Air Plan Approval; Texas; Reasonable Further Progress Plan for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Ozone Nonattainment Area, 60928-60933 [2020-20849]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
60928
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 29, 2020 / Proposed Rules
message can be received without
jeopardizing the safety or security of
people, places, or vessels.
V. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
We view public participation as
essential to effective rulemaking and
will consider all comments and material
received during the comment period.
Your comment can help shape the
outcome of this rulemaking. If you
submit a comment, please include the
docket number for this rulemaking,
indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment
applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit
comments through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. If your material
cannot be submitted using https://
www.regulations.gov, contact the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions.
We accept anonymous comments. All
comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this
document, see DHS’s eRulemaking
System of Records notice (85 FR 14226,
March 11, 2020).
Documents mentioned in this NPRM
as being available in the docket, and all
public comments, will be in our online
docket at https://www.regulations.gov
and can be viewed by following that
website’s instructions. Additionally, if
you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified
when comments are posted or a final
rule is published.
List of Subjects 33 CFR Part 162
Navigation (water), Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 162 as follows:
PART 162—INLAND WATERWAYS
NAVIGATION REGULATIONS
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. In § 162.134, revise paragraph (a)(4)
to read as follows:
■
§ 162.134 Connecting waters from Lake
Huron to Lake Erie; traffic rules.
(a) * * *
(4) Between the west end of Belle Isle
and Peche Island Light, vessels may
16:27 Sep 28, 2020
Jkt 250001
Dated: August 26, 2020.
Brad. W. Kelly,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Detroit.
[FR Doc. 2020–19238 Filed 9–28–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R06–OAR–2020–0300; FRL–10014–
58–Region 6]
Air Plan Approval; Texas; Reasonable
Further Progress Plan for the HoustonGalveston-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 to approve revisions to the
Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP)
to meet the Reasonable Further Progress
(RFP) requirements for the HoustonGalveston-Brazoria (HGB) serious ozone
nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS). Specifically, EPA is
proposing to approve the RFP
demonstration and associated motor
vehicle emission budgets, contingency
measures should the area fail to make
RFP emissions reductions or attain the
2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date, and a revised 2011 base
year emissions inventory for the HGB
area.
SUMMARY:
Written comments must be
received on or before October 29, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket No. EPA–R06–
OAR–2020–0300, at https://
www.regulations.gov or via email to
paige.carrie@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
DATES:
1. The authority citation for part 162
continues to read as follows:
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
overtake vessels if the vessel to be
overtaken is engaged in towing or has
slowed its speed to await berth
availability or to make the turn for
Rouge River, and the overtaking vessel
has so advised the Canadian Coast
Guard Marine Communications and
Traffic Services Centre located in
Sarnia, Ontario.
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 Carrie Paige, 214–665–6521,
paige.carrie@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://
www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epadockets.
Docket: The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at
www.regulations.gov. While all
documents in the docket are listed in
the index, some information may not be
publicly available due to docket file size
restrictions or content (e.g., CBI).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Carrie Paige, EPA Region 6 Office,
Infrastructure & Ozone Section, 214–
665–6521, paige.carrie@epa.gov. Out of
an abundance of caution for members of
the public and our staff, the EPA Region
6 office may be closed to the public to
reduce the risk of transmitting COVID–
19. We encourage the public to submit
comments via https://
www.regulations.gov, as there may be a
delay in processing mail and courier or
hand deliveries may not be accepted.
Please call or email the contact listed
above if you need alternative access to
material indexed but not provided in
the docket.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document wherever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
the EPA.
I. Introduction
On May 13, 2020, the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ or State) submitted to EPA a SIP
revision addressing RFP requirements
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for
the two serious ozone nonattainment
areas in Texas (‘‘the TCEQ submittal’’).
These two areas are the HGB and the
Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) areas. The
TCEQ submittal also establishes motor
vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for
the year 2020 and includes contingency
measures for each of the HGB and DFW
areas, should the areas fail to make
reasonable further progress, or to attain
E:\FR\FM\29SEP1.SGM
29SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 29, 2020 / Proposed Rules
the NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date.
In this rulemaking action, we are
addressing only that portion of the
TCEQ submittal that refers to the HGB
area. We are proposing to approve the
RFP demonstration and associated
contingency measures for RFP or
failure-to-attain and MVEBs for the HGB
area. We are also proposing to approve
a revised 2011 base year emissions
inventory (EI) for the HGB area. The
portion of the TCEQ submittal that
refers to the DFW area will be addressed
in a separate rulemaking action.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
II. Background
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).1 The HGB area
was classified as a marginal ozone
nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS 2 and initially given an
attainment date of no later than
December 31, 2015 (77 FR 30088 and 77
FR 30160, May 21, 2012). The HGB area
consists of Brazoria, Chambers, Fort
Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty,
Montgomery and Waller counties.
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 date and we revised the
attainment date to July 20, 2016 (81 FR
1 On October 1, 2015, the EPA promulgated a
more protective 8-hour ozone standard of 0.070
ppm (80 FR 65292, October 26, 2015). On April 30,
2018, the EPA promulgated designations under the
2015 ozone standard (83 FR 25776, June 4, 2018)
and in that action, the EPA designated Brazoria,
Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, and
Montgomery counties as a marginal ozone
nonattainment area. The RFP plan is not required
for a marginal nonattainment area under the 2015
ozone standard. The TCEQ submittal does not
specifically address the 2015 ozone standard, but
provides progress toward attaining the new
standard. For more information on ozone, see our
Technical Support Document (TSD) in the docket
for this rulemaking and visit https://www.epa.gov/
ground-level-ozone-pollution.
2 Throughout this document, we refer to the 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS as the ‘‘2008 ozone NAAQS.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Sep 28, 2020
Jkt 250001
26697, May 4, 2016). The HGB area did
not meet the revised attainment
deadline and we reclassified the area to
moderate with an attainment date no
later than July 20, 2018 (81 FR 90207,
December 14, 2016). Subsequently, the
HGB area did not meet the moderate
attainment date and was reclassified as
a serious ozone nonattainment area (84
FR 44238, August 23, 2019).3
Accordingly, the State was required to
submit revisions to the HGB SIP to meet
serious area requirements.
