
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 174 (Monday, September 9, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55029-55037]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21883]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0333; FRL-9900-83-Region 6]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation; Texas; Houston: 
Reasonable Further Progress Plan, Contingency Measures, and 
Transportation Conformity Budgets for the 1997 8-Hour Severe Ozone 
Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Texas State 
Implementation Plan to the emissions inventory (EI), the reasonable 
further progress (RFP) plan and contingency measures, the vehicle miles 
traveled (VMT) offset analysis, and transportation conformity motor 
vehicle emissions budgets associated with the reasonable further 
progress portion of these revisions. The EPA is proposing to approve 
these revisions because they satisfy the EI, the RFP, the VMT offset, 
and transportation conformity requirements for areas classified as 
severe nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air 
quality standard and demonstrate further progress in reducing ozone 
precursors.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 9, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-
OAR-2010-0333, by one of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     U.S. EPA Region 6 ``Contact Us'' Web site: http://epa.gov/region6/r6coment.htm. Please click on ``6PD'' (Multimedia) and select 
``Air'' before submitting comments.
     Email: Mr. Guy Donaldson at donaldson.guy@epa.gov. Please 
also send a copy by email to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section below.
     Fax: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), at fax number 214-665-7263.
     Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, 
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
     Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air 
Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross 
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are 
accepted only between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. weekdays 
except for legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for 
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2010-0333. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through 
www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI 
or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an 
``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without 
going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your 
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with 
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due 
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the 
EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should 
avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be 
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the 
EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning Section 
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, 
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by 
appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room 
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal 
holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT paragraph below to make an appointment. If possible, please 
make the appointment at least two working days in advance of your 
visit. There will be a fee of 15 cents per page for making photocopies 
of documents. On the day of the visit, please check in at the EPA 
Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.
    The State submittal, which is part of the EPA record, is also 
available for public inspection at the State Air Agency listed below 
during official business hours by appointment: Texas Commission on 
Environmental Quality, Office of Air Quality, 12124 Park 35 Circle, 
Austin, Texas 78753.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Sandra Rennie, Air Planning 
Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross 
Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-7367; 
fax number (214) 665-7263; email address rennie.sandra@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,'' 
and ``our'' means EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA proposing?
II. What is the background for this action?
III. What is EPA's evaluation of the revisions?
    A. Base Year Emissions Inventory
    B. Adjusted Base Year Inventory and 2008 RFP Target Levels
    C. Projected Inventories and Determination of RFP
    D. Control Measures and Emission Reductions for RFP
    E. Contingency Measures
    F. Vehicle Miles Traveled Offset Analysis
    G. Transportation Conformity Budgets
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA proposing?

    The EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Texas State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) 
ozone nonattainment area submitted by the Texas Commission on 
Environmental Quality on April 1, 2010,

[[Page 55030]]

and an updated revision using the MOVES2010a \1\ mobile model submitted 
on May 6, 2013. We are proposing to approve the following SIP elements: 
The revised emission inventory (EI); the reasonable further progress 
plan (RFP) and contingency measures; the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) 
offset analysis; and the associated motor vehicle emission budget 
(MVEB) for transportation conformity. The SIP revision satisfies the 
EI, RFP, VMT offset, and MVEB requirements for areas classified as 
severe nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air 
quality standard (NAAQS) and demonstrates reasonable further progress 
in reducing ozone precursors. We are proposing to take this action 
pursuant to section 110 and part D of the Clean Air Act (Act or CAA) 
and EPA's regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ MOVES is an acronym for MOtor Vehicle Emission Simulator. 
This new emission modeling system released September 23, 2011, 
estimates emissions for mobile sources covering a broad range of 
pollutants and allows multiple scale analysis of emissions estimates 
from cars, trucks & motorcycles. Use of the MOVES model in SIPs was 
required as of March 2, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What is the background for this action?

