EPA believes that these reductions
will bring about the additional 4 ppb of
reduction necessary from 2012
monitored levels to reach attainment—
supporting the proposed finding that
HGB will attain by its attainment year.
To further support its WOE argument
Texas submitted many additional
analyses, which are discussed in the
TSD for this action. These include:
Corroborative analysis of the modeling,
process analysis, application of source
apportionment tools, highly detailed
model performance evaluations, and
analysis of model response to simulated
emission reductions. Texas also
provided an analysis of air quality data
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
including: Ozone design value trends,
trends in strength of ozone gradients,
impact of Hurricane Ike on ozone levels,
NOX and VOC monitored trends,
geographic patterns in HRVOC
monitored values, meteorological
adjusted trends, regional and Texas
background ozone trends, and transport/
surface wind trajectories.
Finally, to support the finding that the
area would attain the standard, Texas
documented additional control
programs that were not included in the
model but will provide emission
reductions that will contribute to lower
ozone levels. These include: Improved
international marine diesel and fuel
standards, SmartWay transport
initiatives, car allowance rebates,
improved control of VOCs from storage
tanks, energy efficiency and renewable
energy measures, Texas Emission
Reduction Plan, Low Income Vehicle
Repair Assistance/Retirement program,
Clean School Bus program, Best
Management Practices for barge
emissions, and other local initiatives. In
general, these measures are expected to
reduce ozone concentrations but are
difficult to quantify and therefore were
not modeled. EPA agrees that these
measures contribute to the evidence that
the area will attain the standard by its
attainment date.
One area of uncertainty in the
attainment demonstration is the
treatment of flare emissions in the
modeling. The destruction efficiencies
are projected to be high, with values
from 98% to 99% depending on the
compound. It is likely that flares not
achieving these destruction efficiencies
are one source of the documented
under-estimation of the emissions
inventory and the need to impute
emissions based on ambient air
concentrations for the base case/
baseline emission inventory. We note
that TCEQ has been working with
industry on flare best management
practices to try to insure good flare
performance. These efforts should result
in reduced flare emissions compared to
current levels, but it is uncertain that all
flares will achieve the projected
destruction efficiencies in 2018 as
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
55042
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
assumed in the modeling. How
successful TCEQ’s initiative is in
reducing emissions of flares will likely
have a significant impact on the success
of the HGB area in continued ozone
improvement. The details of our review
of the WOE analysis and data can be
reviewed in our TSD Appendix A—HGB
MOAAD, Chapter 6. In accordance with
40 CFR 51.908, 51.112, and Appendix
W of Part 51, the WOE analysis supports
our proposed finding of attainment for
HGB by its attainment date.
9. Attainment Demonstration
Evaluation. EPA believes that the
combination of photochemical modeling
and other evidence (WOE) indicates that
the HGB area will attain the NAAQS by
2018. This SIP revision represents a
significant improvement over past
efforts to model the HGB area. Texas has
greatly improved the representation of
the area’s complex meteorology. In
addition they have a much more refined
emission inventory because of the better
reconciliation of HRVOC emissions with
ambient data. The modeling projects
significant improvement in air quality
and all but three of the monitors are
projected to attain the standard and the
three monitors not demonstrating
attainment to the standard are projected
to be only slightly above the standard.
This modeling evidence taken together
with the WOE discussed above,
demonstrates that HGB will reach
attainment of the 1997 8-hour NAAQS
by the end of the ozone season of 2018.
In reaching this conclusion, we have
considered the uncertainties presented
by discrepancies between reported
emissions and ambient measurements
and uncertainties regarding the
performance of flares. We have also
considered the significant
improvements in ozone levels
documented by ambient ozone data and
the expected future reductions
including those that were not modeled.
In summary, our analysis of TCEQs
photochemical modeling and WOE
concludes that the area will reach
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS by the end of 2018. Our review
confirms that TCEQ’s modeling and
WOE conform to 40 CFR 51.908, 51.112,
Appendix W of Part 51, EPA’s guidance
and methodologies. Our full evaluation
of each modeling and WOE elements of
the attainment demonstration submitted
by TCEQ in this SIP revision is included
in our TSD for this notice.
B. Control Measures Relied Upon in the
Attainment Demonstration
1. MECT. The MECT is a portion of
the SIP-approved control strategy for the
HGB area that caps NOX emissions
beginning January 1, 2002, with a final
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Sep 06, 2013
Jkt 229001
reduction to the cap occurring in 2007
for stationary sources. The cap
represents an approximate reduction in
NOX emissions of 80% from the
applicable stationary sources (with
some sources reducing more and some
reducing less). Facilities are required to
demonstrate compliance with the MECT
on an annual basis by having sufficient
allowances, or other credits as provided
in the SIP, to equal the annual NOX
emissions from the previous year. EPA
published a final rule approving the
MECT program in 66 FR 57252
(November 14, 2001). We have
subsequently approved revisions to the
MECT on September 6, 2006 and July
16, 2009. See 71 FR 52698 and 74 FR
34503.
On March 10, 2010, TCEQ adopted
revisions to the MECT Program at 30
TAC Chapter 101, Subchapter H,
Division 3, Sections 101.350, 101.351,
and 101.353. These revisions amend the
SIP-approved MECT program to protect
the integrity of the NOX cap in HGB.
Specifically, the TCEQ adopted
revisions to 30 TAC 101.350 to revise
the definition of ‘‘uncontrolled design
capacity’’ to ‘‘uncontrolled design
capacity to emit’’ to allow more
flexibility for stationary diesel engines
to determine how to comply with NOX
emission requirements in Chapter 117—
either through participation in the
MECT or through purchasing banked
emission credits. The adopted revisions
also revise the applicability of the
MECT program at 30 TAC 101.351 to
require subject sites to first determine
the status as a major or minor source
under 30 TAC Chapter 117. If the source
is major, then it must participate in the
MECT. If the source is minor then it can
choose to participate under the MECT or
meet reduction requirements through
the purchase and retirement of banked
emission credits. Finally, the adopted
revisions modify the allocation of
allowance requirements at 30 TAC
101.353 to discontinue the acceptance
of late Level of Activity certification
forms that could have inflated the cap.
The TCEQ also adopted non-substantive
revisions throughout to correct
typographical errors and Texas Register
formatting requirements.
EPA’s complete evaluation of the
revisions to the MECT adopted on
March 10, 2010 and submitted April 6,
2010, is available in our TSD. In
summary, we find that the revisions to
the MECT will continue to achieve the
reduction in stationary source NOX
emissions relied upon in the attainment
demonstration.
2. HECT. The HECT program is a
mandatory cap and trade program of
HRVOCs for covered facilities including
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
vent gas streams, flares, and cooling
tower heat exchange systems that emit
HRVOCs, as defined in 30 TAC Section
115.10, and that are located at a site
subject to Chapter 115, Subchapter H.
Facilities are required to meet HRVOC
allowances on an annual basis.
Facilities may purchase, bank, or sell
their allowances for use in the following
control period. EPA published final
approval of the HECT program on
September 6, 2006, as an integral
component of the HGB 1-hour ozone
attainment demonstration. See 71 FR
52659.
On March 10, 2010, the TCEQ
adopted revisions to HECT Program at
30 TAC Chapter 101, Subchapter H,
Division 6, Sections 101.390–101.394,
101.396 and 101.399–101.401. These
revisions reduce the HRVOC cap in
Harris County by 25%—a step taken to
achieve the reductions shown necessary
by the photochemical modeling for HGB
8-hour ozone attainment demonstration
discussed in section II. The revisions
also change the allocation methodology
to promote equitable distribution of
allowances as a result of comment and
add necessary definitions to implement
the allocation methodology changes.
The TCEQ also adopted non-substantive
revisions throughout to correct
typographical errors and Texas Register
formatting requirements.
EPA’s complete evaluation of the
revisions to the HECT adopted on
March 10, 2010 and submitted April 6,
2010, is available in our TSD. In
summary, we find that the revisions to
the HECT to implement the reduction in
the Harris County HRVOC cap by 25%
will reduce ozone levels and achieve the
reductions relied upon in the
photochemical modeling for the
attainment demonstration.
3. VMEP Measures and TCMs. The
SIP included VMEP measures to reduce
mobile source emissions of ozone
precursors. VMEP measures consist of
voluntary mobile source strategies that
complement existing regulatory
programs through voluntary, nonregulatory changes in local
transportation activities or changes in
in-use vehicle and engine composition.
The types of HGB VMEP measures and
NOX emission reductions are listed in
Table 2 and are expected to reduce NOX
emissions by 2.25 tons per day.
TABLE 2—VMEP TYPES AND NOX
EMISSION REDUCTIONS
Program type
Alternative Commuting .....
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
NOX reductions
(tons per day)
0.20
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—VMEP TYPES AND NOX
EMISSION REDUCTIONS—Continued
NOX reductions
(tons per day)
Program type
Regional Traffic Flow Improvements ...................
