Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Attainment Demonstration for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Ozone Nonattainment Area, 24446-24456 [2018-11352]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
24446
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
procedures. For rural routes in ZIP
Codes that are not included in the
ODIS–RPW digital sampling frame, the
current methodology of manually
sampling DPS mail would continue, and
those estimates would be combined
with the digital DPS estimates to
produce the distribution key for DPS
mail used to apportion street activity
costs to categories of mail in Cost
Segment 10. Id. at 3.
Rationale and impact. The Postal
Service states that including ODIS–RPW
digital data would greatly enhance
RCCS DPS estimates and would
substantially magnify the benefits of
utilizing digital data already approved
by the Commission. Id. RCCS data
collectors on most RCCS tests would no
longer have to take the time to pull
sample mailpieces from DPS letter trays.
Id. This would allow them more time to
devote to sampling other mail types,
like parcels and cased letters and flats.
Id. at 3–4. This could also help avoid
delays of carriers leaving the office to
deliver mail. Id. at 4.
The automated, systematic method of
collecting images of DPS letter and
cards used to collect the sample would
reduce the risk of undetected sampling
errors, and the retention of the
mailpiece images for 30 days would
permit review and post-analysis by data
collectors and supervisors. Id. Detailed
information regarding the rational and
impact of Proposal One, Rural Carrier
Cost System—Digital DPS Statistical
Documentation, is attached to the
Petition as a PDF document. A table,
Impact of Proposal One, included in the
Petition also compares the FY 2017 DPS
distribution key proportions and
estimates the impact on unit costs from
the proposal. Id. at 5. The Postal Service
states that the table and an
electronically attached Excel file
demonstrate that the expected impact of
Proposal One would be minimal. Id. at
4.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
III. Notice and Comment
The Commission establishes Docket
No. RM2018–4 for consideration of
matters raised by the Petition. More
information on the Petition may be
accessed via the Commission’s website
at https://www.prc.gov. Interested
persons may submit comments on the
Petition and Proposal One no later than
June 13, 2018. Reply comments are due
no later than June 20, 2018. Pursuant to
39 U.S.C. 505, Lawrence Fenster is
designated as an officer of the
Commission (Public Representative) to
represent the interests of the general
public in this proceeding.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:08 May 25, 2018
Jkt 244001
IV. Ordering Paragraphs
It is ordered:
1. The Commission establishes Docket
No. RM2018–4 for consideration of the
matters raised by the Petition of the
United States Postal Service for the
Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider
Proposed Changes in Analytical
Principles (Proposal One), filed May 17,
2018.
2. Comments by interested persons in
this proceeding are due no later than
June 13, 2018.
3. Reply comments are due no later
than June 20, 2018.
4. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the
Commission appoints Lawrence Fenster
to serve as an officer of the Commission
(Public Representative) to represent the
interests of the general public in this
docket.
5. The Secretary shall arrange for
publication of this order in the Federal
Register.
By the Commission.
Stacy L. Ruble,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018–11366 Filed 5–25–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R06–OAR–2017–0053; FRL–9978–
46—Region 6]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Texas;
Attainment Demonstration for the
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Ozone
Nonattainment Area
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
Pursuant to the Federal Clean
Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
is proposing approval of elements of a
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision for the Houston-GalvestonBrazoria 2008 8-hour ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) nonattainment area (HGB
area). Specifically, EPA is proposing
approval of the attainment
demonstration, a reasonably available
control measures (RACM) analysis, the
contingency measures plan in the event
of failure to attain the NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date, and Motor
Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEBs) for
2017, which is the attainment year for
the area. EPA is also notifying the
public of the status of EPA’s adequacy
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
determination for these MVEBs for the
HGB area.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before June 28, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket No. EPA–R06–
OAR–2017–0053, at https://
www.regulations.gov or via email to
young.carl@epa.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information
you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please
contact Carl Young, 214–665–6645,
young.carl@epa.gov. For the full EPA
public comment policy, information
about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making
effective comments, please visit https://
www2.epa.gov/dockets/commentingepa-dockets.
Docket: The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all
documents in the docket are listed in
the index, some information may be
publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material), and
some may not be publicly available at
either location (e.g., CBI).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl
Young, 214–665–6645, young.carl@
epa.gov. To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an
appointment with Mr. Young or Mr. Bill
Deese at 214–665–7253.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document wherever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. The 2008 Ozone NAAQS and the HGB
Area
B. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for
Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIPs
C. State SIP Submittal
II. The EPA’s Evaluation
E:\FR\FM\29MYP1.SGM
29MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
A. Modeling and Attainment
Demonstration
1. Photochemical Grid Model Selection
2. What time period (episode) did Texas
choose to model?
3. How well did the model perform?
4. Once the base case is determined to be
acceptable, how is the modeling used for
the attainment demonstration?
5. What did the results of TCEQ’s 2017
future year attainment demonstration
modeling show?
6. What are EPA’s conclusions of the
modeling demonstration?
7. Weight of evidence
a. What weight of evidence has been
evaluated?
b. What additional modeling-based
evidence did Texas provide?
c. Other Non-Modeling WOE
d. Other WOE Items From Texas Not
Currently Quantified With Modeling:
Additional Programs/Reductions, etc.
8. Is the attainment demonstration
approvable?
B. RACM
C. Contingency Measures Plan
D. MVEBs
E. CAA 110(l) Demonstration
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
I. Background
A. The 2008 Ozone NAAQS and the
HGB Area
Ground-level ozone is an air pollutant
that is formed from the reactions of
nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) (77 FR
30088, 30089, May 21, 2012). In 2008
we revised the 8-hour ozone primary
and secondary NAAQS to a level of
0.075 parts per million (ppm) to provide
increased protection of public health
and the environment (73 FR 16436,
March 27, 2008). The HoustonGalveston-Brazoria 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS nonattainment area (HGB area)
was classified as a ‘‘Marginal’’ ozone
nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS (77 FR 30088, May 21,
2012). The area consists of Brazoria,
Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris,
Liberty, Montgomery and Waller
counties. The area was initially given an
attainment date of no later than
December 31, 2015 (77 FR 30160, May
21, 2012).
On December 23, 2014, the D.C.
Circuit Court issued a decision rejecting,
among other things, our attainment
deadlines for the 2008 ozone
nonattainment areas, finding that we
did not have statutory authority under
the CAA to extend those deadlines to
the end of the calendar year. NRDC v.
EPA, 777 F.3d 456, 464–69 (D.C. Cir.
2014). Consistent with the court’s
decision we modified the attainment
deadlines for all nonattainment areas for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and set the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:08 May 25, 2018
Jkt 244001
attainment deadline for all 2008 ozone
Marginal nonattainment areas,
including the HGB area as July 20, 2015
(80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015). The HGB
area qualified for a 1-year extension of
the attainment deadline and we revised
the attainment deadline to July 20, 2016
(81 FR 26697, May 4, 2016). As the HGB
area did not meet the revised attainment
deadline of July 20, 2016, we
reclassified the area to ‘‘Moderate’’ and
set a due date for submittal of a revised
SIP of January 1, 2017 (81 FR 90207,
December 14, 2016). The 2008 ozone
NAAQS attainment deadline for
Moderate areas is July 20, 2018 (40 CFR
51.1103). As an attainment showing is
based on the most recent three full years
of ozone data available, the relevant
years for demonstrating attainment by
the attainment deadline for Moderate
areas is 2015–2017 and the ‘‘attainment
year’’ is 2017 (80 FR 12313, 12268).
B. CAA and SIP Requirements for the
HGB Area
When we reclassified the HGB area,
we also identified the SIP requirements
for the area. The requirements being
addressed in this notice are: (1)
Modeling and an attainment
demonstration (40 CFR 51.1108), (2)
RACM (40 CFR 51.1112), (3) a
contingency measures plan in the event
of failure to attain the NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date (CAA
sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9)), and (4)
attainment MVEBs for 2017, which is
the attainment year for the HGB area (40
CFR 93.118(b)).
For areas classified as Moderate and
above, CAA section 182(b)(1)(A)
requires a SIP revision that provides for
VOC and NOX reductions as necessary
to attain the ozone standard by the
applicable attainment date. For areas
classified as Moderate nonattainment or
above for the 2008 ozone NAAQS,
adequacy of an attainment
demonstration shall be demonstrated by
means of a photochemical grid model or
any other analytical method determined
by the Administrator to be at least as
effective (40 CFR 51.1108).
We previously approved SIP revisions
addressing the following requirements
for the HGB area: (1) Emissions
inventory (80 FR 9204, February 20,
2015) and (2) confirmation of provisions
addressing emissions statements from
facilities, new source review emission
offsets and a basic vehicle inspection
and maintenance program (82 FR 22291,
May 15, 2017). In a separate action we
are proposing to approve the HGB area
reasonable further progress (RFP)
demonstration and RFP milestone
failure contingency measures plan (83
FR 17964, April 25, 2018). We plan to
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
24447
address the HGB area’s reasonable
available control technology
demonstration in a separate action.
C. State SIP Submittal
On December 29, 2016, Texas
submitted a SIP revision for the HGB
area. The SIP revision included a
description of how CAA requirements
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the HGB
area are met for: (1) Modeling and
attainment demonstration, (2) RACM,
(3) a contingency plan and (4) MVEBs.
A copy of the SIP revision is available
on line at www.regulations.gov, Docket
number EPA–R06–OAR–2017–0053.
II. The EPA’s Evaluation
We have prepared technical support
documents (TSDs) for this rulemaking
which detail our evaluation. Our TSDs
may be accessed online at https://
www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA–
R06–OAR–20173–0053.
A. Modeling and Attainment
Demonstration
EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR
51.1108(c) specifically require that areas
classified as moderate and above submit
a modeled attainment demonstration
based on a photochemical grid modeling
evaluation or any other analytical
method determined by the
Administrator to be at least as effective
as photochemical modeling. Section
51.1108(c) also requires each attainment
demonstration to be consistent with the
provisions of section 51.112, including
Appendix W to 40 CFR part 51 (i.e.,
‘‘EPA’s Guideline on Air Quality
Models,’’ 70 FR 68218, November 9,
2005 and 82 FR 5182, January 17, 2017).
See also EPA’s ‘‘Guidance on the Use of
Models and Other Analyses for Air
Quality Goals in Attainment
Demonstrations for Ozone, PM2.5, and
Regional Haze,’’ April 2007 and ‘‘Draft
Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating
Attainment of Air Quality Goals for
Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze,’’
December 2014 (hereafter referred to as
‘‘EPA’s 2007 A.D. guidance’’ and ‘‘EPA’s
2014 Draft A.D. guidance’’) 1, which
describe criteria that an air quality
model and its application should meet
to qualify for use in an 8-hour ozone
attainment demonstration. For our more
detailed evaluation of the attainment
demonstration (modeling and the
Weight of Evidence (WOE) analyses) for
the HGB 8-hour Ozone Attainment
Demonstration see the ‘‘Modeling and
Other Analyses Attainment
Demonstration’’ (MOAAD) TSD. The
MOAAD TSD also includes a complete
list of applicable modeling guidance
1 A.D.
E:\FR\FM\29MYP1.SGM
is Attainment Demonstration.
29MYP1
24448
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
documents. These guidance documents
provide the overall framework for the
components of the attainment
demonstration, how the modeling and
other analyses should be conducted,
and overall guidance on the technical
analyses for attainment demonstrations.
As with any predictive tool, there are
inherent uncertainties associated with
photochemical modeling. EPA’s
guidance recognizes these limitations
and provides approaches for
considering other analytical evidence to
help assess whether attainment of the
NAAQS is demonstrated. This process
is called a WOE determination. EPA’s
modeling guidance (updated in 1996,
1999, and 2002) discusses various WOE
approaches. EPA’s modeling guidance
has been further updated in 2005, 2007
and in addition a draft in 2014 was
issued for the 2008 8-hour ozone
attainment demonstration procedures.
EPA guidance has consistently
recommended that all attainment
demonstrations include supplemental
analyses, WOE, in addition to the
recommended modeling. These
supplemental analyses would provide
additional information such as data
analyses, and emissions and air quality
trends, which would help strengthen
the overall conclusion drawn from the
photochemical modeling. EPA’s
Guidance for 1997 8-hour ozone SIPs
was that a WOE analysis is specifically
recommended to be included as part of
any attainment demonstration SIP
where the modeling results predict
Future Design Values (FDVs) 2 ranging
from 82 to less than 88 ppb (EPA’s 2005
and 2007 A.D. Guidance documents).
EPA’s recent 2014 Draft A.D. Guidance
removed the specific range and
indicated that WOE should be analyzed
when the results of the modeling
attainment test are close to the standard.
EPA’s interpretation of the Act to allow
a WOE analysis has been upheld. See
1000 Friends of Maryland v. Browner,
265 F. 3d 216 (4th Cir. 2001) and BCCA
Appeal Group v. EPA, 355 F.3d 817 (5th
Cir. 2003).
TCEQ submitted the HGB attainment
demonstration SIP with photochemical
modeling and a WOE analyses on
December 29, 2016. The results of the
photochemical modeling and WOE
analyses are discussed below.
1. Photochemical Grid Model Selection
Photochemical grid models are the
state-of-the-art method for predicting
the effectiveness of control strategies in
2 The design value is the truncated 3-year average
of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour
average ozone concentration (40 CFR 50, Appendix
I). Future Design Value is the modeling based
projected Design Value in the 2017 Future Year.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:08 May 25, 2018
Jkt 244001
reducing ozone levels. The models use
a three-dimensional grid to represent
conditions in the area of interest. TCEQ
chose to use the Comprehensive Air
Model with Extensions (CAMx), Version
6.31 photochemical model for this
attainment demonstration SIP. The
model is based on well-established
treatments of advection, diffusion,
deposition, and chemistry. TCEQ has
used the CAMx model in other SIPs and
EPA has approved many SIPs using
CAMx based modeling analyses. 40 CFR
part 51 Appendix W indicates that
photochemical grid models should be
used for ozone SIPs and lists a number
of factors to be considered in selecting
a photochemical grid model to utilize.