The CAA requires that areas
designated as nonattainment for ozone
and classified as moderate or worse
demonstrate RFP by reducing emissions
of ozone precursors (nitrogen oxides or
NOX and volatile organic compounds or
VOC).4 On March 6, 2015 (80 FR 12264),
EPA published the final rule to
implement the 2008 ozone standard (the
‘‘SIP Requirements Rule’’ or ‘‘SRR’’) that
addressed, among other things, the RFP
control and planning obligations as they
apply to areas designated nonattainment
for the 2008 ozone standard. In the SRR,
RFP was defined (for the purposes of the
2008 ozone standard) as meaning the
progress reductions required under
sections 172(c)(2) and 182(b)(1) and
(c)(2)(B) and (c)(2)(C) of the CAA (80 FR
12264, 12313).5 RFP plans must also
include a MVEB, which provides the
allowable on-road mobile emissions an
area can produce and continue to
demonstrate RFP (57 FR 13498, 13558,
April 16, 1992).
The RFP plan for the HGB moderate
ozone nonattainment area for the 2008
ozone NAAQS was approved on
February 13, 2019 (84 FR 3708) and it
demonstrated required emissions
reductions through the end of calendar
year 2017. Because the HGB area was
reclassified as a serious ozone
nonattainment area, pursuant to CAA
section 182(c)(2) and 40 CFR 51.1110,
the RFP SIP for the HGB area must
demonstrate NOX and/or VOC emissions
reductions of at least an average of 3
percent per year for the calendar years
2018, 2019, and 2020 for a total of 9
percent and an additional 3 percent for
contingency measures in 2021, should
the area fail to meet RFP or fail to attain
the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the July 20,
2021 attainment date. Finally, the
emissions reductions must occur within
the HGB area.
3 For more on the history of ozone in the HGB
area, see our TSD in the docket for this rulemaking
and visit https://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/sip/
hgb/hgb-ozone-history.
4 See CAA sections 172(c)(2) and 182(b)(1) and 40
CFR 51.1110.
5 See 40 CFR 51.1110.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
60929
III. EPA’s Evaluation of the TCEQ
Submittal
We reviewed the TCEQ submittal for
consistency with the requirements of
the CAA and EPA regulations and
guidance. A summary of our analysis
and findings are provided below. For a
more detailed discussion of our
evaluation, please see our TSD in the
docket for this rulemaking action.
A. Revised 2011 Base Year Emissions
Inventory
An emissions inventory (EI) is a
collection of data that lists, by source,
the amount of air pollutants discharged
into the atmosphere, during a year or
other time period. The EI includes
estimates of the emissions associated
with the air quality problems in the area
(in this case, NOX and VOC) from
various pollution sources. The State
submitted a 2011 base year EI for the
2008 ozone NAAQS, which we
approved for the HGB area (80 FR
9204).6 The State later revised the 2011
base year EI for the HGB area, which we
approved (84 FR 3708). In the TCEQ
submittal, the State further refined the
2011 base year EI for the HGB area.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1110(b), the
values in the submitted 2011 base year
EI are actual ozone season day
emissions. Pursuant to CAA sections
172(c)(3) and 182(b)(1), the submitted
2011 base year EI consists of NOX and
VOC emissions from all sources inside
the nonattainment area. Compared with
that approved at 84 FR 3708, the
submitted 2011 base year NOX
emissions decrease by 17.02 tons per
day (tpd) and VOC emissions increase
by 3.66 tpd. The revised 2011 base year
EI was developed using EPA-approved
guidelines for point, mobile, and area
emission sources. Point source
emissions data for 2011 were pulled
from the State of Texas Air Reporting
System (STARS) database—these data
also include all authorized/planned
Startup, Shutdown and Maintenance
emissions.7 On-road and nonroad
mobile source emissions were
calculated using the EPA’s
MOVES2014a model 8 combined with
6 See
also the EI regulations at 40 CFR 51.1115.
are not obligated to include malfunction
emissions in the base year inventory for RFP plans.
See the discussion beginning on page 83 of
Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation
of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze
Regulations EPA–454/B–17–003, available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201707/documents/ei_guidance_may_2017_final_
rev.pdf (hereinafter referred to as ‘‘EPA’s EI
Guidance’’) (July 2017).
8 EPA’s Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator
(MOVES) is a state-of-the-science emission
7 States
E:\FR\FM\29SEP1.SGM
Continued
29SEP1
60930
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 29, 2020 / Proposed Rules
local activity inputs including vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) and average speed
data, as well as local fleet, age
distribution, and fuels information. Area
sources include many categories of
emissions. The EPA finds that these
sources were adequately accounted for
in the revised 2011 base year EI. The
methodology used to calculate
emissions for each respective category
followed relevant EPA EI guidance 9 and
was sufficiently documented in the
TCEQ Submittal.10 We are proposing to
approve the revised 2011 base year EI.
Table 1 summarizes the revised EI for
the HGB area. See our TSD for more
detail.
TABLE 1—HGB RFP 2011 BASE YEAR EI
2011 Base year inventory, reported in tpd
VOC
NOX
Source type
Approved at
84 FR 3708
Revised
inventory
Approved at
84 FR 3708
Revised
inventory
Point .................................................................................................................
Area .................................................................................................................
Non-road Mobile ..............................................................................................
On-road Mobile ................................................................................................
108.33
21.15
142.44
188.02
108.33
21.15
144.84
168.60
95.99
304.90
49.78
80.73
95.97
308.53
50.11
80.45
Total ..........................................................................................................
459.94
442.92
531.40
535.06
B. Reasonable Further Progress
Demonstration
To calculate the required RFP
emission reductions, CAA section 182
and 40 CFR 51.1110(b) require that the
percent reduction be calculated from the
base year EI. The required reductions
are then subtracted from the 2011 base
year EI to provide the RFP emissions
target numbers. See our TSD and the
TCEQ submittal for more detail. The
RFP calculations are shown in Table 2.
TABLE 2—CALCULATION OF RFP TARGET EMISSION REDUCTIONS THROUGH 2020
[tpd]
Description
NOX
a. 2011 Emissions Inventory (totals from Table 1) .................................................................................................
b. Percent of NOX and VOC to meet 15% reduction 11 (percentages must total 15, and 10 + 5 = 15) ................
c. Percent of NOX and VOC to meet 9% reduction (percentages must total 9, and 6.2 + 2.8 = 9) ......................
d. 15% NOX and VOC reduction, 2011–2017 (row a multiplied by row b) (442.92 × 0.1 = 44.29) and (535.06 ×
0.05 = 26.75) ........................................................................................................................................................
e. 9% NOX and VOC reduction, 2018–2020 (row a multiplied by row c) (442.92 × 0.062 = 27.46) and (535.06
× 0.028 = 14.98) ...................................................................................................................................................
f. Total emissions reductions for 2011–2020 (row d plus row e) ............................................................................
g. 2020 Target Level of Emissions (row a minus row f) .........................................................................................