Vehicle Retrofit and Replacement ......................
Off-road Measures ............
0.05
1.30
0.70
Total ..............................
2.25
Authority for our approval of VMEP
measures is primarily grounded in
section 110(a)(2) of the CAA, as well as
sections 182(g)(4)(A) and 108. Section
110(a)(2) establishes that a SIP must
include ‘‘enforceable emissions limits
and other control measures, means or
techniques . . . as well as schedules
and timetables for compliance, as may
be necessary or appropriate to meet the
applicable requirements of this
chapter.’’ In interpreting 110(a)(2) of the
CAA, EPA issued a guidance document
entitled, ‘‘Guidance on Incorporating
Voluntary Mobile Source Emission
Reduction Programs in State
Implementation Plans (SIPs),’’
Memorandum from Richard D. Wilson,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air
and Radiation, dated October 24, 1997,
which allows for SIP credit for
voluntary measures.3 The Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals upheld, as a
reasonable interpretation of the Act,
EPA’s VMEP policy and allowed the
State to consider estimated emissions
reductions from a VMEP in the HGB
area 1-hour ozone attainment
demonstration. See BCCA Appeal Group
v. EPA, 355 F.3d 817, 825 (5th Cir.
2003).
Generally, to obtain credit for a
VMEP, the SIP: (1) Identifies and
describes a VMEP, (2) Contains
projections of emission reductions
attributable to the program, along with
any relevant technical support
documentation, (3) Commits to
evaluation and reporting on program
implementation and results, and (4)
Commits to the timely remedy of any
credit shortfall should the VMEP not
achieve the anticipated emission
reductions. The VMEP emission
reduction credits should be quantifiable,
surplus (i.e., they are not credited
twice), enforceable, permanent, and
adequately supported.4 In addition, the
VMEP must be consistent with
attainment of the standard and with the
reasonable further progress
requirements and not interfere with
other CAA requirements. The VMEP for
an area can be revised by a SIP revision
that substitutes or adds other VMEP
measures if needed.
As in past commitments, we interpret
the VMEP portion of the SIP to be
enforceable because the State, through
the Houston-Galveston Area Council
(H–GAC), has committed to fill any
shortfall in credit, thus any enforcement
will be against the State. The H–GAC, as
the regional metropolitan transportation
planning agency for the HGA area, has
committed to implement the projects
and/or programs outlined in the HGA
VMEP submittal. The H–GAC will be
responsible for monitoring and
reporting the emissions reductions to
the TCEQ. The State, through the H–
GAC, has committed to cover any VMEP
shortfall (of the 2.25 tpd of NOX
committed). The State, through the H–
GAC, will remedy any VMEP shortfall
that might occur in the VMEP program.
A detailed analysis of all the VMEP
measures can be found in our TSD. Each
creditable VMEP measure was found to
be quantifiable. The VMEP emission
reductions are surplus because they are
55043
not substitutes for mandatory, required
emission reductions. The commitment
to monitor, assess and timely remedy
any shortfall from implementation of
the measures is enforceable against the
State. The reductions will continue at
least for as long as the time in which
they are used by this SIP demonstration,
so they are considered permanent.
There is a commitment that each
measure is adequately supported by
personnel and program resources for
implementation.
The HGB area’s ozone SIP VMEP
meets the criteria for credit in the SIP.
The State has shown that the credits are
quantifiable, surplus, enforceable,
permanent, adequately supported, and
consistent with the SIP and the CAA.
We propose to approve the VMEP
portion of the Texas SIP.
TCMs are transportation related
projects or activities designed to reduce
on-road mobile source emissions. TCMs
used as a control measure in the
attainment demonstration must be
specific, permanent, enforceable and
quantifiable.5 We approved the Texas
rule for implementing TCMs in the SIP
(30 TAC 114.270) in 67 FR 72379
(December 5, 2002). The SIP included
six projects identified by the HoustonGalveston Area Council to reduce
mobile source emissions by enhancing
pedestrian and bicycle pathways (table
3). The emission reductions estimated
from these projects are 0.015 tons per
day of NOX . These projects would
reduce NOX emissions by facilitating
non-automobile travel. As the TCMs are
part of the SIP, the commitment to
implement the TCMs is enforceable
through the SIP. Because these projects
are specific, permanent, enforceable,
and quantifiable we propose to approve
them.
TABLE 3—PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE TCM PROJECTS IN THE HGB SIP
Project No.
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
Holman Street Pedestrian Improvements ...............................................................................................
Pedestrian Improvements for Elgin, Ennis, and Alabama Streets ..........................................................
Pedestrian/Transit Improvement Program for Westheimer Road ...........................................................
Columbia Tap Rail to Trail Bikeway ........................................................................................................
Columbia Tap Union Station Trail Shared Use Path with Bike Lane .....................................................
Phase 2 West Houston On-Street Bikeway Network (Terry Hershey Park) ...........................................
0.0001862
0.0004562
0.0137628
0.0002721
0.0005840
0.0001653
Total ...................
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
0912–72–145
0912–72–146
0912–72–147
0912–71–544
0912–71–801
0912–71–655
NOX Reductions
(tons per day)
Description
..................................................................................................................................................................
0.0154266
4. Previously Approved State
Measures and Federal Measures. Texas
also identified other previously
3 The 1997 guidance is available at https://
www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/policy/general/
vmep-gud.pdf .
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Sep 06, 2013
Jkt 229001
approved State ozone control measures
and Federal measures applicable to the
HGB area which achieved reductions
4 Id.
5 Transportation
Control Measures: State
Implementation Plan Guidance, September 1990
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
that are relied upon in this attainment
demonstration. The State control
measures included those approved by
(EPA 450/2–89–020), https://www.epa.gov/otaq/
stateresources/policy/transp/tcms/state_plan_
guidance.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
55044
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
EPA for: (1) The 1-hour ozone NAAQS
(71 FR 52670, September 6, 2006) and
(2) additional VOC emission controls for
storage tanks, transport vessels and
marine vessels in the HGB area (75 FR
15348, March 29, 2010). The Federal
measures are regulations on vehicle
emissions and fuel. As we have already
approved the State measures and
promulgated Federal measures to reduce
ozone levels it is appropriate that they
are relied upon in the attainment
demonstration.
5. Summary Regarding Control
Measures Relied Upon in the
Attainment Demonstration. As noted
earlier we must approve the measures
relied on as necessary to demonstrate
attainment in order to approve the
attainment demonstration. These
measures must be permanent,
enforceable, quantifiable, and surplus.
BCCA Appeal Group, 355 F.3d at 825.
Our review of the control measures not
yet approved found that they meet these
criteria. We propose to approve these
measures and to find that the SIP has
sufficient measures to attain the 1997
ozone NAAQS in the HGB area as
expeditiously as practicable but no later
than June 15, 2019. Table 4 summarizes
the measures relied upon for attainment.
TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF MEASURES RELIED UPON IN THE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION
Measure
Comments
1-hour ozone NAAQS measures .......................................................................................
VOC emission controls for storage tanks, transport vessels and marine vessels ...........
Federal measures ..............................................................................................................
Revisions to the MECT ......................................................................................................
Revisions to the HECT ......................................................................................................
VMEP, Transportation Control Measures ..........................................................................
C. RACM
Texas submitted a demonstration that
the HGB area has adopted all RACM
necessary to demonstrate attainment as
expeditiously as practicable with the
attainment demonstration as required by
CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR
51.912(d). We consider a control
measure to be necessary under the
RACM requirement if it: (1) Is
technologically feasible, (2) is
economically feasible, (3) does not
cause ‘‘substantial widespread and longterm adverse impacts’’, (4) is not absurd,
unenforceable, or impracticable and (5)
can advance the attainment date.
To demonstrate that the area meets
the RACM requirement Texas (1)
identified potentially available control
measures with input from stakeholders
and (2) analyzed whether the measure
would be considered a RACM measure.
Texas determined that only one
potential control measure, reduction of
the HRVOC cap for Harris County,
should be adopted to meet the RACM
requirement. As discussed above, Texas
Approved (71 FR 52670, September 6, 2006).
Approved (75 FR 15348, March 29, 2010).
Federal regulations affecting vehicle emissions.
Proposed for approval.
Proposed for approval.
Proposed for approval.
has adopted a rule to reduce the HRVOC
cap for Harris County and we are
proposing to approve that rule. We
reviewed Texas’ RACM process and
analysis and believe that Texas has
shown that the HGB area has met the
CAA RACM requirement. Therefore we
propose to approve the demonstration of
RACM implementation. For more
information please see our TSD.