EPA has reviewed the TCEQ’s reasons
for selecting CAMx and EPA agrees with
the choice by TCEQ to utilize CAMx for
this SIP.
In this case, TCEQ has developed a
modeling grid system that consists of
three nested grids. The outer grid
stretches from west of California to east
of Maine and parts of the Atlantic Ocean
to the east, and from parts of southern
Canada in the north to much of Mexico
to the south extending to near the
Yucatan Peninsula on the southern
edge. The model uses nested grid cells
of 36 km on the outer portions, 12 km
for most of the Region 6 states (most of
New Mexico and all of Oklahoma,
Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas) and 4kilometer grid cells for much of Texas
(not including West Texas and the
Panhandle) and portions of nearby
States. The 4-kilometer grid cells
include the HGB Nonattainment Area.
For more information on the modeling
domain, see the MOAAD TSD. The
model simulates the movement of air
and emissions into and out of the threedimensional grid cells (advection and
dispersion); mixes pollutants upward
and downward among layers; injects
new emissions from sources such as
point, area, mobile (both on-road and
nonroad), and biogenic into each cell;
and uses chemical reaction equations to
calculate ozone concentrations based on
the concentration of ozone precursors
and incoming solar radiation within
each cell. Air quality planners choose
historical time period(s) (episode(s)) of
high ozone levels to apply the model.
Running the model requires large
amounts of data inputs regarding the
emissions and meteorological
conditions during an episode.
Modeling to duplicate conditions
during an historical time period is
referred to as the base case modeling
and is used to verify that the model
system can predict historical ozone
levels with an acceptable degree of
accuracy. It requires the development of
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
a base case inventory, which represents
the emissions during the time period for
the meteorology that is being modeled.
These emissions are used for model
performance evaluations. Texas
modeled much of the 2012 ozone season
(May 1—September 30), so the base case
emissions and meteorology are for 2012.
If the model can adequately replicate
the measured ozone levels in the base
case and responds adequately to
diagnostic tests, it can then be used to
project the response of future ozone
levels to proposed emission control
strategies.
TCEQ chose to use recent versions of
Weather Research and Forecasting
Model (WRF) version 3.7.1 for the
meteorological modeling for generation
of meteorological fields and the
Emission Processing System (EPS)
version 3 for the emission processing to
generate the necessary meteorological
and emission fields to be used in CAMx.
TCEQ also chose one of the most recent
versions of CAMx, version 6.31 for the
photochemical grid modeling. WRF is
considered a state of the science
meteorological model and its use is
acceptable in accordance with 40 CFR
part 51 Appendix W Section 5. The use
of EPS for emissions processing and
CAMx for photochemical modeling are
also one of the two predominant
modeling platforms used for SIP level
modeling and these models and
versions that TCEQ used. EPA reviewed
the models used and modeling grids and
determined that the model versions
used are recent versions of the model
and the modeling grid is large and
sufficiently sized to try and minimize
the impact of sources outside the grid.
Both the models used and the modeling
grid are acceptable and in accordance
with 40 CFR part 51 Appendix W
Section 5.
2. What time period (episode) did Texas
choose to model?
Texas chose to model May 1st thru
September 30th, which is the core of the
2012 ozone season (HGB ozone season
is January 1st through December 31st)
and includes a number of historical
episodes with monitored exceedances.
The 2012 ozone season was a period
when multiple exceedance days
occurred with a good variation of
meteorological conditions that lead to
ozone exceedances in the HGB area.
Texas evaluated other years (2011 and
2013) in their episode selection process.
The 2011 core ozone season period had
a number of exceedances but was also
complicated by a drought through much
of Texas and surrounding states that
made 2011 less desirable than 2012
which had a similar level of
E:\FR\FM\29MYP1.SGM
29MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
exceedances. The 2013 core ozone
season period had significantly less
exceedances than 2012. Other years
considered either did not have as many
exceedances or were older episodes so
TCEQ chose the 2012 period to model.
We evaluated Texas’ 2012 period/
episode selection for consistency with
our modeling guidance (2007, and Draft
2014 versions). Among the items that
we considered were the ozone levels
during the selected period compared to
the Design Value (DV) at the time; how
the meteorological conditions during
the proposed episode match with the
conceptual model of ozone exceedances
that drive the area’s DV; number of days
modeled; and whether the time period
selected was sufficiently representative
of the meteorology that drives elevated
ozone in the area. This evaluation is
necessary to insure the model would be
adequate for evaluating future air
quality and any potential control
strategies. EPA’s guidance indicates that
all of these items should be considered
when evaluating available episodes and
selecting periods/episodes to be
modeled. EPA believes that the 2012
core ozone period (May 1–September
30) includes many exceedance days and
is an acceptable time period for use in
TCEQ’s development of the 8-hour
ozone attainment plan. This period has
a number of meteorological conditions
that are consistent with the conditions
that yield high ozone in the conceptual
model for the HGB area, and was among
the episode periods evaluated with the
highest number of ozone exceedances.
In selecting periods, it is advantageous
to select periods with several
exceedance days and with multiple
monitors exceeding the standard each
day when possible. This 2012 period
was among the best of all the periods
evaluated when the selection was being
conducted. EPA concurs with this
period. See the MOAAD TSD for further
discussion and analysis.
3. How well did the model perform?
Model performance is a term used to
describe how well the model predicts
the meteorological and ozone levels in
an historical episode. EPA has
developed various diagnostic, statistical
and graphical analyses which TCEQ
performed to evaluate the model’s
performance. TCEQ performed several
analyses of both interim model runs and
the final base case model run and
deemed the model’s performance
adequate for control strategy
development. As described below, we
agree that the TCEQ’s model
performance is adequate.
From 2014 to 2016, several iterations
of the modeling were performed by
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:08 May 25, 2018
Jkt 244001
TCEQ incorporating various
improvements to the meteorological
modeling, the 2012 base case emissions
inventory, and other model parameters.
TCEQ shared model performance
analyses with EPA and EPA provided
input. This data included analysis of
meteorological outputs compared to
benchmark statistical parameters. TCEQ
also performed graphical analyses of the
meteorology and extensive analyses of
the photochemical modeling for several
base case modeling runs.
EPA has reviewed the above
information and is satisfied that the
meteorological modeling was meeting
most of the statistical benchmarks, and
was transporting air masses in the
appropriate locations for most of the
days.3 EPA also conducted a review of
the model’s performance in predicting
ozone and ozone pre-cursors and found
that performance was within the
recommended 1-hour ozone statistics
for most days. We evaluate 1-hour time
series and metrics as this information
has less averaging/smoothing than the 8hour analyses and results in a higher
resolution for evaluating if the modeling
is getting the rise and fall of ozone in
a similar manner as the monitoring data.
We also evaluated the 8-hour statistics,
results of diagnostic and sensitivity
tests, and multiple graphical analyses
and determined that overall the ozone
performance was acceptable for Texas to
move forward with future year modeling
and development of an attainment
demonstration.
EPA does not expect any modeling to
necessarily be able to meet all the EPA
model performance goals, but relies on
a holistic approach to determine if the
modeling is meeting enough of the goals
and the time series are close enough and
diagnostic/sensitivity modeling
indicates the modeling is performing
3 EPA’s modeling guidance for both
meteorological modeling and ozone modeling
indicates general goals for model performance
statistics based on what EPA has found to be
acceptable model performance goals from
evaluations of a number of modeling analyses
conducted for SIPs and Regulatory development.
EPA’s guidance also indicates that none of the
individual statistics goals is a ‘‘pass/fail’’ decision
but that the overall suite of statistics, time series,
model diagnostics, and sensitivities should be
evaluated together in a holistic approach to
determine if the modeling is acceptable. Modeling
is rarely perfect, so EPA’s basis of acceptability is
if the model is working reasonably well most of the
time and is doing as well as modeling for other SIPs
and EPA rulemaking efforts. For more details on
model performance analyses and acceptability see
the MOAAD TSD. (EPA 2007 A.D. Guidance, EPA
2014 Draft A.D. Guidance, and Emery, C. and E. Tai,
(2001), Enhanced Meteorological Modeling and
Performance Evaluation for Two Texas Ozone
Episodes, prepared for the Texas Near NonAttainment Areas through the Alamo Area Council
of Governments’’, by ENVIRON International Corp,
Novato, CA).
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
24449
well enough to be used for assessing
changes in emissions for the model
attainment test.4 EPA agrees that the
overall base case model performance is
acceptable, but notes that even with the
refinements, the modeling still tends to
have some underestimation bias on
some of the higher ozone days. See the
MOAAD TSD for further analysis.
4. Once the base case is determined to
be acceptable, how is the modeling used
for the attainment demonstration?
Before using the modeling for
attainment test and potential control
strategy evaluation, TCEQ evaluated the
base case emission inventory, and made
minor adjustments to the inventory to
account for things that would not be
expected to occur again or that were not
normal. Examples of this are: (1)
Inclusion of electric generating units, or
EGUs, that were not operating due to
temporary shutdown during the base
case period but were expected to be
operating in 2017 and (2) Adjusting the
hour specific EGUs continuous
emissions monitor (CEM) based NOX
emissions to a typical Ozone season day
emission rate). This adjusted emission
inventory is called the 2012 baseline
emission inventory. The photochemical
model is then executed again to obtain
a 2012 baseline model projection.
Since the HGB area is classified as a
Moderate nonattainment area, the
attainment date is as expeditiously as
practicable but no later than July 20,
2018. To meet this deadline, it is
necessary for emission reductions to be
in place by no later than what is termed
the attainment year, which in this case
is 2017. Future case modeling using the
base case meteorology and estimated
2017 emissions is conducted to estimate
future ozone levels factoring in the
impact of economic growth in the region
and State and Federal emission controls.
EPA’s 8-hour ozone modeling
guidance recommends that the
attainment test use the modeling
analysis in a relative sense instead of an
absolute sense. To predict future ozone
levels, we estimate a value that we refer
to as the Future Design Value (FDV).
First, we need to calculate a Base Design
Value (BDV) from the available
monitoring data. The BDV is calculated
for each monitor that was operating in
the base period by averaging the three
DVs that include the base year (2012).
The DVs for 2010–2012, 2011–2013, and
2012–2014 are averaged to result in a
center-weighted BDV for each monitor.
To estimate the FDV, a value is also
calculated for each monitor that is
called the Relative Response Factor
4 Id.
E:\FR\FM\29MYP1.SGM
29MYP1
24450
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
(RRF) using a ratio of future and
baseline modeling results around each
monitor. This calculation yields the RRF
for that monitor. The RRF is then
multiplied by the Base Design Value
(BDV) for each monitor to yield the FDV
for that monitor. The modeled values for
each monitor may be calculated to
hundredths of a ppb, then truncated to
an integer (in ppb) as the final step in
the calculation as recommended by
EPA’s guidance. The truncated values
are included in Table 1. TCEQ
employed EPA’s recommended
approach for calculating FDV’s. For
information on how the FDV is
calculated refer to the MOAAD TSD.
The 2014 Draft A.D. Guidance
indicates that instead of using all days
above the standard (0.075 ppm or 75
ppb) in the baseline, that the subset of
10 highest modeled baseline days at
each monitor should be used for
calculating an RRF.5 The 10 highest
days are the 10 highest 8-hour
maximum daily values at each specific
monitor. TCEQ provided the 2017 FDV
values for each of the monitors using the
procedure in the 2014 Draft A.D.
Guidance.
EPA has reviewed the components of
TCEQ’s photochemical modeling
demonstration and finds the analysis
meets 40 CFR part 51, including 40 CFR
part 51 Appendix W—Guideline on Air
Quality Models. For a more complete
description of the details of the base and
future case modeling inputs, set-up,
settings, the meteorology and
photochemical model performance
analysis (and EPA’s evaluation of these
procedures and conclusions, see the
MOAAD TSD in the Docket for this
action (EPA–RO6–OAR–2017–0053).
5. What did the results of TCEQ’s 2017
future year attainment demonstration
modeling show?
The results of the 2012 and 2017
baseline modeling run RRFs and model
FDV calculations using EPA’s 2014
Draft A.D Guidance methods are shown
in Table 1. Table 1 includes the
modeling projections prior to evaluating
any other modeling sensitivity runs.
EPA’s full analysis for this HGB
modeling and our results/conclusions
for all the monitors is included in the
MOAAD TSD.
TABLE 1—SIP MODELING PROJECTIONS FOR 2017
2012 BVD
(ppb)
HGB monitor
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Manvel Croix Park—C84 .................................................................................
Deer Park—C35 ..............................................................................................
Houston East—C1 ...........................................................................................
Park Place—C416 ...........................................................................................
Houston Northwest—C26 ................................................................................
Bayland Park—C53 .........................................................................................
Croquet—C409 ................................................................................................
Houston Monroe—C406 ..................................................................................
Seabrook Friendship Park—C45 .....................................................................
Houston Texas Ave—C411 .............................................................................
Houston Aldine—C8 ........................................................................................
Conroe Relocated—C78 ..................................................................................
Clinton Drive—C403 ........................................................................................
Houston Westhollow—C410 ............................................................................
Lang—C408 .....................................................................................................
Galveston—C1034 ...........................................................................................
Channelview—C15 ..........................................................................................
North Wayside—C405 .....................................................................................
Lynchburg Ferry—C1015 ................................................................................
Lake Jackson—C1016 .....................................................................................
Relative
response
factor
(RRF)
85
78.33
78
77.33
80
78.67
78.67
76.67
76.33
75
76.67
78
74.67
77.67
76.33
75.33
73
73.67
71
69.33
The second column is the Base DV for
the 2012 period. Using the 2014 Draft
A.D. Guidance, 19 of the 20 HGB area
monitors are in attainment and one is
projected to have a 2017 FDV of 79 ppb.