To determine whether the area is able
to meet the RFP target, the State must
establish the future year (2020) EI and
subtract any control measures that will
be applied to sources in the HGB area.
Section 182(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires
that states provide sufficient control
measures in their RFP plans to offset
growth in emissions. The controls
identified by the State to achieve RFP
VOC
442.92
10.0%
6.2%
535.06
5.0%
2.8%
44.29
26.75
27.46
71.75
371.17
14.98
41.73
493.33
are listed in Table 3. For more detail on
these controls, see our TSD and the
TCEQ submittal.
TABLE 3—HGB AREA CONTROL MEASURES AND PROJECTED EMISSION REDUCTIONS (tpd), 2011–2020
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Control strategy description
NOX
Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) .................................................................................................
Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) 12/Low Sulfur Gasoline/Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) ........................................
Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) (66 FR 57261, 11/14/2001) ..............................................................................
On-road Texas Low-Emission Diesel (TxLED) 13 ....................................................................................................
Tier I and II locomotive NOX standards ..................................................................................................................
Small non-road spark-ignition (SI) engines (Phase I) .............................................................................................
Heavy duty non-road engines .................................................................................................................................
Tiers 2 and 3 non-road diesel engines ...................................................................................................................
Small non-road SI engines (Phase II) .....................................................................................................................
Large non-road SI and recreational marine ............................................................................................................
Non-road TxLED ......................................................................................................................................................
modeling system that estimates emissions for
mobile sources at the national, county, and project
level for criteria air pollutants, greenhouse gases,
and air toxics. See https://www.epa.gov/moves.
9 In addition to EPA’s EI Guidance, see
MOVES2014 and MOVES2014a Technical
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Sep 28, 2020
Jkt 250001
Guidance: Using MOVES to Prepare Emission
Inventories for State Implementation Plans and
Transportation Conformity, EPA–420–B–15–093,
available at https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/
P100NN9L.PDF?Dockey=P100NN9L.pdf (Nov.
2015).
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
561.84
101.55
5.13
2.39
21.02
¥3.17
26.71
30.22
2.22
37.37
1.36
VOC
245.62
16.96
7.39
0.00
0.81
25.60
13.71
2.62
23.67
16.51
0.00
10 See our TSD and the TCEQ submittal with
appendices in the docket for this rulemaking.
11 To account for the reductions required and
taken under the moderate area RFP plan, we reduce
emissions by 15% between 2011 and 2017. See 84
FR 3708.
E:\FR\FM\29SEP1.SGM
29SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 29, 2020 / Proposed Rules
60931
TABLE 3—HGB AREA CONTROL MEASURES AND PROJECTED EMISSION REDUCTIONS (tpd), 2011–2020—Continued
Control strategy description
NOX
VOC
Non-road RFG .........................................................................................................................................................
Tier 4 non-road diesel engines ................................................................................................................................
Small SI (Phase III) .................................................................................................................................................
Drilling rigs: Federal engine standards and TxLED ................................................................................................
Commercial Marine Vessel engine certification standards and fuel programs .......................................................
0.01
17.70
2.16
0.43
14.76
0.73
0.78
15.43
0.09
0.12
Total Projected Emission Reductions ..............................................................................................................
821.70
370.04
To determine whether the area will
meet the RFP targets, we subtract the
projected emission reductions (Table 3)
from the projected EI of uncontrolled
emissions for 2020. This projected EI
will reflect emissions resulting from
anticipated changes in activity from
2011 to 2020, such as emissions
increases due to growth in population
and VMT. NOX emissions from sites
with equipment applicable to the Mass
Emissions Cap and Trade (MECT)
Program were projected using the MECT
cap. Major stationary sources of VOC
emissions were projected by adding
emissions growth allowed under the
nonattainment New Source Review NSR
major modification thresholds. The
projected EI was also adjusted to
account for available (unused)
emissions credits.14 For more detail on
the projected EI, please see our TSD and
the TCEQ submittal. The methodology
used to forecast the 2020 emissions for
each respective category followed
relevant EPA EI guidance and was
sufficiently documented in the TCEQ
submittal. The projected EI data in
Table 4 are labeled as ‘‘uncontrolled’’
emissions. To achieve RFP, the amount
of emissions remaining after subtracting
the emissions reductions from the
control measures must be equal to or
less than the target inventories
calculated in Table 2.
TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF RFP DEMONSTRATION FOR THE HGB AREA THROUGH 2020
[tpd]
Description
NOX
a. 2020 Uncontrolled emissions ..............................................................................................................................
b. Projected emissions reductions through 2020 (total from Table 3) ....................................................................
c. Projected Emissions after Reductions (subtract line b from line a) ....................................................................
d. 3% reductions reserved for prior (2017–2018) RFP milestone contingency measures .....................................
e. Projected emissions, including prior contingency requirement (add lines c and d) ...........................................
f. 2020 Target (from Table 2) ..................................................................................................................................
If the projected emissions (line e) are less than the RFP target (line f), the area demonstrates RFP. Is line e
less than line f? ....................................................................................................................................................
g. Subtract line e from line f for surplus ..................................................................................................................
1,165.66
821.70
343.96
13.29
357.25
371.17
854.65
370.04
484.61
........................
484.61
493.33
Yes
13.92
Yes
8.72
As noted earlier, RFP plans for
moderate and above nonattainment
areas must include contingency
measures, which, consistent with CAA
section 172(c)(9), ‘‘shall provide for the
implementation of specific measures to
be undertaken if the area fails to make
reasonable further progress, or to attain
the national primary ambient air quality
standard by the attainment date
applicable under this part.’’ EPA has
long interpreted the contingency
measures provision to allow states to
rely on measures already in place and
implemented so long as those
reductions are beyond those relied on
for purposes of the attainment or RFP
planning SIP.15 In addition, the April
16, 1992 General Preamble provided the
following guidance: ‘‘States must show
that their contingency measures can be
implemented with minimal further
action on their part and with no
additional rulemaking actions such as
public hearings or legislative review. In
general, EPA will expect all actions
needed to affect full implementation of
the measures to occur within 60 days
after EPA notifies the State of its
failure.’’ (57 FR 13512).