D. Contingency Measures
CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9)
require contingency measures to be
implemented in the event of failure to
attain the standard by the applicable
attainment date. These contingency
measures must be fully adopted rules or
measures which are ready for
implementation quickly upon failure to
meet attainment. Implementation of the
contingency measures would provide
additional emissions reductions of up to
three percent of the adjusted base year
inventory.6 For more information on
contingency measures, please see the
April 16, 1992 General Preamble (57 FR
13498, 13510) and the November 29,
2005 Phase 2 8-hour ozone standard
implementation rule (70 FR 71612,
71650). As noted in the November 29,
2005 rule, contingency measures could
include Federal measures already
scheduled for implementation. In the
May 6, 2013 SIP submittal, Texas
provided a demonstration that the
contingency measures requirement
would be met through Federal rules
affecting mobile emissions. Table 5
summarizes the contingency measure
analysis provided by Texas. We
reviewed the analysis provided in the
SIP and found the contingency
measures provide the necessary
reductions in ozone precursor emissions
for the year 2019 in the event that the
area fails to attain the 1997 ozone
NAAQS at the end of 2018. Therefore
we propose to approve the failure to
attain contingency measures plan as
meeting the contingency measures
requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9)
and 182(c)(9). For more information
please see our TSD.
TABLE 5—2019 CONTINGENCY DEMONSTRATION FOR THE HGB AREA *
NOX Emissions
(tons per day)
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Description
Adjusted 2018 Base Year Emissions Inventory ..............................................................................................
Percent for Contingency Calculation (total of 3%) ..........................................................................................
2018 to 2019 Required Contingency Reductions ...........................................................................................
Federal On-Road Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) ............................................................................................
Federal On-Road Mobile New Vehicle Certification Standards ......................................................................
State Inspection and Maintenance and Anti-Tampering Programs ................................................................
Texas Low Emission Diesel (TxLED) ..............................................................................................................
Federal Non-Road Mobile New Vehicle Certification Standards ....................................................................
Non-Road RFG Gasoline ................................................................................................................................
Federal Tier I and II Locomotive Standards ....................................................................................................
1003.92
2.00
20.08
6.80
22.28
¥0.67
¥0.20
3.56
0.00
0.68
6 The adjusted base year inventory is that
inventory specified by CAA section 182(b)(1)(B).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:58 Sep 06, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
VOC Emissions
(tons per day)
935.59
1.00
9.36
¥0.25
9.50
¥0.26
0
1.78
0.03
0.01
55045
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 5—2019 CONTINGENCY DEMONSTRATION FOR THE HGB AREA *—Continued
NOX Emissions
(tons per day)
Description
Federal Tier 2 Marine Diesel Standard ...........................................................................................................
Total Contingency Reductions .....................................................................................................................
Contingency Excess (+) or Shortfall (Ø) ....................................................................................................
VOC Emissions
(tons per day)
0.55
33.20
+12.92
0.02
10.83
+1.47
* The reason for negative numbers for the RFG, Inspection and Maintenance/Anti-Tampering and TxLED programs is that there is a slightly
higher benefit in 2018 than in 2019.
E. MVEB
The SIP included an attainment
MVEB for 2018 (table 6). The MVEB
represents the maximum level of onroad emissions of NOX and VOC that
can be produced in 2018—when
considered with emissions from all
other sources—which demonstrate
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. The attainment MVEB
submitted on April 6, 2010 was updated
in the May 6, 2013 submittal using a
more recent EPA mobile source
emissions estimation model (MOVES).
Previously we determined that the
updated 2018 MVEB was ‘‘adequate’’ for
transportation conformity purposes and
must be used for future conformity
determinations in the HGB area (78 FR
46947, August 2, 2013). All future
transportation improvement programs,
projects and plans developed, funded,
or approved under Title 23 U.S.C. or the
Federal Transit Laws for the HGB area
will need to show that they do not result
in emissions which exceed the MVEB
(40 CFR 93.118). We propose to approve
the 2018 MVEB into the SIP.
TABLE 6—2018 HGB ATTAINMENT
MVEB
Pollutant
Summer weekday emissions
(tons per day)
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
NOX ..................................
VOC ..................................
103.34
50.13
F. General Air Quality Definitions
The April 6, 2010, SIP submittal
included revisions to the General Air
Quality Definitions at 30 TAC Section
101.1. The General Air Quality
definitions are applicable to the entirety
of the Texas SIP. While reviewing the
April 6, 2010 SIP submittal, we also
reviewed other pending revisions to the
General Air Quality definitions at 30
TAC 101.1 submitted on June 10, 2005,
August 16, 2007, and March 11, 2011.
The revisions to the definitions were
minor and non-controversial. Our
complete evaluation of these pending
revisions is available in our TSD. In
summary, our analysis demonstrates
that the revisions are consistent with the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:58 Sep 06, 2013
Jkt 229001
CAA and EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR
part 51, therefore we propose approval
of the revisions to 30 TAC 101.1
submitted on June 10, 2005, August 16,
2007, April 6, 2010 and March 11, 2011.
Please see Appendix C of our TSD for
our analysis.
III. Proposed Action
We are proposing to approve SIP
submittals from the State of Texas for
the HGB ozone nonattainment area
submitted on April 6, 2010, and May 6,
2013. Specifically, we are proposing to
approve the following Texas SIP
submittals for the HGB area:
• Attainment demonstration for the
1997 ozone NAAQS
• Revisions to the MECT air pollution
control program
• Revisions to the HECT air pollution
control program
• VMEP measures and TCMs
• A 2018 year MVEB
• Demonstration of RACM
implementation
• Failure to attain contingency
measures plan in the event of failure
to attain the NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date
We are also proposing to approve SIP
revisions to the General Air Quality
Definitions submitted by the State on
June 10, 2005, August 16, 2007, April 6,
2010 and March 11, 2011. We are
proposing these actions in accordance
with section 110 and part D of the CAA.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state
law as meeting Federal requirements
and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• is not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule does
not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
55046
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Dated: August 28, 2013.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2013–21886 Filed 9–6–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2013–0102;
FXES11130900000C6–123–FF09E32000]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a
Petition To Delist or Reclassify From
Endangered to Threatened Five
Southwest Species
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition
finding and initiation of status review.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to delist the
Eriogonum gypsophilum (gypsum wildbuckwheat), and downlist the blackcapped vireo (Vireo atricapilla), lesser
long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris curasoae
yerbabuenae), Echinocereus fendleri
var. kuenzleri (Kuenzler hedgehog
cactus), and Sclerocactus brevihamatus
ssp. tobuschii (Tobusch fishhook cactus)
from endangered to threatened under
the Endangered Species Act. Based on
our review, we find that the petition
presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
the petitioned actions may be
warranted. Therefore, with the
publication of this notice, we are
initiating a review of the status of these
species to determine if the respective
actions of delisting and reclassifying are
warranted. Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act
also requires a status review of listed
species at least once every 5 years. We
are, therefore, electing to conduct each
of these 5-year reviews simultaneously
with the corresponding 12-month
finding. To ensure that this status
review is comprehensive, we are
requesting scientific and commercial
data and other information regarding
these species. Based on the status
review, we will issue a 12-month
finding on the petition, which will
address whether the petitioned action is
warranted, as provided in section
4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.
DATES: We request that we receive
information to consider for the status
review on or before November 8, 2013.
The deadline for submitting information
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 Sep 06, 2013
Jkt 229001
using the Federal eRulemaking Portal
(see ADDRESSES section below) is 11:59
p.m. Eastern Time on this date. After
November 8, 2013, you must submit
information directly to the Division of
Policy and Directives Management (see
ADDRESSES section below). Please note
that we might not be able to address or
incorporate information that we receive
after the above requested date.
ADDRESSES: Document availability: You
may obtain copies of the July 11, 2012,
petition and the 5-year reviews for
petitioned species on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov at Docket
No. FWS–R2–ES–2013–0102.
Written comments: You may submit
information by one of the following
methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Search for FWS–
R2–ES–2013–0102, which is the docket
number for this action. You may submit
information for the status review by
clicking on ‘‘Comment Now!’’
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail
or hand-delivery to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS–R2–ES–2013–
0102; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS
2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will not accept emails or faxes.
We will post all information we receive
on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us
(see the Request for Information section
below for more details).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michelle Shaughnessy, Assistant
Regional Director, Southwest Regional
Ecological Services Office, 500 Gold
Avenue SW., Albuquerque, NM 87102;
telephone 505/248–6920; facsimile 505/
248–6788. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD), please call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)) requires that we
make a finding on whether a petition to
list, delist, or reclassify a species
presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
the petitioned action may be warranted.
We are to base this finding on
information provided in the petition,
supporting information submitted with
the petition, and information otherwise
available in our files. To the maximum
extent practicable, we are to make this
finding within 90 days of our receipt of
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the petition and publish our notice of
the finding promptly in the Federal
Register.
Our standard for substantial scientific
or commercial information with regard
to a 90-day petition finding is ‘‘that
amount of information that would lead
a reasonable person to believe that the
measure proposed in the petition may
be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we
find that substantial scientific or
commercial information was presented,
we are required to promptly initiate a
species status review, which we
subsequently summarize in our 12month finding.