    In 1997 (62 FR 38856), the EPA revised the health-based NAAQS for 
ozone, setting it at 0.08 parts per million (ppm) averaged over an 8-
hour time frame. The EPA set the 8-hour ozone standard based on 
scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone causes adverse health 
effects at lower ozone concentrations and over a longer period of time 
than was understood when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone standard was 
set. The EPA determined that the 8-hour standard would be more 
protective of human health, especially children and adults who are 
active outdoors, and individuals with a pre-existing respiratory 
disease, such as asthma.
    On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858), the EPA finalized its attainment/
nonattainment designations for areas across the country with respect to 
the 8-hour ozone standard. These actions became effective on June 15, 
2004. Among those areas designated as nonattainment is HGB.
    This designation triggered the CAA's section 110(a)(1) requirement 
that states must submit attainment demonstrations for their 
nonattainment areas to the EPA by no later than three years after the 
promulgation of the NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA's phase I 8-hour ozone 
implementation rule (Phase I Rule), published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 
23951), specified that states must submit attainment demonstrations for 
their nonattainment areas to the EPA by no later than three years from 
the effective date of designation, that is, by June 15, 2007.
    Pursuant to the Phase 1 rule, an area was classified under subpart 
2 of the CAA based on its 8-hour design value if that area had a 1-hour 
design value at or above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour design value in 
Table 1 of subpart 2). Based on this criterion, the HGB nonattainment 
area was classified as a moderate nonattainment area.
    On November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612), and as revised on June 8, 2007 
(72 FR 31727), EPA published the final Phase 2 Rule for implementation 
of the 8-hour standard (Phase 2 rule). The Phase 2 rule addressed the 
RFP control and planning obligations as they apply to areas designated 
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    Among other things, the Phase 1 and Phase 2 rules outline the SIP 
requirements and deadlines for various requirements in areas designated 
as moderate and above nonattainment. The rule further requires that 
modeling and attainment demonstrations, RFP plans, reasonably available 
control measures (RACM), projection year emission inventories, MVEB, 
and contingency measures were all due by June 15, 2007 (See 40 CFR 
51.908(a), (c)).
    Section 182(b)(1) of the CAA and EPA's 1997 8-hour ozone 
implementation rule (40 CFR 51.910) require each 8-hour ozone 
nonattainment area designated moderate and above to submit an EI and 
RFP plan, for review and approval into its SIP, that describe how the 
area will achieve actual emissions reductions of VOC and NOX 
from a baseline emissions inventory.
    On June 15, 2007, the EPA received a request from Texas Governor 
Perry seeking voluntary reclassification of the HGB nonattainment area 
from moderate to severe nonattainment under the 1997 8-hour ozone 
standard. The EPA reclassified the eight-county HGB area from a 
moderate to a severe nonattainment area for the 1997 eight-hour ozone 
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) effective on October 31, 
2008. (73 FR 56983). Reclassification of the HGB area to severe 
required Texas to develop and submit a revised RFP SIP and a VMT offset 
analysis.

III. What is EPA's evaluation of the revisions?

    The EPA's analysis and findings are discussed in this proposed 
rulemaking. A more detailed discussion is contained in the Technical 
Support Document (TSD) for this Proposal, which is available on line at 
http://www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0333.
    On April 1, 2010, Texas submitted an updated emission inventory, a 
plan demonstrating 18 percent RFP for the period 2002-2008, contingency 
measures for RFP, and on-road VOC and NOX MVEBs. In 
addition, the RFP demonstrated 9% reductions from 2009 through 2011; 9% 
reductions from 2012 through 2014; 9% reductions from 2015 through 
2017; 3% reductions in 2018; and 3% reductions in 2019 for contingency 
purposes. These accompanied an attainment demonstration which is the 
subject of a separate rulemaking. These SIP revisions were subject to 
notice and comment by the public, and the State of Texas addressed the 
comments received on the proposed SIP revisions. The State revised the 
EI and the RFP in a submittal dated May 6, 2013, using EPA's MOVES2010a 
mobile model in place of MOBILE6 that was used in the 2010 submittal.

A. Base Year Emissions Inventory

    An emissions inventory is a comprehensive, accurate, current 
inventory of actual emissions from all sources of the relevant 
pollutant or pollutants in an area and is required by section 172(c)(3) 
of the CAA. For ozone nonattainment areas, the emissions inventory 
needs to contain VOC and NOX emissions because these 
pollutants are precursors to ozone formation. In the Phase 2 
implementation rule, the EPA recommended 2002 as the base year 
emissions inventory,\2\ and is therefore the starting point for 
calculating RFP. Texas submitted the 2002 base year inventories for all 
state nonattainment areas on May 13, 2005. The EPA approved the HGB 
emission inventory on April 22, 2009 (74 FR 18298). The April 2010 and 
May 2013 submittals provide an updated base year inventory using 
MOVES2010a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ November 18, 2002 EPA memorandum ``2002 Base Year Emission 
Inventory SIP Planning: 8-Hour Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional 
Haze Programs, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/2002baseinven_102502new.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the 2002 Base Year 
Emissions Inventory. Table 1 provides the 2002 emissions inventory as 
previously submitted in 2005 and approved in 2009 with the updated 2010 
inventory revised and adopted by Texas in 2013 for approval into the 
SIP.