While the CAA does not specify the
type of measures or quantity of
emissions reductions required, EPA
interprets the CAA to mean that
implementation of these contingency
measures would provide additional
emissions reductions of up to 3 percent
of the adjusted base year inventory (or
a lesser percentage that will make up
the identified shortfall) in the year
following the missed milestone,
whether it be RFP or attainment.16
The TCEQ submittal provides NOX
reductions for the HGB contingency
measures. These contingency measure
reductions for the HGB area are not
12 The RFG program is implemented in all 8
counties identified elsewhere in this proposal as the
HGB area. For more information on the RFG
program, visit https://www.epa.gov/gasolinestandards/reformulated-gasoline.
13 The TxLED fuel rules apply to highway (onroad) and non-road vehicles and were approved
into the Texas SIP on November 14, 2001 (66 FR
57196). Subsequent revisions were approved April
6, 2005 (70 FR 17321), October 6, 2005 (70 FR
58325), October 24, 2008 (73 FR 63378), and May
6, 2013 (78 FR 26255).
14 Emissions credits are banked emissions
reductions that may return to the air shed in the
future when these emissions credits are used either
to modify existing facilities, construct new
facilities, or demonstrate compliance with source-
specific emissions limit obligations where provided
for in Texas SIP rules.
15 This interpretation has been upheld by the
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (and the State of
Texas is within the Fifth Circuit jurisdiction). See
LEAN v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575 (5th Cir. 2004).
16 See the April 16, 1992 General Preamble
section III.A.3.c (57 FR 13498 at 13511).
In Table 4, we see that the projected
emissions in row e, after accounting for
reductions from controls and the 2017–
2018 contingency measures, are less
than the 2020 RFP target emissions and
thus, demonstrate RFP. We are
proposing that the emissions reductions
projected for 2020 are sufficient to meet
the 2020 RFP targets.
C. Contingency Measures
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
VOC
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Sep 28, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\29SEP1.SGM
29SEP1
60932
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 29, 2020 / Proposed Rules
relied upon for RFP or for attainment.
The TCEQ submittal includes but is not
limited to surplus emissions reductions
from the 2020 RFP demonstration (see
Table 4, line g) for the HGB area
contingency measure demonstration.
The TCEQ submittal also includes
emission reductions that will take place
during calendar year 2021 for the HGB
area contingency measure
demonstration—these contingency
measures consist of State mobile source
measures that are already approved in
the SIP (I/M, RFG, and TxLED) 17 and
federal measures (FMVCP and ULSD).
Thus, the contingency measures for
2021 are reliable, permanent, and
enforceable. The contingency measures
are listed in Table 5.
TABLE 5—DEMONSTRATION FOR 2021 FOR THE HGB AREA RFP CONTINGENCY MEASURES
[tpd]
NOX
VOC
Description
a. 2011 Base year Emissions Inventory (from Table 1) .........................................................................................
b. Percent of NOX and VOC to meet contingency measure requirement (total must equal 3%) ..........................
c. 3% NOX reduction for 2021 (row a multiplied by row b) (442.92 × 0.03 = 13.29) .............................................
442.92
3%
13.29
535.06
0
0
13.92
¥8.21
8.72
¥5.49
24.19
13.05
4.59
34.49
2.29
18.57
21.20
Yes
18.57
Yes
Excess reductions to meet contingency requirement
d. Surplus RFP reductions (from Table 4) ..............................................................................................................
e. Subtract 2020 RFP MVEB safety margin 18 ........................................................................................................
f. 2020 to 2021 emission reductions (FMVCP, I/M, RFG, 2017 low sulfur gasoline standard on-road TxLED,
and ULSD) ...........................................................................................................................................................
g. 2020 to 2021 emission reductions (federal non-road mobile new vehicle certification standards, non-road
RFG, and non-road TxLED) .................................................................................................................................
h. Total projected emissions, accounting for contingency measures (add lines d, e, f, and g) .............................
Total surplus or shortfall
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Line h is greater than line c. Subtract line c from line h for surplus .......................................................................
Is the contingency measure requirement met? .......................................................................................................
be implemented with no further action
by the State. We are proposing to
approve the contingency measures for
the HGB area.
In Table 5, we see that the
contingency measures provided for the
HGB area, after accounting for the
MVEB safety margin, are more than
sufficient to meet the 3 percent
contingency requirement. Indeed, if the
HGB area relied only on the contingency
measures scheduled for implementation
during 2021 (Table 5, lines f and g), after
accounting for the MVEB safety margin,
those contingency measures alone
would be adequate to meet the 3 percent
contingency requirement. In addition,
the contingency measures that occur
from 2020 to 2021 are State and Federal
measures that are already approved into
the Texas SIP and as such are expected
to be implemented with no further
action by the State and with no
additional rulemaking actions. Our
evaluation of these contingency
measures finds that the full
implementation of such measures
within 60 days after EPA notifies the
State of its failure is achievable as, the
contingency measures that occur from
2020 to 2021 are State and Federal
measures already approved into the
Texas SIP and as such are expected to
The MVEB is the mechanism to
determine if future transportation plans
conform to the SIP. Transportation
conformity is required by CAA section
176(c) and mandates that future
transportation plans must not produce
new air quality violations, worsen
existing violations, delay RFP
milestones, or delay timely attainment
of the NAAQS. Thus, pursuant to CAA
section 176(c), the RFP plan must
include MVEBs for transportation
conformity purposes. The MVEB is the
maximum amount of emissions allowed
in the SIP for on-road motor vehicles.
The HGB RFP SIP contains VOC and
NOX MVEBs for RFP milestone year
2020 (see Table 6). On-road emissions
must be shown in future transportation
plans to be less than the MVEBs for
2020 and subsequent years.
EPA is evaluating the adequacy of the
submitted MVEBs in parallel to this
17 As noted earlier in this rulemaking, the I/M
program was approved into the SIP in 2001 (66 FR
57261). See footnotes 14 and 15 regarding approval
of RFG and TxLED in the SIP.
18 The safety margin allows for unanticipated
growth in vehicle miles traveled, changes, and
uncertainty in vehicle mix assumptions, etc., that
will influence the emission estimates.