Section 3(6) of the Act defines an
‘‘endangered species’’ as any species
which is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range. A ‘‘threatened species’’ is any
species that is likely to become an
endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. Under
the Act, we maintain a List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants at 50 CFR 17.11 (for animals)
and 17.12 (for plants) (List). We amend
the List by publishing final rules in the
Federal Register. Section 4(c)(2)(A) of
the Act requires that we conduct a
review of listed species at least once
every 5 years (5-year review). Section
4(c)(2)(B) requires that we determine: (1)
Whether a species no longer meets the
definition of threatened or endangered
and should be removed from the List
(delisted); (2) whether a species listed as
endangered more properly meets the
definition of threatened and should be
reclassified to threatened (downlisted);
or (3) whether a species listed as
threatened more properly meets the
definition of endangered and should be
reclassified to endangered (uplisted).
Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.21
require that we publish a notice in the
Federal Register announcing those
species currently under active review.
Petition History
On July 16, 2012, we received a
petition dated July 11, 2012, from The
Pacific Legal Foundation, Jim Chilton,
the New Mexico Cattle Growers’
Association, New Mexico Farm &
Livestock Bureau, New Mexico Federal
Lands Council, and Texas Farm Bureau
requesting that the Eriogonum
gypsophilum (gypsum wild-buckwheat)
be delisted, and the black-capped vireo
(Vireo atricapilla), lesser long-nosed bat
(Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae),
Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri
(Kuenzler hedgehog cactus), and
Ancistrocactus tobuschii (an accepted
synonym for Sclerocactus brevihamatus
ssp. tobuschii—Tobusch fishhook
E:\FR\FM\09SEP1.SGM
09SEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 174 (Monday, September 9, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55037-55046]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21886]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[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 8-Hour
Ozone Nonattainment Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submittals from the State of Texas for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria
1997 8-hour 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
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
[[Page 55038]]
8. Additional Evidence
9. Attainment Demonstration Evaluation
B. Control Measures Relied Upon in the Attainment Demonstration
1. MECT
2. HECT
3. VMEP Measures and TCMs
4. Previously Approved State Measures and Federal Measures
5. Summary Regarding Control Measures Relied Upon in the
Attainment Demonstration
C. RACM
D. Contingency Measures
E. MVEB
F. General Air Quality Definitions
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. The 1997 Ozone NAAQS and the HGB Area
Ground level ozone is formed when NOX and volatile
organic compounds (VOC) react in the presence of sunlight. These two
pollutants, referred to as ozone precursors, are emitted by many types
of pollution sources, including on-road and non-road motor vehicles and
engines, power plants and industrial facilities, and smaller area
sources such as lawn and garden equipment and paints. See 77 FR 30088,
30089 (May 21, 2012). Breathing ozone can trigger a variety of health
problems including chest pain, coughing, throat irritation, and
congestion. It can worsen bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma. Ground
level ozone also can reduce lung function and inflame the linings of
the lungs. Repeated exposure may permanently scar lung tissue. See 77
FR 30088, 30089 (May 21, 2012). For more information on ground level
ozone please see https://epa.gov/airquality/ozonepollution.
In 1979, under section 109 of the CAA, EPA established primary and
secondary NAAQS for ozone at 0.12 parts per million (ppm) averaged over
a 1-hour period. See 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). Primary standards
are set to protect human health while secondary standards are set to
protect public welfare. On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the primary and
secondary NAAQS for ozone to set the acceptable level of ozone in the
ambient air at 0.08 ppm, averaged over an 8-hour period. See 62 FR
38856 (July 18, 1997). EPA set the 8-hour ozone standard based on
scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone causes adverse health
effects at lower concentrations and over longer periods of time than
was understood when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone standard was set. 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.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Subsequently, we lowered the 8-hour ozone NAAQS to 0.075 ppm
and classified the Houston area as a marginal nonattainment area for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008); 77 FR 30088,
30089 (May 21, 2012). This rulemaking does not address the 2008
ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2004, we classified the HGB area (Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend,
Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery and Waller counties) as a
moderate ozone nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. See 69 FR
23858 (April 30, 2004). In 2007, at the request of the State, and under
CAA section 181(b)(3), we reclassified the HGB area to severe calling
for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no later than June
15, 2019. See 73 FR 56983 (October 1, 2008). Since 2018 is the first
full year before the attainment deadline, we will judge attainment
based on data through the end of 2018 and therefore, we refer to 2018
as the attainment year.
B. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment SIPs
States must implement the 1997 8-hour ozone standard under Title 1,
Part D of the CAA, which includes section 172, ``Nonattainment plan
provisions,'' and subpart 2, ``Additional Provisions for Ozone
Nonattainment Areas'' (sections 181-185). We promulgated a regulation
to implement the 1997 ozone NAAQS at 40 CFR part 51, subpart X
(Provisions for Implementation of 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard). The regulation addresses the requirements for
modeling and attainment demonstrations, reasonably available control
technology and measures (RACT and RACM), reasonable further progress
(RFP), contingency measures, and new source review.
When we reclassified the HGB area, we also identified the SIP
requirements for the area. The requirements being addressed in this
notice are: (1) An attainment demonstration (40 CFR 51.908), (2)
provisions for RACM (40 CFR 51.912), and (3) contingency measures to be
implemented in the event of failure to attain the standard by the
applicable attainment date (CAA 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9)). In order to
approve the attainment demonstration for the area we must also approve:
(1) The measures relied on as necessary to demonstrate attainment, (2)
an attainment MVEB for transportation conformity purposes, and (3) the
RFP plan and the RFP contingency measures. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 294
F.3d 155, 163, (D.C. Cir. 2002). Some measures, relied upon as
necessary for attainment, have been previously approved (section
II.B.5). We are proposing to approve additional measures relied on as
necessary to demonstrate attainment, and an attainment MVEB for 2018.
In a separate proposal, we are addressing the RFP and RFP contingency
measures requirements.\2\ Current information on the status of HGB area
SIP requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS can be found at: https://epa.gov/air/urbanair/sipstatus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See docket EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0333 in www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA section 172(c)(6) requires the attainment demonstration to
include enforceable emission limitations, and such other control
measures, means or techniques as well as schedules and timetables for
compliance, as may be necessary to provide for attainment by the
applicable attainment date. In order to be considered in the modeling,
the measures must be permanent, enforceable and quantifiable. See 57 FR
13498, 13567 (April 16, 1992).
CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 110(l) require a state to
provide reasonable public notice and opportunity for public hearing
prior to the adoption and submission of a SIP or SIP revision. To meet
this requirement, every SIP submittal should include evidence that
adequate public notice was given and an opportunity for a public
hearing was provided consistent with EPA's implementing regulations in
40 CFR 51.102.
C. State SIP Submittals
On April 6, 2010, Texas submitted for the HGB area: (1) An
attainment demonstration, (2) revisions to the MECT program to protect
the integrity of the NOX cap in the HGB area, (3) revisions
to the HECT program to reduce the HRVOC cap by 25% in Harris County and
provide for a more equitable distribution of the HECT allowances, and
(4) revisions to the General Air Quality definitions applicable to the
entire Texas SIP.
On May 6, 2013, Texas submitted an update to the attainment
demonstration. The update included: (1) Revised on-road mobile source
emissions inventories and MVEBs using the more recent EPA MOVES mobile
source emissions estimation model, (2) an update of the contingency
measures analysis, and (3) updated discussions of emissions inventory,
photochemical modeling, control strategies and required elements, and
weight-of-evidence that the area will attain by its attainment date.
In addition to the revisions submitted on April 6, 2010, Texas
previously
[[Page 55039]]
submitted SIP revisions to the General Air Quality Definitions (30 TAC
101.1) on August 16, 2007. Texas later submitted additional revisions
to 30 TAC 101.1 on March 11, 2011.
Each of the above identified submittals was given proper hearing
and public notice by Texas as required by 40 CFR 51.102 and evidence of
this was provided in the SIP submittal. Please see the submittals found
in the electronic docket and our technical support document (TSD).
II. EPA's Evaluation
We have prepared a TSD for this rulemaking which details our
evaluation. Our TSD may be accessed online at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0387.
A. Attainment Demonstration Modeling and Weight-of-Evidence
Below, we briefly discuss the steps necessary to build an
attainment demonstration, including photochemical modeling and
supplemental weight of evidence and our evaluation of Texas'
performance of these steps. Please see the TSD for this action for our
full evaluation and conclusions.