The standard attainment test is
applied only at regulatory monitor
locations. The 2007 A.D. Guidance and
the 2014 Draft A.D. Guidance both
recommend that areas within or near
nonattainment counties but not adjacent
to monitoring locations be evaluated in
an unmonitored areas (UMA) analysis to
demonstrate that these UMAs are
expected to reach attainment by the
required future year. The UMA analysis
is intended to identify any areas not
near a monitoring location that are at
risk of not meeting the NAAQS by the
attainment date. EPA provided the
Modeled Attainment Test Software
(MATS) to conduct UMA analyses, but
has not specifically recommended in
EPA’s guidance documents that the only
way of performing the UMA analysis is
by using the MATS software.
TCEQ used their own UMA analysis
(called the TCEQ Attainment Test for
Unmonitored areas or TATU). EPA
previously reviewed TATU during our
review of the modeling protocol for the
HGB area (2010 Attainment
Demonstration SIP) and we approved
analysis using TATU in previous
approval of the 2013 HGB 1997 8-hour
attainment demonstration (See MOAAD
5 The 10 highest baseline days at a monitor are
summed and become the denominator and the
0.934
0.956
0.962
0.956
0.925
0.943
0.934
0.957
0.948
0.961
0.947
0.936
0.968
0.92
0.934
0.944
0.959
0.953
0.956
0.937
16:08 May 25, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
79.41
74.91
75.06
73.89
74.01
74.21
73.49
73.4
72.34
72.11
72.59
73.04
72.25
71.45
71.31
71.15
69.99
70.23
67.88
64.94
2017 FDV
(ppb)
79
74
75
73
74
74
73
73
72
72
72
73
72
71
71
71
70
70
67
64
TSD for 2013 SIP approval in Docket
EPA–R06–OAR–2013–0387 (79 FR 57,
January 2, 2014). We are proposing
approval of the use of the TATU tool as
providing an acceptable UMA analysis
for this SIP approval action (See
MOAAD TSD for review and evaluation
details). The TATU is integrated into the
TCEQ’s model post-processing stream
and MATS requires that modeled
concentrations be exported to a personal
computer-based platform, thus it would
be more time consuming to use MATS
for the UMA. Based on past analysis,
results between TATU and MATS are
similar and EPA’s guidance (2007 and
Draft 2014) provides states the
future year values for the same 10 days are summed
and become the numerator in the RRF calculation.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
2017 FDV
(ppb)
E:\FR\FM\29MYP1.SGM
29MYP1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
flexibility to use other technically
supportable tools for the UMA.
The TATU analysis included in the
SIP indicates the maximum in most of
the unmonitored areas is not
significantly different than the 2017
FDVs calculated using all days above 75
ppb in the baseline (2007 A.D.
Guidance). TCEQ’s TATU analysis
found two unmonitored areas that
indicated high values above the
standard but neither of these areas are
higher than the area wide maximum
modeled value at Manvel Croix Park
monitor that is part of the monitored
attainment test. One is a small
unmonitored area on the Harris and
Montgomery County border that is
indicated just above the standard and
areas in the Gulf of Mexico. The area on
the Harris and Montgomery County
border is an area between the Conroe
and NW Harris Co. regulatory monitors
but there is also a non-regulatory
monitor (UH WG Jones Forest) that
represents some of the area between
these two regulatory monitors. In
comparison to these two regulatory
monitors the UH WG Jones Forest (UH
WG) monitor’s recent 4th High 8-hour
ozone values (2013—preliminary 2017) 6
have been equal or similar to 4th Highs
of at least one of these two regulatory
monitors except in 2016 when the UH
WG 4th High was higher. The 2016 UH
WG 4th High was still several ppb lower
than the 2016 HGB maximum 4th High
indicating that this area including the
unmonitored area did not represent the
area with highest ozone levels in 2016.
The UH WG DV (non-regulatory) has
been within 3 ppb of one of these two
regulatory monitors and also several
ppb less that the HGB maximum DV in
recent years (2013-preliminary 2017),
further indicating that this unmonitored
area is not an area of significant
concern. The other area identified was
an area over the Gulf of Mexico and
parts of Galveston Island where there
are no meteorology or ozone monitors to
evaluate model performance/accuracy,
the accuracy of the spatial interpolation,
and the predicted 2017 FDVs, therefore
these values are less reliable.
Additionally, they are not higher than
the value at Manvel Croix monitor.
We agree with TCEQ’s analysis
finding that the 2 areas identified that
are outside of the monitored areas are
not a concern because they are not
higher than the value predicted at
Manvel Croix and because of the issues
discussed above. Therefore, the 2017
6 The 2017 monitoring data is preliminary and
still has to undergo Quality Assurance/Quality
Control analysis and be certified by the State of
Texas, submitted to EPA, and reviewed and
concurred on by EPA.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:08 May 25, 2018
Jkt 244001
FDVs are properly capturing the
geographic locations of the monitored
peaks and no additional significant
hotspots were identified that need to be
further addressed.
For a more complete description of
the modeling attainment test procedures
and conclusions and EPA’s evaluation
of these procedures and conclusions,
see the MOAAD TSD in the Docket for
this action.
6. What are EPA’s conclusions of the
modeling demonstration?
EPA has reviewed the modeling and
modeling results and finds they meet 40
CFR part 51 requirements. The
modeling using the 2014 Draft A.D.
Guidance indicates that 19 out of 20 of
the monitors are projected to be in
attainment in 2017 while one monitor
has a 2017 FDV of 79 ppb, above the
2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS (75 ppb).
EPA concludes that given that 95% of
the monitors are in attainment, only one
monitor is predicted above the standard,
and the unmonitored area analysis did
not show any areas of concern with
values higher than the maximum value
at the Manvel Croix monitor, the overall
modeling results are within the range 7
where EPA recommends Weight of
Evidence (WOE) be considered to
determine if the attainment
demonstration is approvable.
7. Weight of Evidence
a. Background
A WOE analysis provides additional
scientific analyses as to whether the
proposed control strategy, although not
modeling attainment, demonstrates
attainment by the attainment date. The
intent of EPA’s guidance is to recognize
potential uncertainty in the modeling
system and future year projections
therefore utilize other supplemental
information or WOE in deciding if
attainment will be achieved. Thus, in
the HGB case, even though the modeling
predicts one out of 20 monitors has an
FDV above the NAAQS, additional
information (WOE) can provide a basis
to conclude attainment is demonstrated.
EPA’s guidance indicates that several
items should be considered in a WOE
analyses, including the following:
7 2007 A.D. Guidance indicated within 2–3 ppb
for the 1997 8-hour 84 ppb standard and the 2014
Draft A.D. Guidance indicated the model results
should be close to the standard without giving an
exact range. Only one of the 20 value is over with
the 2014 Draft A.D. Guidance and EPA considers
this be within the range of ’close’ as indicated by
the guidance (2014 Draft A.D. Guidance page 190
‘‘In conclusion, the basic criteria required for an
attainment demonstration based on weight of
evidence are as follows: (1) A fully-evaluated, highquality modeling analysis that projects future
values that are close to the NAAQS.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
24451
Additional modeling, additional
reductions not modeled, recent
emissions and monitoring trends,
known uncertainties in the modeling
and/or emission projections, and other
pertinent scientific evaluations.
Pursuant to EPA’s guidance, TCEQ
supplemented the control strategy
modeling with WOE analyses.
We briefly discuss the more
significant components of the WOE that
impacted EPA’s evaluation of the
attainment demonstration in this action.
Many other elements are discussed in
the MOAAD TSD that had less
significant impact on EPA’s evaluation.
For EPA’s complete evaluation of the
WOE considered for this action, see the
MOAAD TSD.
b. What additional modeling-based
evidence did Texas provide?
TCEQ used a modeling concept that
tracks the ozone generated in the
modeling from ozone precursors by
location and category of type of
emission source that is referred to as
source apportionment.8 TCEQ
performed source apportionment
modeling using 2012 baseline and 2017
future case modeling databases using
the Anthropogenic Precursor
Culpability Assessment (APCA) tool. 9
TCEQ provided analysis for select
monitors that tend to drive the HGB
area’s DV (Manvel Croix, Aldine, and
Deer Park) and two of the outer
monitors that can have higher
monitored values and also be more
representative of background depending
on the transport pattern of a given day
(Galveston and Conroe Relocated).
Overall, the APCA indicated that HGB
emission sources contribute more on the
10 highest days that are used for the
RRF and FDV calculations than on other
days. For these 10 highest days used in
the modeled attainment test at the
higher monitors, the amount of 8-hour
ozone at the monitor in 2017 due to
emissions from local HGB sources was
often in the 15–40 ppb range for Manvel
Croix (10-day average 28.2 ppb from
HGB emissions and 5.35 ppb from rest
of Texas emissions), 6–48 ppb range for
Aldine (10-day average 27.9 ppb from
HGB emissions and 3.24 ppb from rest
of Texas emissions), 7–32 ppb range for
Deer Park (10-day average 18.1 ppb from
HGB emissions and 5.2 ppb from rest of
Texas emissions). This source
apportionment indicates that on the
8 Source apportionment allows the tracking of
ozone generation from regions (such as upwind
states or the HGB area, etc.) and also by source
category (such as on-road, nonroad, EGU, point
sources, etc.).
9 See 3.7.3 of the State’s August 5, 2016 SIP
submittal.
E:\FR\FM\29MYP1.SGM
29MYP1
24452
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
worst days in the HGB area, local
emission reductions and reductions
within Texas are more beneficial than
on other baseline exceedance days. This
adds a positive WOE that HGB area
reductions in mobile on-road and nonroad categories, emission reductions in
point source cap and trade programs as
well as other categories aid in
demonstrating attainment. When we say
positive WOE, EPA is indicating that the
WOE element factors more into
supporting the demonstration of
attainment. For EPA’s complete
evaluation of the modeled WOE
elements considered for this action, see
the MOAAD TSD.
c. Other Non-Modeling WOE
TCEQ showed that 8-hour and 1-hour
ozone DVs have decreased over the past
12 years, based on monitoring data in
the HGB Area (2005 through 2016).
TCEQ indicated that the 2015 8-hour
ozone DV for the HGB nonattainment
area is 80 ppb at Manvel Croix, which
is in attainment of the former 1997 8hour standard (84 ppb) and
demonstrates progress toward the
current 75 ppb standard.
TCEQ’s trend line for the 1-hour
ozone DV shows a decrease of about 4
ppb per year, and the trend line for the
8-hour ozone DV shows a decrease of
about 2 ppb per year and reaching
attainment of the 75 ppb standard in
2017. The 1-hour ozone DVs decreased
about 29% from 2005 through 2016 and
the 8-hour ozone DVs decreased about
23% over that same time.
EPA has also supplemented TCEQ’s
monitoring data analysis with
additional analysis of 2014–2016 and
preliminary 2017 monitoring data 10
(See Tables 2 and 3). There were 20
regulatory monitors in 2012 (base case
year) so the modeling was restricted to
FDVs at 20 monitors, but the regulatory
ambient network has expanded to 21
monitors in recent years. The Manvel
Croix monitor is located on the south
side of the urban core, to the west of the
Houston Ship Channel. The Aldine
monitor is located on the north side of
the urban core and to the northwest of
the Houston Ship Channel. One of these
two monitors has been setting the HGB
area DV from 2009 through 2016 years
(and preliminarily in 2017). The 2016
DV (2014–2016 data) data indicates that
only three of the 21 regulatory monitors
had a DV above the standard (Aldine—
79 ppb, West Hollow and Galveston—76
ppb). Current preliminary 2015–2017
DV data indicates that only five of the
21 monitors in the HGB area may be
above the standard with a preliminary
2017 DVs of 81 ppb at Aldine, Park
Place and Bayland Park with 77 ppb,
and Westhollow and Lang with 76
ppb.11
The monitored DV is calculated by
averaging the 4th High values from three
consecutive years and truncating to
integer (whole number) level in ppb. For
example, the 2016 DV is the truncated
average of 4th Highs from 2014–2016.
See Table 3 for the 2014-prelminary
2017 4th High 8-hour values. In 2014
none of the 21 monitors in the HGB area
had a 4th High 8-hour high value above
75 ppb. In 2015 worse meteorology
(more conducive for formation of ozone)
occurred and the 4th high 8-hour
exceedance value monitored at Aldine
jumped to 95 ppb with the second
highest value of 91 ppb at Lang (both 27
ppb higher than their 2014 value) and
15 other monitors had 4th High 8-hour
values greater than 75 ppb (17 of the 21
monitors were greater than 75 ppb). In
2016, the 4th High 8-hour values went
back down and only Westhollow and
Bayland Park monitors had 4th High 8hour values greater than 75 ppb with 79
ppb and 78 ppb respectively, all other
HGB area monitors (19 of 21) were 75
ppb or less. In the preliminary 2017
data, only 3 of the 21 monitors had 4th
High 8-hour values above 75 ppb
(Conroe—79 ppb, Clinton Drive—77
ppb, and Manvel Croix—77 ppb) and
the other 18 monitors had values of 75
ppb or less. It is unusual that the 79 ppb
at the Conroe monitor was the monitor
with the preliminary highest 4th High in
2017 in the HGB area and the Clinton
Drive monitor had a 77 ppb, as these
monitors are not some of the typical
High DV monitors in HGB. The Conroe
and Clinton Drive monitor’s 2015 and
2016 DVs are below the standard
(Clinton Drive 69 ppb both years and
Conroe 2015—73 ppb and 2016–72 ppb)
even with the higher ozone monitored
in 2015. Considering as recently as
2012, 15 of 20 monitors were violating
the NAAQS, the area has had large
decreases in ozone levels.
Overall as seen in Tables 2 and 3
below, 2015 stands out with high ozone
monitored data compared to other
recent years (2014, 2016 and
preliminary 2017). These 4th High 8hour values support that the area with
recent emission levels has been close to
attaining the standard for several years.
The high 2015 4th High 8-hour data is
driving all the DVs for 2015, 2016, and
preliminary 2017. To assess what might
have occurred if 2015 hadn’t been such
a high year we have calculated the
average of the last two years (2016 and
preliminary 2017) 4th Highs and all are
equal to or below 75 ppb except the
Bayland Park monitor with 76 ppb,12
confirming that 2015 is driving the
recent DVs because the 2015 4th Highs
are much higher than other recent years
(2014, 2016, and preliminary 2017).