19 On June 3, 2020, EPA posted the HGB area NO
X
and VOC MVEBs on EPA’s website for the purpose
of soliciting public comments, as part of the
adequacy process. The comment period closed on
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Sep 28, 2020
Jkt 250001
D. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
proposed approval action. Once EPA
finds the submitted MVEBs are adequate
for transportation conformity purposes,
those 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. EPA’s
criteria for determining adequacy of a
MVEB are set out in 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4). The process for
determining adequacy is described in
our TSD.
EPA intends to make its
determination on the adequacy of the
2020 RFP MVEBs for the HGB area for
transportation conformity purposes
soon, by completing the adequacy
process that was started on June 3,
2020.19 After EPA finds the 2020
MVEBs adequate or approves them, the
new MVEBs for NOX and VOC must be
used for future transportation
conformity determinations. For required
regional emissions analysis years 2020
and beyond, the applicable budgets will
be the new 2020 MVEBs. We are
proposing to approve the 2020 MVEBs
for the HGB area.
July 3, 2020, and we received no comments. For
more information, visit https://www.epa.gov/stateand-local-transportation/state-implementationplans-sip-submissions-currently-underepa#houston-texas-rea.
E:\FR\FM\29SEP1.SGM
29SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 29, 2020 / Proposed Rules
60933
TABLE 6—RFP MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS FOR HGB
[tpd]
Year
NOX
VOC
2020 .........................................................................................................................................................................
87.69
57.70
III. Proposed Action
We are proposing to approve revisions
to the Texas SIP that address the RFP
requirements for the HGB serious ozone
nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. Specifically, we are proposing
to approve the RFP demonstration and
associated MVEBs, contingency
measures for RFP or failure-to-attain,
and the revised 2011 base year EI for the
HGB area. Further, as part of today’s
action, EPA is describing the status of
its adequacy determination for the NOX
and VOC MVEBs for 2020 in accordance
with 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2). 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).
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
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:
• 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.);
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Sep 28, 2020
Jkt 250001
• 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: September 16, 2020.
Kenley McQueen,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2020–20849 Filed 9–28–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0699; FRL–10015–
10–Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Attainment
Plan for the Muskingum River SO2
Nonattainment Area
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
revision to the Ohio State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on
April 3, 2015 and October 13, 2015, and
supplemented on June 23, 2020, by the
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
(Ohio EPA), consisting of its plan for
attaining the 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2)
primary national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS) for the Muskingum
River, Ohio SO2 nonattainment area.
This plan (herein called a
‘‘nonattainment plan’’) includes Ohio’s
attainment demonstration and other
elements required under the Clean Air
Act (CAA). In addition to an attainment
demonstration, the plan addresses the
requirements for meeting reasonable
further progress (RFP) toward
attainment of the NAAQS, reasonably
available control measures (RACM) and
reasonably available control technology
(RACT), enforceable emission
limitations and control measures, baseyear and projection-year emission
inventories, and contingency measures.
EPA proposes to conclude that Ohio has
appropriately demonstrated that the
plan provisions provide for attainment
of the 2010 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS
in the Muskingum River, Ohio
nonattainment area and that the plan
meets the other applicable requirements
under the CAA.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before October 29, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2015–0699 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
aburano.douglas@epa.gov. For
comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted,
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\29SEP1.SGM
29SEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 189 (Tuesday, September 29, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60928-60933]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20849]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R06-OAR-2020-0300; FRL-10014-58-Region 6]
Air Plan Approval; Texas; Reasonable Further Progress Plan 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 to approve revisions
to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) to meet the Reasonable
Further Progress (RFP) requirements for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria
(HGB) serious ozone nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Specifically, EPA is proposing to
approve the RFP demonstration and associated motor vehicle emission
budgets, contingency measures should the area fail to make RFP
emissions reductions or attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date, and a revised 2011 base year emissions inventory for
the HGB area.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 29, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2020-0300, 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 Carrie Paige, 214-665-
6521, paige.carri[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://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov. While all documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some information may not be publicly
available due to docket file size restrictions or content (e.g., CBI).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carrie Paige, EPA Region 6 Office,
Infrastructure & Ozone Section, 214-665-6521, [email protected]. Out
of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff, the
EPA Region 6 office may be closed to the public to reduce the risk of
transmitting COVID-19. We encourage the public to submit comments via
https://www.regulations.gov, as there may be a delay in processing mail
and courier or hand deliveries may not be accepted. Please call or
email the contact listed above if you need alternative access to
material indexed but not provided in the docket.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.
I. Introduction
On May 13, 2020, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ or State) submitted to EPA a SIP revision addressing RFP
requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the two serious ozone
nonattainment areas in Texas (``the TCEQ submittal''). These two areas
are the HGB and the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) areas. The TCEQ submittal
also establishes motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the year
2020 and includes contingency measures for each of the HGB and DFW
areas, should the areas fail to make reasonable further progress, or to
attain
[[Page 60929]]
the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.
In this rulemaking action, we are addressing only that portion of
the TCEQ submittal that refers to the HGB area. We are proposing to
approve the RFP demonstration and associated contingency measures for
RFP or failure-to-attain and MVEBs for the HGB area. We are also
proposing to approve a revised 2011 base year emissions inventory (EI)
for the HGB area. The portion of the TCEQ submittal that refers to the
DFW area will be addressed in a separate rulemaking action.
II. Background
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).\1\ The HGB area was classified as a marginal ozone nonattainment
area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS \2\ and initially given an attainment
date of no later than December 31, 2015 (77 FR 30088 and 77 FR 30160,
May 21, 2012). The HGB area consists of Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend,
Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery and Waller counties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On October 1, 2015, the EPA promulgated a more protective 8-
hour ozone standard of 0.070 ppm (80 FR 65292, October 26, 2015). On
April 30, 2018, the EPA promulgated designations under the 2015
ozone standard (83 FR 25776, June 4, 2018) and in that action, the
EPA designated Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, and
Montgomery counties as a marginal ozone nonattainment area. The RFP
plan is not required for a marginal nonattainment area under the
2015 ozone standard. The TCEQ submittal does not specifically
address the 2015 ozone standard, but provides progress toward
attaining the new standard. For more information on ozone, see our
Technical Support Document (TSD) in the docket for this rulemaking
and visit https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution.
\2\ Throughout this document, we refer to the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS as the ``2008 ozone NAAQS.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
date and we revised the attainment date to July 20, 2016 (81 FR 26697,
May 4, 2016). The HGB area did not meet the revised attainment deadline
and we reclassified the area to moderate with an attainment date no
later than July 20, 2018 (81 FR 90207, December 14, 2016).