1. Attainment Demonstration General. CAA 182 (c)(2)(A), and 40 CFR
51.908, 51.112, and Part 51 Appendix W--Guideline on Air Quality Models
require that attainment demonstrations for ozone nonattainment areas
classified as moderate or higher (severe in this case) be conducted
with photochemical grid modeling or an equivalent technique approved by
EPA. The CAA and regulations (including Appendix W) do not prescribe a
specific photochemical grid model, but allow for EPA to judge the
suitability of a model by considering multiple factors. These factors
include choice of episode(s), emissions and meteorological inputs,
model formulation, databases used, and how the model is used in the
attainment test. Texas used the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with
Extensions (CAMx) photochemical grid model in its demonstration that
the control strategies for the HGB area will achieve attainment by
2018. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) also
included a TSD, a number of appendices, and numerous electronic files
that document model formulation, databases used, assumptions,
judgements, evaluations of control strategy impacts, etc. EPA reviewed
the available information and concluded that the use of CAMx is
acceptable and TCEQ's modeling and documentation meets the
photochemical modeling demonstration requirements of the CAA and 40 CFR
51.908, 51.112, and Part 51 Appendix W. Also, as allowed under EPA
policy, TCEQ has introduced other evidence, referred to as weight of
evidence, to supplement the modeling analysis.
2. Photochemical Grid Modeling. Photochemical grid models are the
state-of-the-art method for predicting the effectiveness of control
strategies in reducing ozone levels. The model uses a three-dimensional
grid to represent conditions in the area of interest. In this case,
TCEQ has developed a grid system that stretches from beyond Austin to
the West, to the Atlantic Ocean to the East, to southern Canada to the
North and into the Gulf of Mexico to the South. The model uses nested
grid cells of 36 kilometers (km) on the outer portions, 12 km in east
Texas and portions of nearby States, a 4 km grid cell covering the HGB
and Beaumont Port Arthur (BPA) areas and a refined 2 km grid covering
the HGB area. For more information on the modeling domain, please see
Appendix A of the TSD. The model simulates the movement of air and
emissions into and out of the three-dimensional grid cells (advection
and dispersion); mixes pollutants upward and downward among layers;
injects new emissions from sources such as point, area, mobile (both
on-road and non-road), and biogenic into each cell; and uses chemical
reaction equations to calculate ozone concentrations based on the
concentration of ozone precursors and incoming solar radiation within
each cell. Running the model requires large amounts of data regarding
the emissions and meteorological conditions during an episode. Air
quality planners choose historical episodes with high ozone levels to
test the model. Modeling to duplicate conditions during a historical
episode is referred to as the base case modeling and is used to verify
that the model system can predict the historical ozone levels with an
acceptable degree of accuracy. If the model can predict the ozone
levels in the base case, it can then be used to project future ozone
levels and the response of future ozone levels to proposed emission
control strategies.
3. Modeling Episodes. Texas chose six recent historical episodes
(2005: 5/19-6/3, 6/17-6/30, and 7/26-8/8; 2006: 5/31-6/15, 8/13-9/15,
9/16-10/11) that encompassed much of the time period of the Texas Air
Quality Study (TexAQS II) 2005/6. During this study period, researchers
from around the country participated in an intensive study of ozone
formation in the HGB area, collecting additional meteorological and
chemical data with the last two episodes occurring when the intensive
field campaign occurred. This study provided a wealth of information to
test the assumptions in the model. EPA believes that these episodes are
acceptable episodes for development of the 1997 8-hour attainment plan.
The episodes encompass a large number of exceedance days (55 days) and
contain a variety of meteorological conditions which resulted in high
concentrations of ozone in the area as measured on both a 1-hour and 8-
hour basis. Day specific evaluation of these episode days confirms that
overall, these episodes are representative of the conceptual model for
high ozone in the HGB area. In summary, these episodes include most
meteorological conditions that occur when ozone exceedances are
monitored in HGB and the modeling and analyses were enhanced by having
the TexAQS II field study data.
4. Modeling Emissions Inventory. TCEQ followed acceptable
procedures for the development of the basecase inventory, following or
building upon EPA guidance. They also included emissions during upsets
and other day specific emissions. Despite these efforts, one of the
original findings of the TexAQS 2000 study was that observed
concentrations of certain compounds, especially light olefins such as
ethylene and propylene, were much larger than represented in the
reported emission inventory. As a result, TCEQ created an `imputed'
inventory (approximately 5.8 times the reported levels for these HRVOC
species) in its 1-hour ozone attainment SIP. TCEQ also instituted rules
to better regulate the industrial point sources that emit these
compounds with ``HRVOC rules'' in a 2004 SIP modification approved by
EPA (71 FR 52656, September 6, 2006). The more recent 2005/6 field
study confirmed that these measures resulted in lower levels of these
pollutants (approximately 42% lower on average than 2000 levels) but
the HRVOC levels were still under reported with ambient measurements
indicating that actual emissions were an average of 2-3 times reported
levels. Field study data also confirmed that emission inventory
estimates of other VOCs, in addition to the HRVOCs, were also under
estimated, but these VOCs are harder to attribute to a specific
category as they could be emitted from mobile, area, and non-road
categories in addition to industrial point sources. As a result, TCEQ
adjusted the estimates of the HRVOCs in the 2005/6 basecase emission
inventories. This reconciliation with ambient data was performed using
a combination of wind data and measurements from the Auto Gas
Chromatographs that measure 56
[[Page 55040]]
different VOC species. The reconciliation resulted in upward
adjustments of facility HRVOC emissions better match the ambient data.
The adjustments ranged from less than two times greater than reported
to more than ten times greater than reported in some cases.
We believe that the method TCEQ has used to reconcile ambient HRVOC
emissions data with reported emissions is a reasonable approach to
addressing the concern that reported emissions, despite being based on
accepted estimation technologies, do not result in emission estimates
that are consistent with ambient measurements. In addition, the
``reconciliation'' approach is more sophisticated and more accurate
than the ``imputed'' approach used in past SIP revisions for the HGB
area. The inventory, based on this reconciliation technique, also
improved model performance. We continue to encourage TCEQ to find and
resolve the issues that are resulting in these discrepancies between
reported and actual emissions. As TCEQ works on attaining the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS, resolving these underestimated emissions of HRVOCs
and other VOCs will continue to be very important.
5. Model Performance. Model performance is a term used to describe
how well the basecase model predicts the ozone levels in a historical
episode(s). As models have to make numerous simplifying assumptions and
the system being modeled is very complex, model predictions will never
be perfect. EPA and TCEQ evaluate a number of times series, diagnostic,
and statistical metrics for the meteorological analysis that is used in
the photochemical modeling analysis. EPA has developed various
diagnostic, statistical and graphical analyses that TCEQ employed to
evaluate the model's performance and determine if the model is working
adequately to test control strategies. Overall the modeling over-
predicted some maxima on lower ozone days and under-estimated some
maxima on the higher ozone days. In addition, modeled ozone values at
night do not drop as much as monitored ozone levels. EPA notes that the
model's general tendency to under-predict on high days and over-predict
on low days raises some uncertainty in the control strategy modeling.
While the model had some problems with predicting the maxima in the HGB
area, overall, the performance was adequate for moving forward using 37
of the initial 55 exceedance days in the control strategy analysis.
6. Future Year Modeling. Once the basecase/baseline modeling of
historical episodes has been completed, the periods (days) with
acceptable model performance can then be used to project future year
ozone levels by replacing the basecase/baseline emissions with
emissions estimates for future years. TCEQ developed a 2018 emission
inventory using recent emission data information and projection tools.
TCEQ used the meteorology files from the basecase episodes for the 2018
modeling estimates. Using meteorology from historical episodes allows
one to assess whether the lower projected 2018 emission levels would be
expected to result in attainment of the standard if the same
meteorology occurs. For further details about 2018 emissions estimates
and how they were generated, see our TSD and TCEQ's materials
supporting this action.
7. Results of 2018 Future Year Modeling. The results of 2018
modeling are shown in Table 1. In estimating if the modeling is
predicting attainment or nonattainment in the future year, we use a
ratio that is based on the average of the 8-hour daily maximums
predicted around a monitor in the future divided by the average of the
8-hour daily maximum predicted in the basecase. This ratio is called a
Relative Response Factor (RRF). The RRF for a monitor is multiplied by
the basecase 5-year average Design Value (DV) to obtain a future 5-year
average DV.
Table 1 shows that all of the regulatory monitors except Deer Park
and Bayland Park are predicted to have 2018 DVs below the 1997 8-hour
NAAQS. For a full explanation of how these projections were calculated,
see our TSD. Table 1 also shows that the Wallisville Rd. monitor that
TCEQ has labeled as non-regulatory is also projected to be above the
1997 8-hour NAAQS in 2018 modeled DV projections. We have evaluated
TCEQ's DV projections and confirm that they followed EPA's attainment
demonstration guidance and methods as required by 40 CFR 51.112 and
Appendix W of Part 51.