Despite the high 2015 4th High 8-hour
data that contributed to higher 2015,
2016, and preliminary 2017 DV values,
examination of the 4th High 8-hour
values for 2014, 2016 and preliminary
2017, support the conclusion that the
general long term trend identified by
TCEQ of a steady reduction in DV of 2
ppb per year is anticipated to continue.
Both the individual 4th High monitoring
data from 2014, 2016, and 2017 and the
average of the 2016 and preliminary
2017 data are strong WOE. The ozone
data indicates that emission levels in
HGB area and the meteorology that
occurred in 2014, 2016, and 2017 have
led to ozone levels that are consistent
with attainment of the NAAQS. Overall,
with the exception of the high 2015
data, the recent monitoring data
provides a strong positive WOE.
TABLE 2—HGB AREA MONITOR DVS (2014–2017) 1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
HGB monitor
2014
Baytown Eastpoint ...........................................................................................
Deer Park .........................................................................................................
Aldine ...............................................................................................................
10 The 2017 monitoring data is preliminary and
still has to undergo Quality Assurance/Quality
Control analysis and be certified by the State of
Texas, submitted to EPA, and reviewed and
concurred on by EPA.
11 Any determination of whether the HGB area
has attained the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:08 May 25, 2018
Jkt 244001
2015
66
72
72
applicable attainment date is a separate analysis
that will be part of a separate EPA rulemaking. This
rulemaking is focused on whether the State’s
submitted attainment demonstration is approvable
under CAA standards. EPA is not in a position at
this time to determine whether the HGB area has
attained by the applicable attainment date, given
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2017 1
2016
68
69
79
69
67
79
that the attainment date has not yet passed and
2017 monitoring data is still preliminary.
12 Average of 2016 and preliminary 2017 4th
Highs: Aldine—74 ppb, Park Place—68.5 ppb,
Westhollow—75 ppb and Lang—69.5 ppb.
E:\FR\FM\29MYP1.SGM
29MYP1
71
68
81
24453
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—HGB AREA MONITOR DVS (2014–2017) 1—Continued
HGB monitor
2014
Clinton Drive ....................................................................................................
Croquet ............................................................................................................
Monroe .............................................................................................................
NW Harris Co. .................................................................................................
Westhollow .......................................................................................................
Lang .................................................................................................................
Wayside ...........................................................................................................
Mae Drive (Houston East) ...............................................................................
Bayland Park ...................................................................................................
Seabrook ..........................................................................................................
Channelview ....................................................................................................
Lynchburg ........................................................................................................
Park Place .......................................................................................................
Galveston .........................................................................................................
Conroe .............................................................................................................
Manvel .............................................................................................................
Lake Jackson ...................................................................................................
1
2015
68
75
74
75
76
74
69
72
75
72
67
66
74
72
76
80
66
2017 1
2016
69
75
70
73
75
78
70
74
76
71
68
67
77
73
73
80
64
69
71
65
69
76
74
67
73
75
70
68
65
72
76
72
75
64
75
71
63
73
76
76
69
75
77
71
69
61
74
77
74
77
65
2017 DV and 4th High 8-hour values are preliminary data.
TABLE 3—HGB AREA MONITOR 4TH HIGH 8-HOUR VALUES (2014–2017) 1
HGB monitor
2014
Baytown Eastpoint ...............................................................
Deer Park .............................................................................
Aldine ...................................................................................
Clinton Drive ........................................................................
Croquet ................................................................................
Monroe .................................................................................
NW Harris Co. ......................................................................
Westhollow ...........................................................................
Lang .....................................................................................
Wayside ...............................................................................
Mae Drive (Houston East) ...................................................
Bayland Park ........................................................................
Seabrook ..............................................................................
Channelview .........................................................................
Lynchburg ............................................................................
Park Place ............................................................................
Galveston .............................................................................
Conroe .................................................................................
Manvel Croix ........................................................................
Lake Jackson .......................................................................
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
1
2015
67
63
68
58
67
65
63
70
64
62
66
67
65
64
59
66
71
72
71
61
77
77
95
84
79
73
78
79
91
78
88
80
83
81
79
87
84
73
86
65
2016–2017 1
avg.
2017 1
2016
65
62
74
65
67
57
67
79
69
62
67
78
64
61
59
65
74
71
69
66
73
66
74
77
67
59
74
71
70
68
70
74
67
65
46
72
73
79
77
65
69
64
74
71
67
58
70.5
75
69.5
65
68.5
76
65.5
63
52.5
68.5
73.5
75
73
65.5
2017 4th High 8-hour values are preliminary data.
TCEQ also submitted WOE
components that are further discussed
in the MOAAD TSD including the
following: Conceptual model and
selection of the 2012 period to fit the
range of days and meteorological cycles
that yield high ozone in HGB,
meteorological transport clustering,
additional ozone design value trends,
ozone variability analysis and trends,
NOX and VOC monitoring trends,
emission trends, NOX and VOC
chemistry limitation analysis, and local
contribution analyses. Details of these
WOE components that also provide
positive WOE are included in Chapter 5
of the December 29, 2016 SIP submittal
and discussed in the MOAAD TSD.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:08 May 25, 2018
Jkt 244001
d. Other WOE Items From Texas Not
Currently Quantified With Modeling:
Additional Programs/Reductions, etc.
Refinery Consent Decrees—Texas
noted that EPA’s existing and continued
efforts are resulting in many consent
decrees that obtain reductions at
refineries across the U.S. and
approximately 14% of the nation’s
refining capacity is in the HGB area.
Texas indicted that these consent
decrees are yielding reductions in
flaring operations, better monitoring of
emissions using continuous emission
monitors or predictive emission
monitoring systems, and other emission
reductions from large emissions sources
at these facilities. Texas indicated that
not all of these emissions have been
quantified and included in the model,
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
so some emission reductions required
by these actions provide positive WOE.
Texas Emission Reduction Plan
(TERP)—The TERP program provides
financial incentives to eligible
individuals, businesses, or local
governments to reduce emissions from
polluting vehicles and equipment. In
2015, the Texas Legislature increased
funding for TERP to $118.1 million per
year for FY 2016 and 2017, which was
an increase of $40.5 million per year
which resulted in more grant projects in
eligible TERP areas, including the HGB
area. Texas also noted that since the
inception of TERP in 2001 through
August 2016, over $1,013 million
dollars have been spent within the state
through TERP and the Diesel Emission
Reduction Incentive Program (DERI)
that has resulted in 171,945 tons of NOX
E:\FR\FM\29MYP1.SGM
29MYP1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
24454
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
reductions in Texas by 2016. TCEQ also
noted that over $423.6 million in DERI
grants have been awarded to projects in
the HGB area through 2016 resulting
with a projected NOX reduction of
75,739 tons that is also estimated as 14.1
tons per day of NOX. These DERI and
TERP benefits were not modeled but the
reductions and future reductions do
provide positive WOE.
Low–Income Vehicle Repair
Assistance, Retrofit, and Accelerated
Vehicle Retirement Program (LIRAP)—
TCEQ established a financial assistance
program for qualified owners of vehicles
that fail the emissions test. The purpose
of this voluntary program is to repair or
remove older, higher emitting vehicles
from use in certain counties with high
ozone. In HGB area between December
12, 2007 and May 31, 2016, the program
repaired 19,297 and retired and
replaced 29,716 vehicles at a cost of
$98.1 million. Participating HGB area
counties were allocated approximately
$20.1 million per year for LIRAP for FYs
2016 and 2017. This is an increase of
approximately $17.5 million per year
over the previous biennium. These
LIRAP benefits were not modeled but
the reductions and future reductions do
provide positive WOE.
Local Initiative Projects (LIP)—Funds
are provided to counties participating in
the LIP for implementation of air quality
improvement strategies through local
projects and initiatives (Examples:
Studies on emissions inspection fraud
and targeting high emission vehicles).
The 2016 and 2017 state budgets
included increases of approximately
$1.9 million per year over previous
biennium. These LIP benefits were not
modeled but the reductions and future
reductions do provide positive WOE.
Local Initiatives—TCEQ indicated
that there is an assortment of locally
implemented strategies in the HGB
nonattainment area including pilot
programs, new programs, or programs
with pending methodologies. These
Local Initiatives benefits were not
modeled but the reductions and future
reductions do provide positive WOE.
Energy Efficiency/Renewable Energy
(EE/RE) Measures—Additional
quantified and unquantified WOE
emissions reductions (without NOX
reductions calculated) include a number
of energy efficiency measures
(Residential and Commercial Building
Codes, municipality purchase of
renewable energies, political
subdivision projects, electric utility
sponsored programs, Federal facilities
EE/RE Projects, etc.). These efforts are
not easily quantifiable for an equivalent
amount of NOX reductions that may
occur, but they do provide positive
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:08 May 25, 2018
Jkt 244001
WOE that growth in electrical demand
is reduced and this results in reduced
NOX emissions from EGUs.
Voluntary Measures—Blue Skyway
and Smartway programs encourage
voluntary emission reductions in fleets
by supporting reduced fuel combustion
and use of alternative fuels. Since these
are voluntary measures and reporting/
verification is not a requirement, the
amount of NOX and VOC reductions
that may occur are not easily
quantifiable, but they do provide
positive WOE from this sector.
8. Is the attainment demonstration
approvable?
Consistent with EPA’s regulations at
40 CFR 51.1108(c), Texas submitted a
modeled attainment demonstration
based on a photochemical grid modeling
evaluation. EPA has reviewed the
components of TCEQ’s photochemical
modeling demonstration and finds the
analysis is consistent with EPA’s
guidance and meets 40 CFR part 51,
including 40 CFR part 51 Appendix
W—Guideline on Air Quality Models.
The photochemical modeling was
conducted to project 2017 ozone levels
to demonstrate attainment of the
standard by the attainment date.
Although the modeled attainment test is
not met at one of the 20 HGB monitors
because one of the monitors was
projected to remain above the standard,
consistent with our A.D. guidance,
TCEQ submitted a WOE analysis that
supports that the emission levels in the
area are consistent with attainment.
This WOE analysis provides additional
scientific analyses based on
identification of emission reductions
not captured in the modeling,
monitoring trends, recent monitoring
data (EPA included more recent
monitoring data since the SIP
submission) and other modeling
analyses. The average of the 2016 and
preliminary 2017 4th High Data
indicates all monitors but one are at or
below the standard. This includes the
Manvel Croix monitor, the one monitor
projected in the modeling to be over the
standard, with a value of 73 ppb. The
one monitor, which the 2016–2017
average is above standard is just 1 ppb
over. The combination of the modeling
and the WOE indicate that recent
emission levels are consistent with
attainment of the standard and
demonstrate attainment by the
attainment date. We are therefore
proposing to approve the attainment
demonstration submitted in the
December 29, 2016 submittal.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
B. RACM
A demonstration is required that all
RACM necessary to demonstrate
attainment as expeditiously as
practicable has been adopted (CAA
section 172(c)(1) and 40 CF 51.1112(c)).
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 by at
least a year (57 FR 13498, 13560, April
16, 1992; 74 FR 2945, 2951, January 16,
2009; and 78 FR 55037, 55044,
September 9, 2013).
Texas identified and analyzed
whether potential control measures
would be considered a RACM measure.
Texas determined that none of these
measures meet the five RACM criteria.
We reviewed the RACM analysis and
propose to approve the Texas
demonstration that the HGB area has
met the RACM requirement. We note
that to advance the attainment date by
at least a year (to July 20, 2017)
additional control measures would need
to be implemented at the beginning of
2016. Given the requirement for a SIP
revision was published December 14,
2016, it is not feasible that additional
measures could be implemented at the
beginning of 2016.
C. Contingency Measures Plan
CAA section 172(c)(9) require
contingency measures to be
implemented in the event of failure to
attain the NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date or if the area fails to
make reasonable further progress. 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 should provide additional
emissions reductions of up to 3% of the
base year inventory (or lesser percentage
that will cure the identified failure). The
reductions are to be achieved in the year
following the year in which the failure
has been identified (57 FR 13498,
13510–12, April 16, 1992). The base
year inventory is that specified by CAA
section 182(b)(1)(B) and 40 CFR
51.1115.
The Texas contingency measures plan
is based on (1) a 2011 base year
inventory, (2) a 2% NOX emissions
reduction and a 1% VOC emissions
reduction and (3) reductions from 2017
to 2018 due to Federal control measures
for on-road motor vehicles. Texas used
the EPA MOVES2014a mobile source
E:\FR\FM\29MYP1.SGM
29MYP1
24455
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
emissions estimation model to calculate
the on-road emissions reductions.
Table 4 is a summary of the Texas
contingency measures plan for the HGB
area. As Texas has demonstrated that
the base year emissions will be reduced
by at least 3% from 2017 to 2018, we
propose to approve the HGB
contingency measures plan.
TABLE 4—CONTINGENCY MEASURES DEMONSTRATION FOR THE HGB AREA
NOX
emissions
(tons per day)
Description
Base Year Emissions Inventory ..............................................................................................................................
Percent for Contingency Calculation .......................................................................................................................
(Total of 3%) ............................................................................................................................................................
Required 2017 to 2018 Contingency Reductions ...................................................................................................
Total 2017 to 2018 Contingency Reductions due to Federal Measures for On-road Motor Vehicles ...................
Contingency Excess (+) or Shortfall (-) ...................................................................................................................
D. MVEBs
MVEBs are required for ozone
attainment demonstrations to ensure
that transportation plans, transportation
improvement programs and federally
supported highway and transit projects
are consistent with (‘‘conform to’’) the
purpose of the SIP. Conformity to the
purpose of the SIP means that
transportation activities will not cause
new air quality violations, worsen
existing violations, or delay timely
attainment of the relevant NAAQS or
interim reductions and milestones (81
FR 12264, 12283–84, March 6, 2015).