Subsequently, the HGB area did not meet the moderate attainment date
and was reclassified as a serious ozone nonattainment area (84 FR
44238, August 23, 2019).\3\ Accordingly, the State was required to
submit revisions to the HGB SIP to meet serious area requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For more on the history of ozone in the HGB area, see our
TSD in the docket for this rulemaking and visit https://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/sip/hgb/hgb-ozone-history.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CAA requires that areas designated as nonattainment for ozone
and classified as moderate or worse demonstrate RFP by reducing
emissions of ozone precursors (nitrogen oxides or NOX and
volatile organic compounds or VOC).\4\ On March 6, 2015 (80 FR 12264),
EPA published the final rule to implement the 2008 ozone standard (the
``SIP Requirements Rule'' or ``SRR'') that addressed, among other
things, the RFP control and planning obligations as they apply to areas
designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone standard. In the SRR, RFP
was defined (for the purposes of the 2008 ozone standard) as meaning
the progress reductions required under sections 172(c)(2) and 182(b)(1)
and (c)(2)(B) and (c)(2)(C) of the CAA (80 FR 12264, 12313).\5\ RFP
plans must also include a MVEB, which provides the allowable on-road
mobile emissions an area can produce and continue to demonstrate RFP
(57 FR 13498, 13558, April 16, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See CAA sections 172(c)(2) and 182(b)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1110.
\5\ See 40 CFR 51.1110.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The RFP plan for the HGB moderate ozone nonattainment area for the
2008 ozone NAAQS was approved on February 13, 2019 (84 FR 3708) and it
demonstrated required emissions reductions through the end of calendar
year 2017. Because the HGB area was reclassified as a serious ozone
nonattainment area, pursuant to CAA section 182(c)(2) and 40 CFR
51.1110, the RFP SIP for the HGB area must demonstrate NOX
and/or VOC emissions reductions of at least an average of 3 percent per
year for the calendar years 2018, 2019, and 2020 for a total of 9
percent and an additional 3 percent for contingency measures in 2021,
should the area fail to meet RFP or fail to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS
by the July 20, 2021 attainment date. Finally, the emissions reductions
must occur within the HGB area.
III. EPA's Evaluation of the TCEQ Submittal
We reviewed the TCEQ submittal for consistency with the
requirements of the CAA and EPA regulations and guidance. A summary of
our analysis and findings are provided below. For a more detailed
discussion of our evaluation, please see our TSD in the docket for this
rulemaking action.
A. Revised 2011 Base Year Emissions Inventory
An emissions inventory (EI) is a collection of data that lists, by
source, the amount of air pollutants discharged into the atmosphere,
during a year or other time period. The EI includes estimates of the
emissions associated with the air quality problems in the area (in this
case, NOX and VOC) from various pollution sources. The State
submitted a 2011 base year EI for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, which we
approved for the HGB area (80 FR 9204).\6\ The State later revised the
2011 base year EI for the HGB area, which we approved (84 FR 3708). In
the TCEQ submittal, the State further refined the 2011 base year EI for
the HGB area. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1110(b), the values in the
submitted 2011 base year EI are actual ozone season day emissions.
Pursuant to CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(b)(1), the submitted 2011
base year EI consists of NOX and VOC emissions from all
sources inside the nonattainment area. Compared with that approved at
84 FR 3708, the submitted 2011 base year NOX emissions
decrease by 17.02 tons per day (tpd) and VOC emissions increase by 3.66
tpd. The revised 2011 base year EI was developed using EPA-approved
guidelines for point, mobile, and area emission sources. Point source
emissions data for 2011 were pulled from the State of Texas Air
Reporting System (STARS) database--these data also include all
authorized/planned Startup, Shutdown and Maintenance emissions.\7\ On-
road and nonroad mobile source emissions were calculated using the
EPA's MOVES2014a model \8\ combined with
[[Page 60930]]
local activity inputs including vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and
average speed data, as well as local fleet, age distribution, and fuels
information. Area sources include many categories of emissions. The EPA
finds that these sources were adequately accounted for in the revised
2011 base year EI. The methodology used to calculate emissions for each
respective category followed relevant EPA EI guidance \9\ and was
sufficiently documented in the TCEQ Submittal.\10\ We are proposing to
approve the revised 2011 base year EI. Table 1 summarizes the revised
EI for the HGB area. See our TSD for more detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See also the EI regulations at 40 CFR 51.1115.
\7\ States are not obligated to include malfunction emissions in
the base year inventory for RFP plans. See the discussion beginning
on page 83 of Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of
Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations EPA-454/B-17-003, available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-07/documents/ei_guidance_may_2017_final_rev.pdf (hereinafter referred to as
``EPA's EI Guidance'') (July 2017).
\8\ EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) is a state-
of-the-science emission modeling system that estimates emissions for
mobile sources at the national, county, and project level for
criteria air pollutants, greenhouse gases, and air toxics. See
https://www.epa.gov/moves.
\9\ In addition to EPA's EI Guidance, see MOVES2014 and
MOVES2014a Technical Guidance: Using MOVES to Prepare Emission
Inventories for State Implementation Plans and Transportation
Conformity, EPA-420-B-15-093, available at https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100NN9L.PDF?Dockey=P100NN9L.pdf (Nov. 2015).
\10\ See our TSD and the TCEQ submittal with appendices in the
docket for this rulemaking.
Table 1--HGB RFP 2011 Base Year EI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 Base year inventory, reported in tpd
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX VOC
---------------------------------------------------------------
Source type Approved at 84 Revised Approved at 84 Revised
FR 3708 inventory FR 3708 inventory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point........................................... 108.33 108.33 95.99 95.97
Area............................................ 21.15 21.15 304.90 308.53
Non-road Mobile................................. 142.44 144.84 49.78 50.11
On-road Mobile.................................. 188.02 168.60 80.73 80.45
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 459.94 442.92 531.40 535.06
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Reasonable Further Progress Demonstration
To calculate the required RFP emission reductions, CAA section 182
and 40 CFR 51.1110(b) require that the percent reduction be calculated
from the base year EI. The required reductions are then subtracted from
the 2011 base year EI to provide the RFP emissions target numbers. See
our TSD and the TCEQ submittal for more detail. The RFP calculations
are shown in Table 2.