Table 1--Future Year (2018) Projected Design Values
[Using the RRFs from the modeling]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006 DVB (ppb) 2018 DVF (ppb)
Monitor designation Site code ** RRF **
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Houston East (CAMS 1)........................... HOEA 80.3 0.942 75.6
Aldine (CAMS 8)................................. HALC 85.0 0.916 77.9
Channelview (CAMS 15)........................... HCHV 82.7 0.937 77.5
Northwest Harris County (CAMS 26)............... HNWA 89.0 0.877 78.1
Galveston Airport (CAMS 34)..................... GALC 81.7 0.927 75.7
Deer Park (CAMS 35)............................. DRPK 92.0 0.936 86.1
Seabrook Friendship Park (CAMS 45).............. SBFP 85.3 0.924 78.8
Bayland Park (CAMS 53).......................... BAYP 96.7 0.899 87.0
Conroe Relocated (CAMS 78)...................... CNR2 83.0 0.877 72.8
Houston Regional Office (CAMS 81)............... HROC 79.7 0.949 75.6
Manvel Croix Park (CAMS 84)..................... MACP 90.7 0.890 80.7
Clinton (CAMS 403).............................. C35C 79.0 0.947 74.8
North Wayside (CAMS 405)........................ HWAA 76.3 0.932 71.2
Swiss and Monroe (CAMS 406)..................... HSMA 90.3 0.917 82.9
Lang (CAMS 408)................................. HLAA 77.7 0.897 69.6
Croquet (CAMS 409).............................. HCQA 87.0 0.897 78.1
Shell Westhollow (CAMS 410)..................... SHWH 92.3 0.868 80.1
Houston Texas Avenue (CAMS 411)................. HTCA 79.3 0.937 74.3
Haden Road (CAMS 603) *......................... H03H 84.0 0.943 79.2
Wallisville Road (CAMS 617) *................... WALV 92.0 0.935 86.0
Danciger (CAMS 618) *........................... DNCG 80.3 0.881 70.8
Mustang Bayou (CAMS 619) *...................... MSTG 84.7 0.901 76.2
Texas City (CAMS 620) *......................... TXCT 84.3 0.921 77.7
[[Page 55041]]
Lynchburg Ferry (CAMS 1015)..................... LYNF 81.7 0.942 76.9
Lake Jackson (CAMS 1016)........................ LKJK 77.0 0.891 68.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Non-regulatory, industry-sponsored monitor.
** Values 85 parts per billion (ppb) or greater are shown in bold. The 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS is 0.08 ppm,
which equates to 84 ppb when rounding is considered.
EPA's 2007 Modeling Guidance also recommends that areas not near
monitoring locations (unmonitored areas) in a nonattainment area be
analyzed in an ``unmonitored area (UMA) analysis'' to determine if
these areas would be expected to reach attainment. The standard
attainment test (results in the table above) only applies at monitor
locations, and the UMA analysis is intended to identify any areas not
near a monitoring location that are at risk of not reaching attainment.
The TCEQ chose to use its own procedure to conduct the UMA analysis
instead of using EPA's Modeled Attainment Test Software (MATS). TCEQ's
analysis uses similar approaches and we propose to accept its use for
this SIP. TCEQ's UMA indicates that there are no areas in the HGB
nonattainment area outside of the specific areas evaluated in the
monitor based attainment test analysis that are at risk of not reaching
attainment. In summary, EPA finds that TCEQ's photochemical modeling
analysis indicates that all the monitors in HGB area will either be
attaining or near attainment levels in 2018, all HGB unmonitored areas
will be attainment, and TCEQ's evaluations conform with EPA's
regulations and guidance.
8. Additional Evidence. The EPA's 1996 guidance entitled ``Guidance
on Use of Modeled Results to Demonstrate Attainment of the Ozone
NAAQS'' allows for the use of alternative analyses, called weight-of-
evidence (WOE), to provide additional evidence that the proposed
control strategy, although not modeling attainment, is nonetheless
expected to achieve attainment by the attainment date. EPA continued to
support WOE analyses in the 2007 Modeling Guidance. The intent of these
guidance documents was to be cognizant of the fact that, under the
structure of the standard some exceedances of the ozone NAAQS are
allowed each year. Thus, even though the specific control strategy
modeling may predict some areas to be above the NAAQS, this does not
necessarily mean that with the implementation of the control strategy
monitored attainment will not be achieved. In addition, as with other
predictive tools, there are inherent uncertainties associated with
modeling and its results. For example, there are uncertainties in the
meteorological and emissions inputs and in the methodology used to
assess the severity of an exceedance at individual sites. The EPA's
guidance recognizes these limitations and provides a means for
considering other evidence to help assess whether attainment of the
NAAQS is likely. Since the future control case modeling in the Texas
SIP revision predicts some areas still exceeding the ozone NAAQS, the
TCEQ followed EPA Modeling Guidance to supplement the control strategy
modeling with WOE analyses.
The strongest parts of the WOE analysis are the most recent 8-hour
ozone monitoring trends and the continued reductions expected from
vehicle fleet turnover. Ozone Design Value trends at most of the
monitors in the HGB area show significant decreases over time and many
of the monitors are currently attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
Furthermore, the ozone precursor trends are generally showing a
decrease that supports the HGB area's impact on ozone levels that
exceed the standard is continuing to decrease.
The HGB area's most recent design value is 88 ppb through 2012.
Additional reductions of precursor emissions are expected with six more
years of fleet turnover bringing cleaner cars and off road equipment
into the fleet. EPA believes that these reductions will bring about the
additional 4 ppb of reduction necessary from 2012 monitored levels to
reach attainment--supporting the proposed finding that HGB will attain
by its attainment year.
To further support its WOE argument Texas submitted many additional
analyses, which are discussed in the TSD for this action. These
include: Corroborative analysis of the modeling, process analysis,
application of source apportionment tools, highly detailed model
performance evaluations, and analysis of model response to simulated
emission reductions. Texas also provided an analysis of air quality
data including: Ozone design value trends, trends in strength of ozone
gradients, impact of Hurricane Ike on ozone levels, NOX and
VOC monitored trends, geographic patterns in HRVOC monitored values,
meteorological adjusted trends, regional and Texas background ozone
trends, and transport/surface wind trajectories.
Finally, to support the finding that the area would attain the
standard, Texas documented additional control programs that were not
included in the model but will provide emission reductions that will
contribute to lower ozone levels. These include: Improved international
marine diesel and fuel standards, SmartWay transport initiatives, car
allowance rebates, improved control of VOCs from storage tanks, energy
efficiency and renewable energy measures, Texas Emission Reduction
Plan, Low Income Vehicle Repair Assistance/Retirement program, Clean
School Bus program, Best Management Practices for barge emissions, and
other local initiatives. In general, these measures are expected to
reduce ozone concentrations but are difficult to quantify and therefore
were not modeled. EPA agrees that these measures contribute to the
evidence that the area will attain the standard by its attainment date.
One area of uncertainty in the attainment demonstration is the
treatment of flare emissions in the modeling. The destruction
efficiencies are projected to be high, with values from 98% to 99%
depending on the compound. It is likely that flares not achieving these
destruction efficiencies are one source of the documented under-
estimation of the emissions inventory and the need to impute emissions
based on ambient air concentrations for the base case/baseline emission
inventory. We note that TCEQ has been working with industry on flare
best management practices to try to insure good flare performance.
These efforts should result in reduced flare emissions compared to
current levels, but it is uncertain that all flares will achieve the
projected destruction efficiencies in 2018 as
[[Page 55042]]
assumed in the modeling. How successful TCEQ's initiative is in
reducing emissions of flares will likely have a significant impact on
the success of the HGB area in continued ozone improvement. The details
of our review of the WOE analysis and data can be reviewed in our TSD
Appendix A--HGB MOAAD, Chapter 6. In accordance with 40 CFR 51.908,
51.112, and Appendix W of Part 51, the WOE analysis supports our
proposed finding of attainment for HGB by its attainment date.
9. Attainment Demonstration Evaluation. EPA believes that the
combination of photochemical modeling and other evidence (WOE)
indicates that the HGB area will attain the NAAQS by 2018. This SIP
revision represents a significant improvement over past efforts to
model the HGB area. Texas has greatly improved the representation of
the area's complex meteorology. In addition they have a much more
refined emission inventory because of the better reconciliation of
HRVOC emissions with ambient data. The modeling projects significant
improvement in air quality and all but three of the monitors are
projected to attain the standard and the three monitors not
demonstrating attainment to the standard are projected to be only
slightly above the standard. This modeling evidence taken together with
the WOE discussed above, demonstrates that HGB will reach attainment of
the 1997 8-hour NAAQS by the end of the ozone season of 2018. In
reaching this conclusion, we have considered the uncertainties
presented by discrepancies between reported emissions and ambient
measurements and uncertainties regarding the performance of flares. We
have also considered the significant improvements in ozone levels
documented by ambient ozone data and the expected future reductions
including those that were not modeled.
In summary, our analysis of TCEQs photochemical modeling and WOE
concludes that the area will reach attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS by the end of 2018. Our review confirms that TCEQ's modeling and
WOE conform to 40 CFR 51.908, 51.112, Appendix W of Part 51, EPA's
guidance and methodologies. Our full evaluation of each modeling and
WOE elements of the attainment demonstration submitted by TCEQ in this
SIP revision is included in our TSD for this notice.