The SIP included attainment NOX and
VOC MVEBs for the 2017 attainment
year (table 5). The MVEBs represents the
maximum level of on-road emissions of
NOX and VOC that can be produced in
2017—when considered with emissions
from all other sources—which
demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS.
As our review found that the 2017
MVEBs are consistent with the
emissions inventory and control
measures that we are proposing provide
for attainment, we propose to approve
the MVEBs.
TABLE 5—2017 HGB MVEBS
Pollutant
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
NOX ......................................
VOC ......................................
Summer
weekday
emissions
(tons per day)
95.56
54.40
When reviewing submitted ‘‘control
strategy’’ SIPs containing MVEBs, EPA
may affirmatively find the MVEBs
contained therein adequate for use in
determining transportation conformity.
EPA’s substantive criteria for
determining adequacy of a MVEB are set
out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). EPA is
evaluating the adequacy of the
submitted MVEBs in parallel to this
proposed approval action on the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:08 May 25, 2018
Jkt 244001
attainment demonstration. The NOX and
VOC MVEBs for the HGB area opened
for public comment on EPA’s adequacy
website on May 17, 2018, found at:
https://www.epa.gov/state-and-localtransportation/state-implementationplans-sip-submissions-currently-underepa. The adequacy comment period for
these MVEBs will close on June 18,
2018.
Once EPA affirmatively finds the
submitted MVEBs are adequate for
transportation conformity purposes,
these MVEBs must be used by state and
Federal agencies in determining
whether proposed transportation
projects conform to the SIP as required
by section 176(c) of the CAA. Within 24
months from the effective date of EPA’s
adequacy determination for the MVEBs
or the publication date for the final rule
for this action, whichever is earlier, the
transportation partners will need to
demonstrate conformity to the new NOX
and VOC MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR
93.104(e)(3).
E. CAA 110(l) Demonstration
Section 110(l) of the CAA precludes
EPA from approving a revision of a plan
if the revision would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning
attainment and RFP (as defined in
section 171 of the Act), or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA. This
action proposes approval of a plan that
demonstrates that already adopted
measures both Federal or State will
provide levels of emissions consistent
with attaining the ozone NAAQS. Since
it is a demonstration, it will not
interfere with any other requirement of
the Act. Also in this action, we are
proposing to approve the attainment
MVEBs, which are lower than MVEBs
proposed to be approved for RFP (83 FR
17964, April 25, 2018), and the
contingency measures plan. The lower
attainment demonstration MVEBs and
on-going emission reductions through
the contingency measures plan both
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
VOC
emissions
(tons per day)
459.94
531.40
2%
9.20
24.35
+15.15
1%
5.31
8.78
+3.47
provide progress toward attainment and
as such do not interfere with any
applicable requirement of the Act.
III. Proposed Action
We are proposing to approve elements
of a HGB area SIP revision for the 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS. Specifically, we
are proposing approval of the
attainment demonstration, a RACM
analysis, the contingency measures plan
in the event of failure to attain the
NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date, and NOX and VOC MVEBs for
2017. We are proposing approval of the
use of TATU’s tool and its Unmonitored
Area analysis as acceptable for meeting
the recommended evaluation of ozone
levels in the Unmonitored Area analysis
for this SIP approval action. Further, as
part of today’s action, we are describing
the status of our adequacy
determination for the NOX and VOC
MVEBs for 2017 in accordance with 40
CFR 93.118(f)(2). Within 24 months
from the effective date of our adequacy
determination for the MVEBs or the
publication date for a final rule
approving the MVEBs, whichever is
earlier, the transportation partners will
need to demonstrate conformity to the
new NOX and VOC MVEBs pursuant to
40 CFR 93.104(e)(3).
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, the
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this action:
E:\FR\FM\29MYP1.SGM
29MYP1
24456
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• 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);
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:08 May 25, 2018
Jkt 244001
• 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 CAA; 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).
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed rule does
not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Ozone.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 22, 2018.
Anne Idsal,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2018–11352 Filed 5–25–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\29MYP1.SGM
29MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 29, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24446-24456]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11352]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0053; FRL-9978-46--Region 6]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas;
Attainment Demonstration for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Ozone
Nonattainment Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing approval of elements
of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for the Houston-
Galveston-Brazoria 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) nonattainment area (HGB area). Specifically, EPA is
proposing approval of the attainment demonstration, a reasonably
available control measures (RACM) analysis, the contingency measures
plan in the event of failure to attain the NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date, and Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEBs) for 2017,
which is the attainment year for the area. EPA is also notifying the
public of the status of EPA's adequacy determination for these MVEBs
for the HGB area.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 28, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2017-0053, at https://www.regulations.gov or via email to
[email protected]. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact Carl Young, 214-665-6645,
[email protected]. For the full EPA public comment policy, information
about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making
effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available at either location
(e.g., CBI).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Young, 214-665-6645,
[email protected]. To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule
an appointment with Mr. Young or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-7253.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. The 2008 Ozone NAAQS and the HGB Area
B. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for Ozone Attainment
Demonstration SIPs
C. State SIP Submittal
II. The EPA's Evaluation
[[Page 24447]]
A. Modeling and Attainment Demonstration
1. Photochemical Grid Model Selection
2. What time period (episode) did Texas choose to model?
3. How well did the model perform?
4. Once the base case is determined to be acceptable, how is the
modeling used for the attainment demonstration?
5. What did the results of TCEQ's 2017 future year attainment
demonstration modeling show?
6. What are EPA's conclusions of the modeling demonstration?
7. Weight of evidence
a. What weight of evidence has been evaluated?
b. What additional modeling-based evidence did Texas provide?
c. Other Non-Modeling WOE
d. Other WOE Items From Texas Not Currently Quantified With
Modeling: Additional Programs/Reductions, etc.
8. Is the attainment demonstration approvable?
B. RACM
C. Contingency Measures Plan
D. MVEBs
E. CAA 110(l) Demonstration
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. The 2008 Ozone NAAQS and the HGB Area
Ground-level ozone is an air pollutant that is formed from the
reactions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) (77 FR 30088, 30089, May 21, 2012). In 2008 we revised
the 8-hour ozone primary and secondary NAAQS to a level of 0.075 parts
per million (ppm) to provide increased protection of public health and
the environment (73 FR 16436, March 27, 2008). The Houston-Galveston-
Brazoria 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS nonattainment area (HGB area) was
classified as a ``Marginal'' ozone nonattainment area for the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS (77 FR 30088, May 21, 2012). The area consists of
Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery
and Waller counties. The area was initially given an attainment date of
no later than December 31, 2015 (77 FR 30160, May 21, 2012).
On December 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit Court issued a decision
rejecting, among other things, our attainment deadlines for the 2008
ozone nonattainment areas, finding that we did not have statutory
authority under the CAA to extend those deadlines to the end of the
calendar year. NRDC v. EPA, 777 F.3d 456, 464-69 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
Consistent with the court's decision we modified the attainment
deadlines for all nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and set
the attainment deadline for all 2008 ozone Marginal nonattainment
areas, including the HGB area as July 20, 2015 (80 FR 12264, March 6,
2015). The HGB area qualified for a 1-year extension of the attainment
deadline and we revised the attainment deadline to July 20, 2016 (81 FR
26697, May 4, 2016). As the HGB area did not meet the revised
attainment deadline of July 20, 2016, we reclassified the area to
``Moderate'' and set a due date for submittal of a revised SIP of
January 1, 2017 (81 FR 90207, December 14, 2016). The 2008 ozone NAAQS
attainment deadline for Moderate areas is July 20, 2018 (40 CFR
51.1103). As an attainment showing is based on the most recent three
full years of ozone data available, the relevant years for
demonstrating attainment by the attainment deadline for Moderate areas
is 2015-2017 and the ``attainment year'' is 2017 (80 FR 12313, 12268).
B. CAA and SIP Requirements for the HGB Area
When we reclassified the HGB area, we also identified the SIP
requirements for the area. The requirements being addressed in this
notice are: (1) Modeling and an attainment demonstration (40 CFR
51.1108), (2) RACM (40 CFR 51.1112), (3) a contingency measures plan in
the event of failure to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date (CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9)), and (4) attainment MVEBs
for 2017, which is the attainment year for the HGB area (40 CFR
93.118(b)).
For areas classified as Moderate and above, CAA section
182(b)(1)(A) requires a SIP revision that provides for VOC and
NOX reductions as necessary to attain the ozone standard by
the applicable attainment date. For areas classified as Moderate
nonattainment or above for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, adequacy of an
attainment demonstration shall be demonstrated by means of a
photochemical grid model or any other analytical method determined by
the Administrator to be at least as effective (40 CFR 51.1108).
We previously approved SIP revisions addressing the following
requirements for the HGB area: (1) Emissions inventory (80 FR 9204,
February 20, 2015) and (2) confirmation of provisions addressing
emissions statements from facilities, new source review emission
offsets and a basic vehicle inspection and maintenance program (82 FR
22291, May 15, 2017). In a separate action we are proposing to approve
the HGB area reasonable further progress (RFP) demonstration and RFP
milestone failure contingency measures plan (83 FR 17964, April 25,
2018). We plan to address the HGB area's reasonable available control
technology demonstration in a separate action.
C. State SIP Submittal
On December 29, 2016, Texas submitted a SIP revision for the HGB
area. The SIP revision included a description of how CAA requirements
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the HGB area are met for: (1) Modeling and
attainment demonstration, (2) RACM, (3) a contingency plan and (4)
MVEBs. A copy of the SIP revision is available on line at
www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0053.
II. The EPA's Evaluation
We have prepared technical support documents (TSDs) for this
rulemaking which detail our evaluation. Our TSDs may be accessed online
at https://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-20173-0053.
A. Modeling and Attainment Demonstration
EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.1108(c) specifically require that
areas classified as moderate and above submit a modeled attainment
demonstration based on a photochemical grid modeling evaluation or any
other analytical method determined by the Administrator to be at least
as effective as photochemical modeling. Section 51.1108(c) also
requires each attainment demonstration to be consistent with the
provisions of section 51.112, including Appendix W to 40 CFR part 51
(i.e., ``EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models,'' 70 FR 68218, November
9, 2005 and 82 FR 5182, January 17, 2017). See also EPA's ``Guidance on
the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Air Quality Goals in
Attainment Demonstrations for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional
Haze,'' April 2007 and ``Draft Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating
Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and
Regional Haze,'' December 2014 (hereafter referred to as ``EPA's 2007
A.D. guidance'' and ``EPA's 2014 Draft A.D. guidance'') \1\, which
describe criteria that an air quality model and its application should
meet to qualify for use in an 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration.
For our more detailed evaluation of the attainment demonstration
(modeling and the Weight of Evidence (WOE) analyses) for the HGB 8-hour
Ozone Attainment Demonstration see the ``Modeling and Other Analyses
Attainment Demonstration'' (MOAAD) TSD. The MOAAD TSD also includes a
complete list of applicable modeling guidance
[[Page 24448]]
documents. These guidance documents provide the overall framework for
the components of the attainment demonstration, how the modeling and
other analyses should be conducted, and overall guidance on the
technical analyses for attainment demonstrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A.D. is Attainment Demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with any predictive tool, there are inherent uncertainties
associated with photochemical modeling. EPA's guidance recognizes these
limitations and provides approaches for considering other analytical
evidence to help assess whether attainment of the NAAQS is
demonstrated. This process is called a WOE determination. EPA's
modeling guidance (updated in 1996, 1999, and 2002) discusses various
WOE approaches. EPA's modeling guidance has been further updated in
2005, 2007 and in addition a draft in 2014 was issued for the 2008 8-
hour ozone attainment demonstration procedures. EPA guidance has
consistently recommended that all attainment demonstrations include
supplemental analyses, WOE, in addition to the recommended modeling.
These supplemental analyses would provide additional information such
as data analyses, and emissions and air quality trends, which would
help strengthen the overall conclusion drawn from the photochemical
modeling. EPA's Guidance for 1997 8-hour ozone SIPs was that a WOE
analysis is specifically recommended to be included as part of any
attainment demonstration SIP where the modeling results predict Future
Design Values (FDVs) \2\ ranging from 82 to less than 88 ppb (EPA's
2005 and 2007 A.D. Guidance documents). EPA's recent 2014 Draft A.D.
Guidance removed the specific range and indicated that WOE should be
analyzed when the results of the modeling attainment test are close to
the standard. EPA's interpretation of the Act to allow a WOE analysis
has been upheld. See 1000 Friends of Maryland v. Browner, 265 F. 3d 216
(4th Cir. 2001) and BCCA Appeal Group v. EPA, 355 F.3d 817 (5th Cir.
2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The design value is the truncated 3-year average of the
annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentration (40 CFR 50, Appendix I). Future Design Value is the
modeling based projected Design Value in the 2017 Future Year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TCEQ submitted the HGB attainment demonstration SIP with
photochemical modeling and a WOE analyses on December 29, 2016. The
results of the photochemical modeling and WOE analyses are discussed
below.
1. Photochemical Grid Model Selection
Photochemical grid models are the state-of-the-art method for
predicting the effectiveness of control strategies in reducing ozone
levels. The models use a three-dimensional grid to represent conditions
in the area of interest. TCEQ chose to use the Comprehensive Air Model
with Extensions (CAMx), Version 6.31 photochemical model for this
attainment demonstration SIP. The model is based on well-established
treatments of advection, diffusion, deposition, and chemistry. TCEQ has
used the CAMx model in other SIPs and EPA has approved many SIPs using
CAMx based modeling analyses. 40 CFR part 51 Appendix W indicates that
photochemical grid models should be used for ozone SIPs and lists a
number of factors to be considered in selecting a photochemical grid
model to utilize. EPA has reviewed the TCEQ's reasons for selecting
CAMx and EPA agrees with the choice by TCEQ to utilize CAMx for this
SIP.