[[Page 55031]]



                        Table 1--Revisions to the 2002 RFP Base Year Emissions Inventory
                                                   [Tons/day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Source type                                  NOX                             VOC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Submittal date                        2005            2010            2005            2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................          339.48          339.29          297.12          316.62
Area............................................           40.15           89.11          219.51          407.61
On-road Mobile..................................          283.20          371.89          114.30          124.47
Non-road Mobile.................................          167.74          156.98          112.37           84.32
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................          830.57          957.27          743.30          933.02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A summary of the updated 2002 base year inventory submitted May 6, 
2013 is shown in Table 2 below.

                             Table 2--RFP 2002 Baseline Emissions Inventory Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Uncontrolled                     Controlled
                   Source type                   ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        NOX             VOC             NOX             VOC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................          339.29          316.62          339.29          316.62
Area............................................           89.11          407.61           89.11          407.61
On-road Mobile..................................          552.30          205.76          371.89          124.47
Non-road Mobile.................................          166.98          100.15          156.98           84.32
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................         1147.68         1030.14          957.27          933.02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Adjusted Base Year Inventory and 2008 RFP Target Levels

    The process for determining the emissions baseline from which the 
RFP reductions are calculated is described in section 182(b)(1) of the 
CAA and 40 CFR 51.910. This baseline value is the 2002 adjusted base 
year inventory. Sections 182(b)(1)(B) and (D) require the exclusion 
from the base year inventory of emissions benefits resulting from the 
Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) regulations promulgated 
by January 1, 1990, and the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) regulations 
promulgated June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23666). The FMVCP and RVP emissions 
reductions are determined by the State using EPA's highway mobile 
source emissions model software, MOVES2010a. The FMVCP and RVP emission 
reduction are then removed from the base year inventory by the State, 
resulting in an adjusted base year inventory. The emission reductions 
needed to satisfy the RFP requirement are then calculated from the 
adjusted base year inventory. The reductions are then subtracted from 
the adjusted base year inventory to establish the emissions target for 
the RFP milestone year (2018).
    For severe areas like the HGB nonattainment area, the CAA Sec.  
182(c)(2)(B) specifies a 15 percent reduction in ozone precursor 
emissions over an initial six-year period, and an additional three 
percent per year for every year thereafter until the attainment year. 
In the Phase 2 rule, EPA provided that areas that were also designated 
nonattainment and classified as moderate or higher for the 1-hour ozone 
standard and that have the same boundaries as an area for which the EPA 
fully approved a 15 percent plan for the 1-hour NAAQS, are considered 
to have met the requirement of section 182(b)(1) of the CAA for the 8-
hour NAAQS. In this situation, a severe nonattainment area is subject 
to RFP under 172(c)(2) of the CAA and shall submit, no later than three 
years after designation for the 8-hour NAAQS, a SIP revision that meets 
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.910(b)(2). The RFP SIP revision must 
provide for a 15 percent emission reduction (of NOX and/or 
VOC) accounting for any growth that occurs during the six year period 
following the baseline emissions inventory year, i.e., 2002-2008.
    The HGB nonattainment area had the same boundary under the 1-hour 
ozone standard as that of the 8-hour ozone standard. The HGB area under 
the 1-hour ozone standard was classified as severe. The EPA approved 
the HGB 15 percent RFP plan on April 22, 2009 (74 FR 18298). Therefore, 
according to the Phase 2 Rule, the RFP plan for the HGB nonattainment 
area may use either NOX or VOC emissions reductions (or 
both) to achieve the 15 percent emission reduction requirement.
    According to section 182(b)(1)(D) of the CAA, emission reductions 
that resulted from the FMVCP and RVP rules promulgated prior to 1990 
are not creditable for achieving RFP emission reductions. Therefore, 
the 2002 base year inventory is adjusted by subtracting the VOC and 
NOX emission reductions that area expected to occur between 
2002 and the future milestone years due to FMVCP and RVP rules.
    Texas sets out its calculations for the adjusted base year (ABY) 
inventory and milestone target levels in Chapter 2, section 2.5.3 of 
the 2010 submittal and Chapter 2, section 2.5 of the 2013 submittal, 
according to the following method. See the calculations in Table 3 
below.
    Step 1. Estimate the actual anthropogenic base year inventory for 
both VOC and NOX in 2002 with all 2002 control programs in 
place.
    Step 2. Using the same highway vehicle activity inputs used to 
calculate the actual 2002 inventory, run the appropriate motor vehicle 
emissions model for 2002 and for 2008 with all post-1990 CAA measures 
turned off. Any other local inputs for vehicle inspection and 
maintenance (I/M) programs should be set according to the program that 
was required to be in place in 1990. Fuel RVP should be set at 9.0 or 
7.8 depending on the RVP required in the local area as a result of fuel 
RVP regulations promulgated in June 1990.