B. Control Measures Relied Upon in the Attainment Demonstration
1. MECT. The MECT is a portion of the SIP-approved control strategy
for the HGB area that caps NOX emissions beginning January
1, 2002, with a final reduction to the cap occurring in 2007 for
stationary sources. The cap represents an approximate reduction in
NOX emissions of 80% from the applicable stationary sources
(with some sources reducing more and some reducing less). Facilities
are required to demonstrate compliance with the MECT on an annual basis
by having sufficient allowances, or other credits as provided in the
SIP, to equal the annual NOX emissions from the previous
year. EPA published a final rule approving the MECT program in 66 FR
57252 (November 14, 2001). We have subsequently approved revisions to
the MECT on September 6, 2006 and July 16, 2009. See 71 FR 52698 and 74
FR 34503.
On March 10, 2010, TCEQ adopted revisions to the MECT Program at 30
TAC Chapter 101, Subchapter H, Division 3, Sections 101.350, 101.351,
and 101.353. These revisions amend the SIP-approved MECT program to
protect the integrity of the NOX cap in HGB. Specifically,
the TCEQ adopted revisions to 30 TAC 101.350 to revise the definition
of ``uncontrolled design capacity'' to ``uncontrolled design capacity
to emit'' to allow more flexibility for stationary diesel engines to
determine how to comply with NOX emission requirements in
Chapter 117--either through participation in the MECT or through
purchasing banked emission credits. The adopted revisions also revise
the applicability of the MECT program at 30 TAC 101.351 to require
subject sites to first determine the status as a major or minor source
under 30 TAC Chapter 117. If the source is major, then it must
participate in the MECT. If the source is minor then it can choose to
participate under the MECT or meet reduction requirements through the
purchase and retirement of banked emission credits. Finally, the
adopted revisions modify the allocation of allowance requirements at 30
TAC 101.353 to discontinue the acceptance of late Level of Activity
certification forms that could have inflated the cap. The TCEQ also
adopted non-substantive revisions throughout to correct typographical
errors and Texas Register formatting requirements.
EPA's complete evaluation of the revisions to the MECT adopted on
March 10, 2010 and submitted April 6, 2010, is available in our TSD. In
summary, we find that the revisions to the MECT will continue to
achieve the reduction in stationary source NOX emissions
relied upon in the attainment demonstration.
2. HECT. The HECT program is a mandatory cap and trade program of
HRVOCs for covered facilities including vent gas streams, flares, and
cooling tower heat exchange systems that emit HRVOCs, as defined in 30
TAC Section 115.10, and that are located at a site subject to Chapter
115, Subchapter H. Facilities are required to meet HRVOC allowances on
an annual basis. Facilities may purchase, bank, or sell their
allowances for use in the following control period. EPA published final
approval of the HECT program on September 6, 2006, as an integral
component of the HGB 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration. See 71 FR
52659.
On March 10, 2010, the TCEQ adopted revisions to HECT Program at 30
TAC Chapter 101, Subchapter H, Division 6, Sections 101.390-101.394,
101.396 and 101.399-101.401. These revisions reduce the HRVOC cap in
Harris County by 25%--a step taken to achieve the reductions shown
necessary by the photochemical modeling for HGB 8-hour ozone attainment
demonstration discussed in section II. The revisions also change the
allocation methodology to promote equitable distribution of allowances
as a result of comment and add necessary definitions to implement the
allocation methodology changes. The TCEQ also adopted non-substantive
revisions throughout to correct typographical errors and Texas Register
formatting requirements.
EPA's complete evaluation of the revisions to the HECT adopted on
March 10, 2010 and submitted April 6, 2010, is available in our TSD. In
summary, we find that the revisions to the HECT to implement the
reduction in the Harris County HRVOC cap by 25% will reduce ozone
levels and achieve the reductions relied upon in the photochemical
modeling for the attainment demonstration.
3. VMEP Measures and TCMs. The SIP included VMEP measures to reduce
mobile source emissions of ozone precursors. VMEP measures consist of
voluntary mobile source strategies that complement existing regulatory
programs through voluntary, non-regulatory changes in local
transportation activities or changes in in-use vehicle and engine
composition. The types of HGB VMEP measures and NOX emission
reductions are listed in Table 2 and are expected to reduce
NOX emissions by 2.25 tons per day.
Table 2--VMEP Types and NOX Emission Reductions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX reductions
Program type (tons per day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative Commuting................................. 0.20
[[Page 55043]]
Regional Traffic Flow Improvements.................... 0.05
Vehicle Retrofit and Replacement...................... 1.30
Off-road Measures..................................... 0.70
-----------------
Total............................................... 2.25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authority for our approval of VMEP measures is primarily grounded
in section 110(a)(2) of the CAA, as well as sections 182(g)(4)(A) and
108. Section 110(a)(2) establishes that a SIP must include
``enforceable emissions limits and other control measures, means or
techniques . . . as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as
may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of
this chapter.'' In interpreting 110(a)(2) of the CAA, EPA issued a
guidance document entitled, ``Guidance on Incorporating Voluntary
Mobile Source Emission Reduction Programs in State Implementation Plans
(SIPs),'' Memorandum from Richard D. Wilson, Acting Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 24, 1997, which
allows for SIP credit for voluntary measures.\3\ The Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals upheld, as a reasonable interpretation of the Act,
EPA's VMEP policy and allowed the State to consider estimated emissions
reductions from a VMEP in the HGB area 1-hour ozone attainment
demonstration. See BCCA Appeal Group v. EPA, 355 F.3d 817, 825 (5th
Cir. 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The 1997 guidance is available at https://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/policy/general/vmep-gud.pdf .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally, to obtain credit for a VMEP, the SIP: (1) Identifies and
describes a VMEP, (2) Contains projections of emission reductions
attributable to the program, along with any relevant technical support
documentation, (3) Commits to evaluation and reporting on program
implementation and results, and (4) Commits to the timely remedy of any
credit shortfall should the VMEP not achieve the anticipated emission
reductions. The VMEP emission reduction credits should be quantifiable,
surplus (i.e., they are not credited twice), enforceable, permanent,
and adequately supported.\4\ In addition, the VMEP must be consistent
with attainment of the standard and with the reasonable further
progress requirements and not interfere with other CAA requirements.
The VMEP for an area can be revised by a SIP revision that substitutes
or adds other VMEP measures if needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As in past commitments, we interpret the VMEP portion of the SIP to
be enforceable because the State, through the Houston-Galveston Area
Council (H-GAC), has committed to fill any shortfall in credit, thus
any enforcement will be against the State. The H-GAC, as the regional
metropolitan transportation planning agency for the HGA area, has
committed to implement the projects and/or programs outlined in the HGA
VMEP submittal. The H-GAC will be responsible for monitoring and
reporting the emissions reductions to the TCEQ. The State, through the
H-GAC, has committed to cover any VMEP shortfall (of the 2.25 tpd of
NOX committed). The State, through the H-GAC, will remedy
any VMEP shortfall that might occur in the VMEP program.
A detailed analysis of all the VMEP measures can be found in our
TSD. Each creditable VMEP measure was found to be quantifiable. The
VMEP emission reductions are surplus because they are not substitutes
for mandatory, required emission reductions. The commitment to monitor,
assess and timely remedy any shortfall from implementation of the
measures is enforceable against the State. The reductions will continue
at least for as long as the time in which they are used by this SIP
demonstration, so they are considered permanent. There is a commitment
that each measure is adequately supported by personnel and program
resources for implementation.
The HGB area's ozone SIP VMEP meets the criteria for credit in the
SIP. The State has shown that the credits are quantifiable, surplus,
enforceable, permanent, adequately supported, and consistent with the
SIP and the CAA. We propose to approve the VMEP portion of the Texas
SIP.
TCMs are transportation related projects or activities designed to
reduce on-road mobile source emissions. TCMs used as a control measure
in the attainment demonstration must be specific, permanent,
enforceable and quantifiable.\5\ We approved the Texas rule for
implementing TCMs in the SIP (30 TAC 114.270) in 67 FR 72379 (December
5, 2002). The SIP included six projects identified by the Houston-
Galveston Area Council to reduce mobile source emissions by enhancing
pedestrian and bicycle pathways (table 3). The emission reductions
estimated from these projects are 0.015 tons per day of NOX
. These projects would reduce NOX emissions by facilitating
non-automobile travel. As the TCMs are part of the SIP, the commitment
to implement the TCMs is enforceable through the SIP. Because these
projects are specific, permanent, enforceable, and quantifiable we
propose to approve them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Transportation Control Measures: State Implementation Plan
Guidance, September 1990 (EPA 450/2-89-020), https://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/policy/transp/tcms/state_plan_guidance.pdf.