In this case, TCEQ has developed a modeling grid system that
consists of three nested grids. The outer grid stretches from west of
California to east of Maine and parts of the Atlantic Ocean to the
east, and from parts of southern Canada in the north to much of Mexico
to the south extending to near the Yucatan Peninsula on the southern
edge. The model uses nested grid cells of 36 km on the outer portions,
12 km for most of the Region 6 states (most of New Mexico and all of
Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas) and 4-kilometer grid cells
for much of Texas (not including West Texas and the Panhandle) and
portions of nearby States. The 4-kilometer grid cells include the HGB
Nonattainment Area. For more information on the modeling domain, see
the MOAAD TSD. The model simulates the movement of air and emissions
into and out of the three-dimensional grid cells (advection and
dispersion); mixes pollutants upward and downward among layers; injects
new emissions from sources such as point, area, mobile (both on-road
and nonroad), and biogenic into each cell; and uses chemical reaction
equations to calculate ozone concentrations based on the concentration
of ozone precursors and incoming solar radiation within each cell. Air
quality planners choose historical time period(s) (episode(s)) of high
ozone levels to apply the model. Running the model requires large
amounts of data inputs regarding the emissions and meteorological
conditions during an episode.
Modeling to duplicate conditions during an historical time period
is referred to as the base case modeling and is used to verify that the
model system can predict historical ozone levels with an acceptable
degree of accuracy. It requires the development of a base case
inventory, which represents the emissions during the time period for
the meteorology that is being modeled. These emissions are used for
model performance evaluations. Texas modeled much of the 2012 ozone
season (May 1--September 30), so the base case emissions and
meteorology are for 2012. If the model can adequately replicate the
measured ozone levels in the base case and responds adequately to
diagnostic tests, it can then be used to project the response of future
ozone levels to proposed emission control strategies.
TCEQ chose to use recent versions of Weather Research and
Forecasting Model (WRF) version 3.7.1 for the meteorological modeling
for generation of meteorological fields and the Emission Processing
System (EPS) version 3 for the emission processing to generate the
necessary meteorological and emission fields to be used in CAMx. TCEQ
also chose one of the most recent versions of CAMx, version 6.31 for
the photochemical grid modeling. WRF is considered a state of the
science meteorological model and its use is acceptable in accordance
with 40 CFR part 51 Appendix W Section 5. The use of EPS for emissions
processing and CAMx for photochemical modeling are also one of the two
predominant modeling platforms used for SIP level modeling and these
models and versions that TCEQ used. EPA reviewed the models used and
modeling grids and determined that the model versions used are recent
versions of the model and the modeling grid is large and sufficiently
sized to try and minimize the impact of sources outside the grid. Both
the models used and the modeling grid are acceptable and in accordance
with 40 CFR part 51 Appendix W Section 5.
2. What time period (episode) did Texas choose to model?
Texas chose to model May 1st thru September 30th, which is the core
of the 2012 ozone season (HGB ozone season is January 1st through
December 31st) and includes a number of historical episodes with
monitored exceedances. The 2012 ozone season was a period when multiple
exceedance days occurred with a good variation of meteorological
conditions that lead to ozone exceedances in the HGB area. Texas
evaluated other years (2011 and 2013) in their episode selection
process. The 2011 core ozone season period had a number of exceedances
but was also complicated by a drought through much of Texas and
surrounding states that made 2011 less desirable than 2012 which had a
similar level of
[[Page 24449]]
exceedances. The 2013 core ozone season period had significantly less
exceedances than 2012. Other years considered either did not have as
many exceedances or were older episodes so TCEQ chose the 2012 period
to model.
We evaluated Texas' 2012 period/episode selection for consistency
with our modeling guidance (2007, and Draft 2014 versions). Among the
items that we considered were the ozone levels during the selected
period compared to the Design Value (DV) at the time; how the
meteorological conditions during the proposed episode match with the
conceptual model of ozone exceedances that drive the area's DV; number
of days modeled; and whether the time period selected was sufficiently
representative of the meteorology that drives elevated ozone in the
area. This evaluation is necessary to insure the model would be
adequate for evaluating future air quality and any potential control
strategies. EPA's guidance indicates that all of these items should be
considered when evaluating available episodes and selecting periods/
episodes to be modeled. EPA believes that the 2012 core ozone period
(May 1-September 30) includes many exceedance days and is an acceptable
time period for use in TCEQ's development of the 8-hour ozone
attainment plan. This period has a number of meteorological conditions
that are consistent with the conditions that yield high ozone in the
conceptual model for the HGB area, and was among the episode periods
evaluated with the highest number of ozone exceedances. In selecting
periods, it is advantageous to select periods with several exceedance
days and with multiple monitors exceeding the standard each day when
possible. This 2012 period was among the best of all the periods
evaluated when the selection was being conducted. EPA concurs with this
period. See the MOAAD TSD for further discussion and analysis.
3. How well did the model perform?
Model performance is a term used to describe how well the model
predicts the meteorological and ozone levels in an historical episode.
EPA has developed various diagnostic, statistical and graphical
analyses which TCEQ performed to evaluate the model's performance. TCEQ
performed several analyses of both interim model runs and the final
base case model run and deemed the model's performance adequate for
control strategy development. As described below, we agree that the
TCEQ's model performance is adequate.
From 2014 to 2016, several iterations of the modeling were
performed by TCEQ incorporating various improvements to the
meteorological modeling, the 2012 base case emissions inventory, and
other model parameters. TCEQ shared model performance analyses with EPA
and EPA provided input. This data included analysis of meteorological
outputs compared to benchmark statistical parameters. TCEQ also
performed graphical analyses of the meteorology and extensive analyses
of the photochemical modeling for several base case modeling runs.
EPA has reviewed the above information and is satisfied that the
meteorological modeling was meeting most of the statistical benchmarks,
and was transporting air masses in the appropriate locations for most
of the days.\3\ EPA also conducted a review of the model's performance
in predicting ozone and ozone pre-cursors and found that performance
was within the recommended 1-hour ozone statistics for most days. We
evaluate 1-hour time series and metrics as this information has less
averaging/smoothing than the 8-hour analyses and results in a higher
resolution for evaluating if the modeling is getting the rise and fall
of ozone in a similar manner as the monitoring data. We also evaluated
the 8-hour statistics, results of diagnostic and sensitivity tests, and
multiple graphical analyses and determined that overall the ozone
performance was acceptable for Texas to move forward with future year
modeling and development of an attainment demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ EPA's modeling guidance for both meteorological modeling and
ozone modeling indicates general goals for model performance
statistics based on what EPA has found to be acceptable model
performance goals from evaluations of a number of modeling analyses
conducted for SIPs and Regulatory development. EPA's guidance also
indicates that none of the individual statistics goals is a ``pass/
fail'' decision but that the overall suite of statistics, time
series, model diagnostics, and sensitivities should be evaluated
together in a holistic approach to determine if the modeling is
acceptable. Modeling is rarely perfect, so EPA's basis of
acceptability is if the model is working reasonably well most of the
time and is doing as well as modeling for other SIPs and EPA
rulemaking efforts. For more details on model performance analyses
and acceptability see the MOAAD TSD. (EPA 2007 A.D. Guidance, EPA
2014 Draft A.D. Guidance, and Emery, C. and E. Tai, (2001), Enhanced
Meteorological Modeling and Performance Evaluation for Two Texas
Ozone Episodes, prepared for the Texas Near Non-Attainment Areas
through the Alamo Area Council of Governments'', by ENVIRON
International Corp, Novato, CA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA does not expect any modeling to necessarily be able to meet all
the EPA model performance goals, but relies on a holistic approach to
determine if the modeling is meeting enough of the goals and the time
series are close enough and diagnostic/sensitivity modeling indicates
the modeling is performing well enough to be used for assessing changes
in emissions for the model attainment test.\4\ EPA agrees that the
overall base case model performance is acceptable, but notes that even
with the refinements, the modeling still tends to have some
underestimation bias on some of the higher ozone days. See the MOAAD
TSD for further analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Once the base case is determined to be acceptable, how is the
modeling used for the attainment demonstration?
Before using the modeling for attainment test and potential control
strategy evaluation, TCEQ evaluated the base case emission inventory,
and made minor adjustments to the inventory to account for things that
would not be expected to occur again or that were not normal. Examples
of this are: (1) Inclusion of electric generating units, or EGUs, that
were not operating due to temporary shutdown during the base case
period but were expected to be operating in 2017 and (2) Adjusting the
hour specific EGUs continuous emissions monitor (CEM) based
NOX emissions to a typical Ozone season day emission rate).
This adjusted emission inventory is called the 2012 baseline emission
inventory. The photochemical model is then executed again to obtain a
2012 baseline model projection.
Since the HGB area is classified as a Moderate nonattainment area,
the attainment date is as expeditiously as practicable but no later
than July 20, 2018. To meet this deadline, it is necessary for emission
reductions to be in place by no later than what is termed the
attainment year, which in this case is 2017. Future case modeling using
the base case meteorology and estimated 2017 emissions is conducted to
estimate future ozone levels factoring in the impact of economic growth
in the region and State and Federal emission controls.
EPA's 8-hour ozone modeling guidance recommends that the attainment
test use the modeling analysis in a relative sense instead of an
absolute sense. To predict future ozone levels, we estimate a value
that we refer to as the Future Design Value (FDV). First, we need to
calculate a Base Design Value (BDV) from the available monitoring data.
The BDV is calculated for each monitor that was operating in the base
period by averaging the three DVs that include the base year (2012).
The DVs for 2010-2012, 2011-2013, and 2012-2014 are averaged to result
in a center-weighted BDV for each monitor.
To estimate the FDV, a value is also calculated for each monitor
that is called the Relative Response Factor
[[Page 24450]]
(RRF) using a ratio of future and baseline modeling results around each
monitor. This calculation yields the RRF for that monitor. The RRF is
then multiplied by the Base Design Value (BDV) for each monitor to
yield the FDV for that monitor. The modeled values for each monitor may
be calculated to hundredths of a ppb, then truncated to an integer (in
ppb) as the final step in the calculation as recommended by EPA's
guidance. The truncated values are included in Table 1. TCEQ employed
EPA's recommended approach for calculating FDV's. For information on
how the FDV is calculated refer to the MOAAD TSD.
The 2014 Draft A.D. Guidance indicates that instead of using all
days above the standard (0.075 ppm or 75 ppb) in the baseline, that the
subset of 10 highest modeled baseline days at each monitor should be
used for calculating an RRF.\5\ The 10 highest days are the 10 highest
8-hour maximum daily values at each specific monitor. TCEQ provided the
2017 FDV values for each of the monitors using the procedure in the
2014 Draft A.D. Guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The 10 highest baseline days at a monitor are summed and
become the denominator and the future year values for the same 10
days are summed and become the numerator in the RRF calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has reviewed the components of TCEQ's photochemical modeling
demonstration and finds the analysis meets 40 CFR part 51, including 40
CFR part 51 Appendix W--Guideline on Air Quality Models. For a more
complete description of the details of the base and future case
modeling inputs, set-up, settings, the meteorology and photochemical
model performance analysis (and EPA's evaluation of these procedures
and conclusions, see the MOAAD TSD in the Docket for this action (EPA-
RO6-OAR-2017-0053).
5. What did the results of TCEQ's 2017 future year attainment
demonstration modeling show?
The results of the 2012 and 2017 baseline modeling run RRFs and
model FDV calculations using EPA's 2014 Draft A.D Guidance methods are
shown in Table 1. Table 1 includes the modeling projections prior to
evaluating any other modeling sensitivity runs. EPA's full analysis for
this HGB modeling and our results/conclusions for all the monitors is
included in the MOAAD TSD.
Table 1--SIP Modeling Projections for 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relative
HGB monitor 2012 BVD response 2017 FDV 2017 FDV
(ppb) factor (RRF) (ppb) (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manvel Croix Park--C84.......................... 85 0.934 79.41 79
Deer Park--C35.................................. 78.33 0.956 74.91 74
Houston East--C1................................ 78 0.962 75.06 75
Park Place--C416................................ 77.33 0.956 73.89 73
Houston Northwest--C26.......................... 80 0.925 74.01 74
Bayland Park--C53............................... 78.67 0.943 74.21 74
Croquet--C409................................... 78.67 0.934 73.49 73
Houston Monroe--C406............................ 76.67 0.957 73.4 73
Seabrook Friendship Park--C45................... 76.33 0.948 72.34 72
Houston Texas Ave--C411......................... 75 0.961 72.11 72
Houston Aldine--C8.............................. 76.67 0.947 72.59 72
Conroe Relocated--C78........................... 78 0.936 73.04 73
Clinton Drive--C403............................. 74.67 0.968 72.25 72
Houston Westhollow--C410........................ 77.67 0.92 71.45 71
Lang--C408...................................... 76.33 0.934 71.31 71
Galveston--C1034................................ 75.33 0.944 71.15 71
Channelview--C15................................ 73 0.959 69.99 70
North Wayside--C405............................. 73.67 0.953 70.23 70
Lynchburg Ferry--C1015.......................... 71 0.956 67.88 67
Lake Jackson--C1016............................. 69.33 0.937 64.94 64
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second column is the Base DV for the 2012 period. Using the
2014 Draft A.D. Guidance, 19 of the 20 HGB area monitors are in
attainment and one is projected to have a 2017 FDV of 79 ppb.
The standard attainment test is applied only at regulatory monitor
locations. The 2007 A.D. Guidance and the 2014 Draft A.D. Guidance both
recommend that areas within or near nonattainment counties but not
adjacent to monitoring locations be evaluated in an unmonitored areas
(UMA) analysis to demonstrate that these UMAs are expected to reach
attainment by the required future year. The UMA analysis is intended to
identify any areas not near a monitoring location that are at risk of
not meeting the NAAQS by the attainment date. EPA provided the Modeled
Attainment Test Software (MATS) to conduct UMA analyses, but has not
specifically recommended in EPA's guidance documents that the only way
of performing the UMA analysis is by using the MATS software.