Table 2--Calculation of RFP Target Emission Reductions Through 2020
[tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description NOX VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. 2011 Emissions Inventory (totals from 442.92 535.06
Table 1)...............................
b. Percent of NOX and VOC to meet 15% 10.0% 5.0%
reduction \11\ (percentages must total
15, and 10 + 5 = 15)...................
c. Percent of NOX and VOC to meet 9% 6.2% 2.8%
reduction (percentages must total 9,
and 6.2 + 2.8 = 9).....................
d. 15% NOX and VOC reduction, 2011-2017 44.29 26.75
(row a multiplied by row b) (442.92 x
0.1 = 44.29) and (535.06 x 0.05 =
26.75).................................
e. 9% NOX and VOC reduction, 2018-2020 27.46 14.98
(row a multiplied by row c) (442.92 x
0.062 = 27.46) and (535.06 x 0.028 =
14.98).................................
f. Total emissions reductions for 2011- 71.75 41.73
2020 (row d plus row e)................
g. 2020 Target Level of Emissions (row a 371.17 493.33
minus row f)...........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To determine whether the area is able to meet the RFP target, the
State must establish the future year (2020) EI and subtract any control
measures that will be applied to sources in the HGB area. Section
182(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires that states provide sufficient control
measures in their RFP plans to offset growth in emissions. The controls
identified by the State to achieve RFP are listed in Table 3. For more
detail on these controls, see our TSD and the TCEQ submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ To account for the reductions required and taken under the
moderate area RFP plan, we reduce emissions by 15% between 2011 and
2017. See 84 FR 3708.
Table 3--HGB Area Control Measures and Projected Emission Reductions
(tpd), 2011-2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control strategy description NOX VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program 561.84 245.62
(FMVCP)................................
Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) \12\/Low 101.55 16.96
Sulfur Gasoline/Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel
(ULSD).................................
Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) (66 FR 5.13 7.39
57261, 11/14/2001).....................
On-road Texas Low-Emission Diesel 2.39 0.00
(TxLED) \13\...........................
Tier I and II locomotive NOX standards.. 21.02 0.81
Small non-road spark-ignition (SI) -3.17 25.60
engines (Phase I)......................
Heavy duty non-road engines............. 26.71 13.71
Tiers 2 and 3 non-road diesel engines... 30.22 2.62
Small non-road SI engines (Phase II).... 2.22 23.67
Large non-road SI and recreational 37.37 16.51
marine.................................
Non-road TxLED.......................... 1.36 0.00
[[Page 60931]]
Non-road RFG............................ 0.01 0.73
Tier 4 non-road diesel engines.......... 17.70 0.78
Small SI (Phase III).................... 2.16 15.43
Drilling rigs: Federal engine standards 0.43 0.09
and TxLED..............................
Commercial Marine Vessel engine 14.76 0.12
certification standards and fuel
programs...............................
-------------------------------
Total Projected Emission Reductions. 821.70 370.04
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To determine whether the area will meet the RFP targets, we
subtract the projected emission reductions (Table 3) from the projected
EI of uncontrolled emissions for 2020. This projected EI will reflect
emissions resulting from anticipated changes in activity from 2011 to
2020, such as emissions increases due to growth in population and VMT.
NOX emissions from sites with equipment applicable to the
Mass Emissions Cap and Trade (MECT) Program were projected using the
MECT cap. Major stationary sources of VOC emissions were projected by
adding emissions growth allowed under the nonattainment New Source
Review NSR major modification thresholds. The projected EI was also
adjusted to account for available (unused) emissions credits.\14\ For
more detail on the projected EI, please see our TSD and the TCEQ
submittal. The methodology used to forecast the 2020 emissions for each
respective category followed relevant EPA EI guidance and was
sufficiently documented in the TCEQ submittal. The projected EI data in
Table 4 are labeled as ``uncontrolled'' emissions. To achieve RFP, the
amount of emissions remaining after subtracting the emissions
reductions from the control measures must be equal to or less than the
target inventories calculated in Table 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The RFG program is implemented in all 8 counties identified
elsewhere in this proposal as the HGB area. For more information on
the RFG program, visit https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards/reformulated-gasoline.
\13\ The TxLED fuel rules apply to highway (on-road) and non-
road vehicles and were approved into the Texas SIP on November 14,
2001 (66 FR 57196). Subsequent revisions were approved April 6, 2005
(70 FR 17321), October 6, 2005 (70 FR 58325), October 24, 2008 (73
FR 63378), and May 6, 2013 (78 FR 26255).
\14\ Emissions credits are banked emissions reductions that may
return to the air shed in the future when these emissions credits
are used either to modify existing facilities, construct new
facilities, or demonstrate compliance with source-specific emissions
limit obligations where provided for in Texas SIP rules.
Table 4--Summary of RFP Demonstration for the HGB Area Through 2020
[tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description NOX VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. 2020 Uncontrolled emissions.......... 1,165.66 854.65
b. Projected emissions reductions 821.70 370.04
through 2020 (total from Table 3)......
c. Projected Emissions after Reductions 343.96 484.61
(subtract line b from line a)..........
d. 3% reductions reserved for prior 13.29 ..............
(2017-2018) RFP milestone contingency
measures...............................
e. Projected emissions, including prior 357.25 484.61
contingency requirement (add lines c
and d).................................
f. 2020 Target (from Table 2)........... 371.17 493.33
If the projected emissions (line e) are Yes Yes
less than the RFP target (line f), the
area demonstrates RFP. Is line e less
than line f?...........................
g. Subtract line e from line f for 13.92 8.72
surplus................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Table 4, we see that the projected emissions in row e, after
accounting for reductions from controls and the 2017-2018 contingency
measures, are less than the 2020 RFP target emissions and thus,
demonstrate RFP. We are proposing that the emissions reductions
projected for 2020 are sufficient to meet the 2020 RFP targets.