Table 3--Pedestrian and Bicycle TCM Projects in the HGB SIP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX Reductions
Project No. Description (tons per day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0912-72-145..................... Holman Street 0.0001862
Pedestrian
Improvements.
0912-72-146..................... Pedestrian 0.0004562
Improvements for
Elgin, Ennis, and
Alabama Streets.
0912-72-147..................... Pedestrian/Transit 0.0137628
Improvement Program
for Westheimer Road.
0912-71-544..................... Columbia Tap Rail to 0.0002721
Trail Bikeway.
0912-71-801..................... Columbia Tap Union 0.0005840
Station Trail
Shared Use Path
with Bike Lane.
0912-71-655..................... Phase 2 West Houston 0.0001653
On-Street Bikeway
Network (Terry
Hershey Park).
---------------------------------------
Total....................... .................... 0.0154266
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Previously Approved State Measures and Federal Measures. Texas
also identified other previously approved State ozone control measures
and Federal measures applicable to the HGB area which achieved
reductions that are relied upon in this attainment demonstration. The
State control measures included those approved by
[[Page 55044]]
EPA for: (1) The 1-hour ozone NAAQS (71 FR 52670, September 6, 2006)
and (2) additional VOC emission controls for storage tanks, transport
vessels and marine vessels in the HGB area (75 FR 15348, March 29,
2010). The Federal measures are regulations on vehicle emissions and
fuel. As we have already approved the State measures and promulgated
Federal measures to reduce ozone levels it is appropriate that they are
relied upon in the attainment demonstration.
5. Summary Regarding Control Measures Relied Upon in the Attainment
Demonstration. As noted earlier we must approve the measures relied on
as necessary to demonstrate attainment in order to approve the
attainment demonstration. These measures must be permanent,
enforceable, quantifiable, and surplus. BCCA Appeal Group, 355 F.3d at
825. Our review of the control measures not yet approved found that
they meet these criteria. We propose to approve these measures and to
find that the SIP has sufficient measures to attain the 1997 ozone
NAAQS in the HGB area as expeditiously as practicable but no later than
June 15, 2019. Table 4 summarizes the measures relied upon for
attainment.
Table 4--Summary of Measures Relied Upon in the Attainment Demonstration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measure Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-hour ozone NAAQS measures......... Approved (71 FR 52670, September 6, 2006).
VOC emission controls for storage Approved (75 FR 15348, March 29, 2010).
tanks, transport vessels and marine
vessels.
Federal measures.................... Federal regulations affecting vehicle emissions.
Revisions to the MECT............... Proposed for approval.
Revisions to the HECT............... Proposed for approval.
VMEP, Transportation Control Proposed for approval.
Measures.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. RACM
Texas submitted a demonstration that the HGB area has adopted all
RACM necessary to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as
practicable with the attainment demonstration as required by CAA
section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.912(d). We consider a control measure
to be necessary under the RACM requirement if it: (1) Is
technologically feasible, (2) is economically feasible, (3) does not
cause ``substantial widespread and long-term adverse impacts'', (4) is
not absurd, unenforceable, or impracticable and (5) can advance the
attainment date.
To demonstrate that the area meets the RACM requirement Texas (1)
identified potentially available control measures with input from
stakeholders and (2) analyzed whether the measure would be considered a
RACM measure. Texas determined that only one potential control measure,
reduction of the HRVOC cap for Harris County, should be adopted to meet
the RACM requirement. As discussed above, Texas has adopted a rule to
reduce the HRVOC cap for Harris County and we are proposing to approve
that rule. We reviewed Texas' RACM process and analysis and believe
that Texas has shown that the HGB area has met the CAA RACM
requirement. Therefore we propose to approve the demonstration of RACM
implementation. For more information please see our TSD.
D. Contingency Measures
CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) require contingency measures
to be implemented in the event of failure to attain the standard by the
applicable attainment date. These contingency measures must be fully
adopted rules or measures which are ready for implementation quickly
upon failure to meet attainment. Implementation of the contingency
measures would provide additional emissions reductions of up to three
percent of the adjusted base year inventory.\6\ For more information on
contingency measures, please see the April 16, 1992 General Preamble
(57 FR 13498, 13510) and the November 29, 2005 Phase 2 8-hour ozone
standard implementation rule (70 FR 71612, 71650). As noted in the
November 29, 2005 rule, contingency measures could include Federal
measures already scheduled for implementation. In the May 6, 2013 SIP
submittal, Texas provided a demonstration that the contingency measures
requirement would be met through Federal rules affecting mobile
emissions. Table 5 summarizes the contingency measure analysis provided
by Texas. We reviewed the analysis provided in the SIP and found the
contingency measures provide the necessary reductions in ozone
precursor emissions for the year 2019 in the event that the area fails
to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS at the end of 2018. Therefore we propose
to approve the failure to attain contingency measures plan as meeting
the contingency measures requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and
182(c)(9). For more information please see our TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The adjusted base year inventory is that inventory specified
by CAA section 182(b)(1)(B).
Table 5--2019 Contingency Demonstration for the HGB Area *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX Emissions VOC Emissions
Description (tons per day) (tons per day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjusted 2018 Base Year Emissions 1003.92 935.59
Inventory..........................
Percent for Contingency Calculation 2.00 1.00
(total of 3%)......................
2018 to 2019 Required Contingency 20.08 9.36
Reductions.........................
Federal On-Road Reformulated 6.80 -0.25
Gasoline (RFG).....................
Federal On-Road Mobile New Vehicle 22.28 9.50
Certification Standards............
State Inspection and Maintenance and -0.67 -0.26
Anti-Tampering Programs............
Texas Low Emission Diesel (TxLED)... -0.20 0
Federal Non-Road Mobile New Vehicle 3.56 1.78
Certification Standards............
Non-Road RFG Gasoline............... 0.00 0.03
Federal Tier I and II Locomotive 0.68 0.01
Standards..........................
[[Page 55045]]
Federal Tier 2 Marine Diesel 0.55 0.02
Standard...........................
Total Contingency Reductions........ 33.20 10.83
Contingency Excess (+) or Shortfall +12.92 +1.47
(-)................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The reason for negative numbers for the RFG, Inspection and
Maintenance/Anti-Tampering and TxLED programs is that there is a
slightly higher benefit in 2018 than in 2019.
E. MVEB
The SIP included an attainment MVEB for 2018 (table 6). The MVEB
represents the maximum level of on-road emissions of NOX and
VOC that can be produced in 2018--when considered with emissions from
all other sources--which demonstrate attainment of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. The attainment MVEB submitted on April 6, 2010 was updated
in the May 6, 2013 submittal using a more recent EPA mobile source
emissions estimation model (MOVES). Previously we determined that the
updated 2018 MVEB was ``adequate'' for transportation conformity
purposes and must be used for future conformity determinations in the
HGB area (78 FR 46947, August 2, 2013). All future transportation
improvement programs, projects and plans developed, funded, or approved
under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Laws for the HGB area will
need to show that they do not result in emissions which exceed the MVEB
(40 CFR 93.118). We propose to approve the 2018 MVEB into the SIP.
Table 6--2018 HGB Attainment MVEB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summer weekday
Pollutant emissions (tons
per day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX................................................... 103.34
VOC................................................... 50.13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. General Air Quality Definitions
The April 6, 2010, SIP submittal included revisions to the General
Air Quality Definitions at 30 TAC Section 101.1. The General Air
Quality definitions are applicable to the entirety of the Texas SIP.
While reviewing the April 6, 2010 SIP submittal, we also reviewed other
pending revisions to the General Air Quality definitions at 30 TAC
101.1 submitted on June 10, 2005, August 16, 2007, and March 11, 2011.
The revisions to the definitions were minor and non-controversial. Our
complete evaluation of these pending revisions is available in our TSD.
In summary, our analysis demonstrates that the revisions are consistent
with the CAA and EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 51, therefore we
propose approval of the revisions to 30 TAC 101.1 submitted on June 10,
2005, August 16, 2007, April 6, 2010 and March 11, 2011. Please see
Appendix C of our TSD for our analysis.
III. Proposed Action
We are proposing to approve SIP submittals from the State of Texas
for the HGB ozone nonattainment area submitted on April 6, 2010, and
May 6, 2013. Specifically, we are proposing to approve the following
Texas SIP submittals for the HGB area:
Attainment demonstration for the 1997 ozone NAAQS
Revisions to the MECT air pollution control program
Revisions to the HECT air pollution control program
VMEP measures and TCMs
A 2018 year MVEB
Demonstration of RACM implementation
Failure to attain contingency measures plan in the event of
failure to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date
We are also proposing to approve SIP revisions to the General Air
Quality Definitions submitted by the State on June 10, 2005, August 16,
2007, April 6, 2010 and March 11, 2011. We are proposing these actions
in accordance with section 110 and part D of the CAA.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly,
this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
[[Page 55046]]
Dated: August 28, 2013.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2013-21886 Filed 9-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P