TCEQ used their own UMA analysis (called the TCEQ Attainment Test
for Unmonitored areas or TATU). EPA previously reviewed TATU during our
review of the modeling protocol for the HGB area (2010 Attainment
Demonstration SIP) and we approved analysis using TATU in previous
approval of the 2013 HGB 1997 8-hour attainment demonstration (See
MOAAD TSD for 2013 SIP approval in Docket EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0387 (79 FR
57, January 2, 2014). We are proposing approval of the use of the TATU
tool as providing an acceptable UMA analysis for this SIP approval
action (See MOAAD TSD for review and evaluation details). The TATU is
integrated into the TCEQ's model post-processing stream and MATS
requires that modeled concentrations be exported to a personal
computer-based platform, thus it would be more time consuming to use
MATS for the UMA. Based on past analysis, results between TATU and MATS
are similar and EPA's guidance (2007 and Draft 2014) provides states
the
[[Page 24451]]
flexibility to use other technically supportable tools for the UMA.
The TATU analysis included in the SIP indicates the maximum in most
of the unmonitored areas is not significantly different than the 2017
FDVs calculated using all days above 75 ppb in the baseline (2007 A.D.
Guidance). TCEQ's TATU analysis found two unmonitored areas that
indicated high values above the standard but neither of these areas are
higher than the area wide maximum modeled value at Manvel Croix Park
monitor that is part of the monitored attainment test. One is a small
unmonitored area on the Harris and Montgomery County border that is
indicated just above the standard and areas in the Gulf of Mexico. The
area on the Harris and Montgomery County border is an area between the
Conroe and NW Harris Co. regulatory monitors but there is also a non-
regulatory monitor (UH WG Jones Forest) that represents some of the
area between these two regulatory monitors. In comparison to these two
regulatory monitors the UH WG Jones Forest (UH WG) monitor's recent 4th
High 8-hour ozone values (2013--preliminary 2017) \6\ have been equal
or similar to 4th Highs of at least one of these two regulatory
monitors except in 2016 when the UH WG 4th High was higher. The 2016 UH
WG 4th High was still several ppb lower than the 2016 HGB maximum 4th
High indicating that this area including the unmonitored area did not
represent the area with highest ozone levels in 2016. The UH WG DV
(non-regulatory) has been within 3 ppb of one of these two regulatory
monitors and also several ppb less that the HGB maximum DV in recent
years (2013-preliminary 2017), further indicating that this unmonitored
area is not an area of significant concern. The other area identified
was an area over the Gulf of Mexico and parts of Galveston Island where
there are no meteorology or ozone monitors to evaluate model
performance/accuracy, the accuracy of the spatial interpolation, and
the predicted 2017 FDVs, therefore these values are less reliable.
Additionally, they are not higher than the value at Manvel Croix
monitor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The 2017 monitoring data is preliminary and still has to
undergo Quality Assurance/Quality Control analysis and be certified
by the State of Texas, submitted to EPA, and reviewed and concurred
on by EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We agree with TCEQ's analysis finding that the 2 areas identified
that are outside of the monitored areas are not a concern because they
are not higher than the value predicted at Manvel Croix and because of
the issues discussed above. Therefore, the 2017 FDVs are properly
capturing the geographic locations of the monitored peaks and no
additional significant hotspots were identified that need to be further
addressed.
For a more complete description of the modeling attainment test
procedures and conclusions and EPA's evaluation of these procedures and
conclusions, see the MOAAD TSD in the Docket for this action.
6. What are EPA's conclusions of the modeling demonstration?
EPA has reviewed the modeling and modeling results and finds they
meet 40 CFR part 51 requirements. The modeling using the 2014 Draft
A.D. Guidance indicates that 19 out of 20 of the monitors are projected
to be in attainment in 2017 while one monitor has a 2017 FDV of 79 ppb,
above the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS (75 ppb). EPA concludes that given
that 95% of the monitors are in attainment, only one monitor is
predicted above the standard, and the unmonitored area analysis did not
show any areas of concern with values higher than the maximum value at
the Manvel Croix monitor, the overall modeling results are within the
range \7\ where EPA recommends Weight of Evidence (WOE) be considered
to determine if the attainment demonstration is approvable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 2007 A.D. Guidance indicated within 2-3 ppb for the 1997 8-
hour 84 ppb standard and the 2014 Draft A.D. Guidance indicated the
model results should be close to the standard without giving an
exact range. Only one of the 20 value is over with the 2014 Draft
A.D. Guidance and EPA considers this be within the range of 'close'
as indicated by the guidance (2014 Draft A.D. Guidance page 190 ``In
conclusion, the basic criteria required for an attainment
demonstration based on weight of evidence are as follows: (1) A
fully-evaluated, high-quality modeling analysis that projects future
values that are close to the NAAQS.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Weight of Evidence
a. Background
A WOE analysis provides additional scientific analyses as to
whether the proposed control strategy, although not modeling
attainment, demonstrates attainment by the attainment date. The intent
of EPA's guidance is to recognize potential uncertainty in the modeling
system and future year projections therefore utilize other supplemental
information or WOE in deciding if attainment will be achieved. Thus, in
the HGB case, even though the modeling predicts one out of 20 monitors
has an FDV above the NAAQS, additional information (WOE) can provide a
basis to conclude attainment is demonstrated. EPA's guidance indicates
that several items should be considered in a WOE analyses, including
the following: Additional modeling, additional reductions not modeled,
recent emissions and monitoring trends, known uncertainties in the
modeling and/or emission projections, and other pertinent scientific
evaluations. Pursuant to EPA's guidance, TCEQ supplemented the control
strategy modeling with WOE analyses.
We briefly discuss the more significant components of the WOE that
impacted EPA's evaluation of the attainment demonstration in this
action. Many other elements are discussed in the MOAAD TSD that had
less significant impact on EPA's evaluation. For EPA's complete
evaluation of the WOE considered for this action, see the MOAAD TSD.
b. What additional modeling-based evidence did Texas provide?
TCEQ used a modeling concept that tracks the ozone generated in the
modeling from ozone precursors by location and category of type of
emission source that is referred to as source apportionment.\8\ TCEQ
performed source apportionment modeling using 2012 baseline and 2017
future case modeling databases using the Anthropogenic Precursor
Culpability Assessment (APCA) tool. \9\ TCEQ provided analysis for
select monitors that tend to drive the HGB area's DV (Manvel Croix,
Aldine, and Deer Park) and two of the outer monitors that can have
higher monitored values and also be more representative of background
depending on the transport pattern of a given day (Galveston and Conroe
Relocated). Overall, the APCA indicated that HGB emission sources
contribute more on the 10 highest days that are used for the RRF and
FDV calculations than on other days. For these 10 highest days used in
the modeled attainment test at the higher monitors, the amount of 8-
hour ozone at the monitor in 2017 due to emissions from local HGB
sources was often in the 15-40 ppb range for Manvel Croix (10-day
average 28.2 ppb from HGB emissions and 5.35 ppb from rest of Texas
emissions), 6-48 ppb range for Aldine (10-day average 27.9 ppb from HGB
emissions and 3.24 ppb from rest of Texas emissions), 7-32 ppb range
for Deer Park (10-day average 18.1 ppb from HGB emissions and 5.2 ppb
from rest of Texas emissions). This source apportionment indicates that
on the
[[Page 24452]]
worst days in the HGB area, local emission reductions and reductions
within Texas are more beneficial than on other baseline exceedance
days. This adds a positive WOE that HGB area reductions in mobile on-
road and non-road categories, emission reductions in point source cap
and trade programs as well as other categories aid in demonstrating
attainment. When we say positive WOE, EPA is indicating that the WOE
element factors more into supporting the demonstration of attainment.
For EPA's complete evaluation of the modeled WOE elements considered
for this action, see the MOAAD TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Source apportionment allows the tracking of ozone generation
from regions (such as upwind states or the HGB area, etc.) and also
by source category (such as on-road, nonroad, EGU, point sources,
etc.).
\9\ See 3.7.3 of the State's August 5, 2016 SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Other Non-Modeling WOE
TCEQ showed that 8-hour and 1-hour ozone DVs have decreased over
the past 12 years, based on monitoring data in the HGB Area (2005
through 2016). TCEQ indicated that the 2015 8-hour ozone DV for the HGB
nonattainment area is 80 ppb at Manvel Croix, which is in attainment of
the former 1997 8-hour standard (84 ppb) and demonstrates progress
toward the current 75 ppb standard.
TCEQ's trend line for the 1-hour ozone DV shows a decrease of about
4 ppb per year, and the trend line for the 8-hour ozone DV shows a
decrease of about 2 ppb per year and reaching attainment of the 75 ppb
standard in 2017. The 1-hour ozone DVs decreased about 29% from 2005
through 2016 and the 8-hour ozone DVs decreased about 23% over that
same time.
EPA has also supplemented TCEQ's monitoring data analysis with
additional analysis of 2014-2016 and preliminary 2017 monitoring data
\10\ (See Tables 2 and 3). There were 20 regulatory monitors in 2012
(base case year) so the modeling was restricted to FDVs at 20 monitors,
but the regulatory ambient network has expanded to 21 monitors in
recent years. The Manvel Croix monitor is located on the south side of
the urban core, to the west of the Houston Ship Channel. The Aldine
monitor is located on the north side of the urban core and to the
northwest of the Houston Ship Channel. One of these two monitors has
been setting the HGB area DV from 2009 through 2016 years (and
preliminarily in 2017). The 2016 DV (2014-2016 data) data indicates
that only three of the 21 regulatory monitors had a DV above the
standard (Aldine--79 ppb, West Hollow and Galveston--76 ppb). Current
preliminary 2015-2017 DV data indicates that only five of the 21
monitors in the HGB area may be above the standard with a preliminary
2017 DVs of 81 ppb at Aldine, Park Place and Bayland Park with 77 ppb,
and Westhollow and Lang with 76 ppb.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The 2017 monitoring data is preliminary and still has to
undergo Quality Assurance/Quality Control analysis and be certified
by the State of Texas, submitted to EPA, and reviewed and concurred
on by EPA.
\11\ Any determination of whether the HGB area has attained the
2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date is a separate
analysis that will be part of a separate EPA rulemaking. This
rulemaking is focused on whether the State's submitted attainment
demonstration is approvable under CAA standards. EPA is not in a
position at this time to determine whether the HGB area has attained
by the applicable attainment date, given that the attainment date
has not yet passed and 2017 monitoring data is still preliminary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The monitored DV is calculated by averaging the 4th High values
from three consecutive years and truncating to integer (whole number)
level in ppb. For example, the 2016 DV is the truncated average of 4th
Highs from 2014-2016. See Table 3 for the 2014-prelminary 2017 4th High
8-hour values. In 2014 none of the 21 monitors in the HGB area had a
4th High 8-hour high value above 75 ppb. In 2015 worse meteorology
(more conducive for formation of ozone) occurred and the 4th high 8-
hour exceedance value monitored at Aldine jumped to 95 ppb with the
second highest value of 91 ppb at Lang (both 27 ppb higher than their
2014 value) and 15 other monitors had 4th High 8-hour values greater
than 75 ppb (17 of the 21 monitors were greater than 75 ppb). In 2016,
the 4th High 8-hour values went back down and only Westhollow and
Bayland Park monitors had 4th High 8-hour values greater than 75 ppb
with 79 ppb and 78 ppb respectively, all other HGB area monitors (19 of
21) were 75 ppb or less. In the preliminary 2017 data, only 3 of the 21
monitors had 4th High 8-hour values above 75 ppb (Conroe--79 ppb,
Clinton Drive--77 ppb, and Manvel Croix--77 ppb) and the other 18
monitors had values of 75 ppb or less. It is unusual that the 79 ppb at
the Conroe monitor was the monitor with the preliminary highest 4th
High in 2017 in the HGB area and the Clinton Drive monitor had a 77
ppb, as these monitors are not some of the typical High DV monitors in
HGB. The Conroe and Clinton Drive monitor's 2015 and 2016 DVs are below
the standard (Clinton Drive 69 ppb both years and Conroe 2015--73 ppb
and 2016-72 ppb) even with the higher ozone monitored in 2015.
Considering as recently as 2012, 15 of 20 monitors were violating the
NAAQS, the area has had large decreases in ozone levels.
Overall as seen in Tables 2 and 3 below, 2015 stands out with high
ozone monitored data compared to other recent years (2014, 2016 and
preliminary 2017). These 4th High 8-hour values support that the area
with recent emission levels has been close to attaining the standard
for several years. The high 2015 4th High 8-hour data is driving all
the DVs for 2015, 2016, and preliminary 2017. To assess what might have
occurred if 2015 hadn't been such a high year we have calculated the
average of the last two years (2016 and preliminary 2017) 4th Highs and
all are equal to or below 75 ppb except the Bayland Park monitor with
76 ppb,\12\ confirming that 2015 is driving the recent DVs because the
2015 4th Highs are much higher than other recent years (2014, 2016, and
preliminary 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Average of 2016 and preliminary 2017 4th Highs: Aldine--74
ppb, Park Place--68.5 ppb, Westhollow--75 ppb and Lang--69.5 ppb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the high 2015 4th High 8-hour data that contributed to
higher 2015, 2016, and preliminary 2017 DV values, examination of the
4th High 8-hour values for 2014, 2016 and preliminary 2017, support the
conclusion that the general long term trend identified by TCEQ of a
steady reduction in DV of 2 ppb per year is anticipated to continue.
Both the individual 4th High monitoring data from 2014, 2016, and 2017
and the average of the 2016 and preliminary 2017 data are strong WOE.
The ozone data indicates that emission levels in HGB area and the
meteorology that occurred in 2014, 2016, and 2017 have led to ozone
levels that are consistent with attainment of the NAAQS. Overall, with
the exception of the high 2015 data, the recent monitoring data
provides a strong positive WOE.