C. Contingency Measures
As noted earlier, RFP plans for moderate and above nonattainment
areas must include contingency measures, which, consistent with CAA
section 172(c)(9), ``shall provide for the implementation of specific
measures to be undertaken if the area fails to make reasonable further
progress, or to attain the national primary ambient air quality
standard by the attainment date applicable under this part.'' EPA has
long interpreted the contingency measures provision to allow states to
rely on measures already in place and implemented so long as those
reductions are beyond those relied on for purposes of the attainment or
RFP planning SIP.\15\ In addition, the April 16, 1992 General Preamble
provided the following guidance: ``States must show that their
contingency measures can be implemented with minimal further action on
their part and with no additional rulemaking actions such as public
hearings or legislative review. In general, EPA will expect all actions
needed to affect full implementation of the measures to occur within 60
days after EPA notifies the State of its failure.'' (57 FR 13512).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ This interpretation has been upheld by the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals (and the State of Texas is within the Fifth Circuit
jurisdiction). See LEAN v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575 (5th Cir. 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the CAA does not specify the type of measures or quantity of
emissions reductions required, EPA interprets the CAA to mean that
implementation of these contingency measures would provide additional
emissions reductions of up to 3 percent of the adjusted base year
inventory (or a lesser percentage that will make up the identified
shortfall) in the year following the missed milestone, whether it be
RFP or attainment.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See the April 16, 1992 General Preamble section III.A.3.c
(57 FR 13498 at 13511).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The TCEQ submittal provides NOX reductions for the HGB
contingency measures. These contingency measure reductions for the HGB
area are not
[[Page 60932]]
relied upon for RFP or for attainment. The TCEQ submittal includes but
is not limited to surplus emissions reductions from the 2020 RFP
demonstration (see Table 4, line g) for the HGB area contingency
measure demonstration. The TCEQ submittal also includes emission
reductions that will take place during calendar year 2021 for the HGB
area contingency measure demonstration--these contingency measures
consist of State mobile source measures that are already approved in
the SIP (I/M, RFG, and TxLED) \17\ and federal measures (FMVCP and
ULSD). Thus, the contingency measures for 2021 are reliable, permanent,
and enforceable. The contingency measures are listed in Table 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ As noted earlier in this rulemaking, the I/M program was
approved into the SIP in 2001 (66 FR 57261). See footnotes 14 and 15
regarding approval of RFG and TxLED in the SIP.
Table 5--Demonstration for 2021 for the HGB Area RFP Contingency
Measures
[tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. 2011 Base year Emissions Inventory 442.92 535.06
(from Table 1).........................
b. Percent of NOX and VOC to meet 3% 0
contingency measure requirement (total
must equal 3%).........................
c. 3% NOX reduction for 2021 (row a 13.29 0
multiplied by row b) (442.92 x 0.03 =
13.29).................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excess reductions to meet contingency requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Surplus RFP reductions (from Table 4) 13.92 8.72
e. Subtract 2020 RFP MVEB safety margin -8.21 -5.49
\18\...................................
f. 2020 to 2021 emission reductions 24.19 13.05
(FMVCP, I/M, RFG, 2017 low sulfur
gasoline standard on-road TxLED, and
ULSD)..................................
g. 2020 to 2021 emission reductions 4.59 2.29
(federal non-road mobile new vehicle
certification standards, non-road RFG,
and non-road TxLED)....................
h. Total projected emissions, accounting 34.49 18.57
for contingency measures (add lines d,
e, f, and g)...........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total surplus or shortfall
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Line h is greater than line c. Subtract 21.20 18.57
line c from line h for surplus.........
Is the contingency measure requirement Yes Yes
met?...................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Table 5, we see that the contingency measures provided for the
HGB area, after accounting for the MVEB safety margin, are more than
sufficient to meet the 3 percent contingency requirement. Indeed, if
the HGB area relied only on the contingency measures scheduled for
implementation during 2021 (Table 5, lines f and g), after accounting
for the MVEB safety margin, those contingency measures alone would be
adequate to meet the 3 percent contingency requirement. In addition,
the contingency measures that occur from 2020 to 2021 are State and
Federal measures that are already approved into the Texas SIP and as
such are expected to be implemented with no further action by the State
and with no additional rulemaking actions. Our evaluation of these
contingency measures finds that the full implementation of such
measures within 60 days after EPA notifies the State of its failure is
achievable as, the contingency measures that occur from 2020 to 2021
are State and Federal measures already approved into the Texas SIP and
as such are expected to be implemented with no further action by the
State. We are proposing to approve the contingency measures for the HGB
area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The safety margin allows for unanticipated growth in
vehicle miles traveled, changes, and uncertainty in vehicle mix
assumptions, etc., that will influence the emission estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets
The MVEB is the mechanism to determine if future transportation
plans conform to the SIP. Transportation conformity is required by CAA
section 176(c) and mandates that future transportation plans must not
produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, delay
RFP milestones, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. Thus, pursuant
to CAA section 176(c), the RFP plan must include MVEBs for
transportation conformity purposes. The MVEB is the maximum amount of
emissions allowed in the SIP for on-road motor vehicles. The HGB RFP
SIP contains VOC and NOX MVEBs for RFP milestone year 2020
(see Table 6). On-road emissions must be shown in future transportation
plans to be less than the MVEBs for 2020 and subsequent years.
EPA is evaluating the adequacy of the submitted MVEBs in parallel
to this proposed approval action. Once EPA finds the submitted MVEBs
are adequate for transportation conformity purposes, those 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. EPA's criteria for determining adequacy of a MVEB
are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). The process for determining
adequacy is described in our TSD.
EPA intends to make its determination on the adequacy of the 2020
RFP MVEBs for the HGB area for transportation conformity purposes soon,
by completing the adequacy process that was started on June 3,
2020.\19\ After EPA finds the 2020 MVEBs adequate or approves them, the
new MVEBs for NOX and VOC must be used for future
transportation conformity determinations. For required regional
emissions analysis years 2020 and beyond, the applicable budgets will
be the new 2020 MVEBs. We are proposing to approve the 2020 MVEBs for
the HGB area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ On June 3, 2020, EPA posted the HGB area NOX and
VOC MVEBs on EPA's website for the purpose of soliciting public
comments, as part of the adequacy process. The comment period closed
on July 3, 2020, and we received no comments. For more information,
visit https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/state-implementation-plans-sip-submissions-currently-under-epa#houston-texas-rea.
[[Page 60933]]
Table 6--RFP Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for HGB
[tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year NOX VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020.................................. 87.69 57.70
------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Proposed Action
We are proposing to approve revisions to the Texas SIP that address
the RFP requirements for the HGB serious ozone nonattainment area for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Specifically, we are proposing to approve the RFP
demonstration and associated MVEBs, contingency measures for RFP or
failure-to-attain, and the revised 2011 base year EI for the HGB area.
Further, as part of today's action, EPA is describing the status of its
adequacy determination for the NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2020 in
accordance with 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2). 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).
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:
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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: September 16, 2020.
Kenley McQueen,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2020-20849 Filed 9-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