Table 2--HGB Area Monitor DVs (2014-2017) \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HGB monitor 2014 2015 2016 2017 \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baytown Eastpoint............................... 66 68 69 71
Deer Park....................................... 72 69 67 68
Aldine.......................................... 72 79 79 81
[[Page 24453]]
Clinton Drive................................... 68 69 69 75
Croquet......................................... 75 75 71 71
Monroe.......................................... 74 70 65 63
NW Harris Co.................................... 75 73 69 73
Westhollow...................................... 76 75 76 76
Lang............................................ 74 78 74 76
Wayside......................................... 69 70 67 69
Mae Drive (Houston East)........................ 72 74 73 75
Bayland Park.................................... 75 76 75 77
Seabrook........................................ 72 71 70 71
Channelview..................................... 67 68 68 69
Lynchburg....................................... 66 67 65 61
Park Place...................................... 74 77 72 74
Galveston....................................... 72 73 76 77
Conroe.......................................... 76 73 72 74
Manvel.......................................... 80 80 75 77
Lake Jackson.................................... 66 64 64 65
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 2017 DV and 4th High 8-hour values are preliminary data.
Table 3--HGB Area Monitor 4th High 8-hour Values (2014-2017) \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016-2017 \1\
HGB monitor 2014 2015 2016 2017 \1\ avg.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baytown Eastpoint............... 67 77 65 73 69
Deer Park....................... 63 77 62 66 64
Aldine.......................... 68 95 74 74 74
Clinton Drive................... 58 84 65 77 71
Croquet......................... 67 79 67 67 67
Monroe.......................... 65 73 57 59 58
NW Harris Co.................... 63 78 67 74 70.5
Westhollow...................... 70 79 79 71 75
Lang............................ 64 91 69 70 69.5
Wayside......................... 62 78 62 68 65
Mae Drive (Houston East)........ 66 88 67 70 68.5
Bayland Park.................... 67 80 78 74 76
Seabrook........................ 65 83 64 67 65.5
Channelview..................... 64 81 61 65 63
Lynchburg....................... 59 79 59 46 52.5
Park Place...................... 66 87 65 72 68.5
Galveston....................... 71 84 74 73 73.5
Conroe.......................... 72 73 71 79 75
Manvel Croix.................... 71 86 69 77 73
Lake Jackson.................... 61 65 66 65 65.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 2017 4th High 8-hour values are preliminary data.
TCEQ also submitted WOE components that are further discussed in
the MOAAD TSD including the following: Conceptual model and selection
of the 2012 period to fit the range of days and meteorological cycles
that yield high ozone in HGB, meteorological transport clustering,
additional ozone design value trends, ozone variability analysis and
trends, NOX and VOC monitoring trends, emission trends,
NOX and VOC chemistry limitation analysis, and local
contribution analyses. Details of these WOE components that also
provide positive WOE are included in Chapter 5 of the December 29, 2016
SIP submittal and discussed in the MOAAD TSD.
d. Other WOE Items From Texas Not Currently Quantified With Modeling:
Additional Programs/Reductions, etc.
Refinery Consent Decrees--Texas noted that EPA's existing and
continued efforts are resulting in many consent decrees that obtain
reductions at refineries across the U.S. and approximately 14% of the
nation's refining capacity is in the HGB area. Texas indicted that
these consent decrees are yielding reductions in flaring operations,
better monitoring of emissions using continuous emission monitors or
predictive emission monitoring systems, and other emission reductions
from large emissions sources at these facilities. Texas indicated that
not all of these emissions have been quantified and included in the
model, so some emission reductions required by these actions provide
positive WOE.
Texas Emission Reduction Plan (TERP)--The TERP program provides
financial incentives to eligible individuals, businesses, or local
governments to reduce emissions from polluting vehicles and equipment.
In 2015, the Texas Legislature increased funding for TERP to $118.1
million per year for FY 2016 and 2017, which was an increase of $40.5
million per year which resulted in more grant projects in eligible TERP
areas, including the HGB area. Texas also noted that since the
inception of TERP in 2001 through August 2016, over $1,013 million
dollars have been spent within the state through TERP and the Diesel
Emission Reduction Incentive Program (DERI) that has resulted in
171,945 tons of NOX
[[Page 24454]]
reductions in Texas by 2016. TCEQ also noted that over $423.6 million
in DERI grants have been awarded to projects in the HGB area through
2016 resulting with a projected NOX reduction of 75,739 tons
that is also estimated as 14.1 tons per day of NOX. These
DERI and TERP benefits were not modeled but the reductions and future
reductions do provide positive WOE.
Low-Income Vehicle Repair Assistance, Retrofit, and Accelerated
Vehicle Retirement Program (LIRAP)--TCEQ established a financial
assistance program for qualified owners of vehicles that fail the
emissions test. The purpose of this voluntary program is to repair or
remove older, higher emitting vehicles from use in certain counties
with high ozone. In HGB area between December 12, 2007 and May 31,
2016, the program repaired 19,297 and retired and replaced 29,716
vehicles at a cost of $98.1 million. Participating HGB area counties
were allocated approximately $20.1 million per year for LIRAP for FYs
2016 and 2017. This is an increase of approximately $17.5 million per
year over the previous biennium. These LIRAP benefits were not modeled
but the reductions and future reductions do provide positive WOE.
Local Initiative Projects (LIP)--Funds are provided to counties
participating in the LIP for implementation of air quality improvement
strategies through local projects and initiatives (Examples: Studies on
emissions inspection fraud and targeting high emission vehicles). The
2016 and 2017 state budgets included increases of approximately $1.9
million per year over previous biennium. These LIP benefits were not
modeled but the reductions and future reductions do provide positive
WOE.
Local Initiatives--TCEQ indicated that there is an assortment of
locally implemented strategies in the HGB nonattainment area including
pilot programs, new programs, or programs with pending methodologies.
These Local Initiatives benefits were not modeled but the reductions
and future reductions do provide positive WOE.
Energy Efficiency/Renewable Energy (EE/RE) Measures--Additional
quantified and unquantified WOE emissions reductions (without
NOX reductions calculated) include a number of energy
efficiency measures (Residential and Commercial Building Codes,
municipality purchase of renewable energies, political subdivision
projects, electric utility sponsored programs, Federal facilities EE/RE
Projects, etc.). These efforts are not easily quantifiable for an
equivalent amount of NOX reductions that may occur, but they
do provide positive WOE that growth in electrical demand is reduced and
this results in reduced NOX emissions from EGUs.
Voluntary Measures--Blue Skyway and Smartway programs encourage
voluntary emission reductions in fleets by supporting reduced fuel
combustion and use of alternative fuels. Since these are voluntary
measures and reporting/verification is not a requirement, the amount of
NOX and VOC reductions that may occur are not easily
quantifiable, but they do provide positive WOE from this sector.
8. Is the attainment demonstration approvable?
Consistent with EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.1108(c), Texas
submitted a modeled attainment demonstration based on a photochemical
grid modeling evaluation. EPA has reviewed the components of TCEQ's
photochemical modeling demonstration and finds the analysis is
consistent with EPA's guidance and meets 40 CFR part 51, including 40
CFR part 51 Appendix W--Guideline on Air Quality Models. The
photochemical modeling was conducted to project 2017 ozone levels to
demonstrate attainment of the standard by the attainment date. Although
the modeled attainment test is not met at one of the 20 HGB monitors
because one of the monitors was projected to remain above the standard,
consistent with our A.D. guidance, TCEQ submitted a WOE analysis that
supports that the emission levels in the area are consistent with
attainment. This WOE analysis provides additional scientific analyses
based on identification of emission reductions not captured in the
modeling, monitoring trends, recent monitoring data (EPA included more
recent monitoring data since the SIP submission) and other modeling
analyses. The average of the 2016 and preliminary 2017 4th High Data
indicates all monitors but one are at or below the standard. This
includes the Manvel Croix monitor, the one monitor projected in the
modeling to be over the standard, with a value of 73 ppb. The one
monitor, which the 2016-2017 average is above standard is just 1 ppb
over. The combination of the modeling and the WOE indicate that recent
emission levels are consistent with attainment of the standard and
demonstrate attainment by the attainment date. We are therefore
proposing to approve the attainment demonstration submitted in the
December 29, 2016 submittal.
B. RACM
A demonstration is required that all RACM necessary to demonstrate
attainment as expeditiously as practicable has been adopted (CAA
section 172(c)(1) and 40 CF 51.1112(c)). 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 by at least a year (57 FR 13498, 13560, April 16, 1992;
74 FR 2945, 2951, January 16, 2009; and 78 FR 55037, 55044, September
9, 2013).
Texas identified and analyzed whether potential control measures
would be considered a RACM measure. Texas determined that none of these
measures meet the five RACM criteria. We reviewed the RACM analysis and
propose to approve the Texas demonstration that the HGB area has met
the RACM requirement. We note that to advance the attainment date by at
least a year (to July 20, 2017) additional control measures would need
to be implemented at the beginning of 2016. Given the requirement for a
SIP revision was published December 14, 2016, it is not feasible that
additional measures could be implemented at the beginning of 2016.
C. Contingency Measures Plan
CAA section 172(c)(9) require contingency measures to be
implemented in the event of failure to attain the NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date or if the area fails to make reasonable
further progress. 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
should provide additional emissions reductions of up to 3% of the base
year inventory (or lesser percentage that will cure the identified
failure). The reductions are to be achieved in the year following the
year in which the failure has been identified (57 FR 13498, 13510-12,
April 16, 1992). The base year inventory is that specified by CAA
section 182(b)(1)(B) and 40 CFR 51.1115.
The Texas contingency measures plan is based on (1) a 2011 base
year inventory, (2) a 2% NOX emissions reduction and a 1%
VOC emissions reduction and (3) reductions from 2017 to 2018 due to
Federal control measures for on-road motor vehicles. Texas used the EPA
MOVES2014a mobile source
[[Page 24455]]
emissions estimation model to calculate the on-road emissions
reductions.
Table 4 is a summary of the Texas contingency measures plan for the
HGB area. As Texas has demonstrated that the base year emissions will
be reduced by at least 3% from 2017 to 2018, we propose to approve the
HGB contingency measures plan.
Table 4--Contingency Measures Demonstration for the HGB Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX emissions
Description (tons per day) VOC emissions
(tons per day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Year Emissions Inventory........... 459.94 531.40
Percent for Contingency Calculation..... 2% 1%
(Total of 3%)...........................
Required 2017 to 2018 Contingency 9.20 5.31
Reductions.............................
Total 2017 to 2018 Contingency 24.35 8.78
Reductions due to Federal Measures for
On-road Motor Vehicles.................
Contingency Excess (+) or Shortfall (-). +15.15 +3.47
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. MVEBs
MVEBs are required for ozone attainment demonstrations to ensure
that transportation plans, transportation improvement programs and
federally supported highway and transit projects are consistent with
(``conform to'') the purpose of the SIP. Conformity to the purpose of
the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air
quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely
attainment of the relevant NAAQS or interim reductions and milestones
(81 FR 12264, 12283-84, March 6, 2015). The SIP included attainment
NOX and VOC MVEBs for the 2017 attainment year (table 5).
The MVEBs represents the maximum level of on-road emissions of
NOX and VOC that can be produced in 2017--when considered
with emissions from all other sources--which demonstrate attainment of
the NAAQS. As our review found that the 2017 MVEBs are consistent with
the emissions inventory and control measures that we are proposing
provide for attainment, we propose to approve the MVEBs.
Table 5--2017 HGB MVEBs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summer weekday
Pollutant emissions
(tons per day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX..................................................... 95.56
VOC..................................................... 54.40
------------------------------------------------------------------------
When reviewing submitted ``control strategy'' SIPs containing
MVEBs, EPA may affirmatively find the MVEBs contained therein adequate
for use in determining transportation conformity. EPA's substantive
criteria for determining adequacy of a MVEB are set out in 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4). EPA is evaluating the adequacy of the submitted MVEBs in
parallel to this proposed approval action on the attainment
demonstration. The NOX and VOC MVEBs for the HGB area opened
for public comment on EPA's adequacy website on May 17, 2018, found at:
https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/state-implementation-plans-sip-submissions-currently-under-epa. The adequacy
comment period for these MVEBs will close on June 18, 2018.
Once EPA affirmatively finds the submitted MVEBs are adequate for
transportation conformity purposes, these MVEBs must be used by state
and Federal agencies in determining whether proposed transportation
projects conform to the SIP as required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
Within 24 months from the effective date of EPA's adequacy
determination for the MVEBs or the publication date for the final rule
for this action, whichever is earlier, the transportation partners will
need to demonstrate conformity to the new NOX and VOC MVEBs
pursuant to 40 CFR 93.104(e)(3).
E. CAA 110(l) Demonstration
Section 110(l) of the CAA precludes EPA from approving a revision
of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and RFP (as defined in section 171 of
the Act), or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. This action
proposes approval of a plan that demonstrates that already adopted
measures both Federal or State will provide levels of emissions
consistent with attaining the ozone NAAQS. Since it is a demonstration,
it will not interfere with any other requirement of the Act. Also in
this action, we are proposing to approve the attainment MVEBs, which
are lower than MVEBs proposed to be approved for RFP (83 FR 17964,
April 25, 2018), and the contingency measures plan. The lower
attainment demonstration MVEBs and on-going emission reductions through
the contingency measures plan both provide progress toward attainment
and as such do not interfere with any applicable requirement of the
Act.
III. Proposed Action
We are proposing to approve elements of a HGB area SIP revision for
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Specifically, we are proposing approval of
the attainment demonstration, a RACM analysis, the contingency measures
plan in the event of failure to attain the NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date, and NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2017. We are
proposing approval of the use of TATU's tool and its Unmonitored Area
analysis as acceptable for meeting the recommended evaluation of ozone
levels in the Unmonitored Area analysis for this SIP approval action.
Further, as part of today's action, we are describing the status of our
adequacy determination for the NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2017 in
accordance with 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2). Within 24 months from the
effective date of our adequacy determination for the MVEBs or the
publication date for a final rule approving the MVEBs, whichever is
earlier, the transportation partners will need to demonstrate
conformity to the new NOX and VOC MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR
93.104(e)(3).
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, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
[[Page 24456]]
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
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 CAA; 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will
not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November
9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Ozone.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 22, 2018.
Anne Idsal,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2018-11352 Filed 5-25-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