[[Page 55032]]

    Step 3. Calculate the difference between 2002 and 2008 VOC 
emissions factors calculated in Step 2 and multiply by 2002 VMT. The 
result is the VOC emissions reductions that will occur between 2002 and 
2008 without the benefits of any post-1990 CAA measures. These are the 
non-creditable VOC reductions that occur over this period. Calculate 
the difference between 2002 and 2008 NOX emissions factors 
calculated in Step 2 and multiply by 2002 VMT. This result is the 
NOX emissions reductions that will occur between 2002 and 
2008 without the benefits of any post-1990 CAA measures. These are the 
non-creditable NOX reductions that occur over this period.
    Step 4. Subtract the non-creditable VOC reductions calculated in 
Step 3 from the actual anthropogenic 2002 VOC inventory estimated in 
Step 1. Subtract the non-creditable NOX reductions 
calculated in Step 3 from the actual anthropogenic 2002 NOX 
inventory estimated in Step 1. These adjusted VOC and NOX 
inventories are the basis for calculating the target level of emissions 
in 2008.
    Step 5. The target level of VOC and NOX emissions in 
2008 needed to meet the 2008 rate of progress ROP requirement is any 
combination of VOC and NOX reductions from the adjusted 
inventories calculated in Step 4 that total 18 percent.

                    Table 3--HGB NAA 2008 RFP Target Level Calculations With NOX Substitution
                                               [Ozone Season tpd]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Description                                Formula           NOX             VOC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 2002 Rate-of Progress Base Year Inventory.....................  ..............          957.27          933.02
B 2002 On-road ABY emissions inventory..........................  ..............          552.30          205.76
C FMVCP/RVP Reductions Between 2002 and 2008....................             B-C          -25.99           -0.13
D 2008 On-road ABY emissions inventory..........................  ..............          578.29          205.89
E 2008 ABY emission inventory...................................  ..............          983.26          933.15
F RFP Ratio.....................................................  ..............             17%              1%
G Emissions Reductions Required Between 2002 & 2008.............           E x F          167.15            9.33
 Target Level for 2008..........................................             A-G          816.10          923.82
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Projected Inventories and Determination of RFP

    Texas describes its methods used for developing its 2018 projected 
VOC and NOX inventories in Chapter 2 of the 2010 SIP 
submittal. EPA reviewed the procedures Texas used to develop its 
projected inventories and found them to be reasonable.
    Projected controlled 2018 emissions for the HGB nonattainment area 
are summarized in Tables 4 and 5.

                       Table 4--Summary of HGB RFP NOX Emission Reductions in Tons per Day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Control strategy description         2008            2011            2014            2017            2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mass Emissions Cap and Trade              219.83          227.65          243.87          263.23          269.94
 Program (MECT).................
Tank Landing Loss Rule..........            0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00
Federal Portable Fuel Container             0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00
 (PFC) Rule.....................
Federal Motor Vehicle Control             150.64          319.72          409.05          486.84          510.15
 Program (FMVCP)................
Federal Reformulated Gasoline             150.64          189.54          213.44          235.00          241.29
 (RFG)..........................
Inspection and Maintenance (I/M)           17.35           16.62           11.80            8.03            7.10
On-road Texas Low Emission                  6.03            5.08            3.52            2.55            2.36
 Diesel (TxLED).................
Tier I and II Locomotive NOX               11.74           12.75           14.09           15.24           16.04
 standards......................
Small Non-Road Spark Ignition          \1\ -0.30       \1\ -0.39       \1\ -0.47       \1\ -0.56       \1\ -0.58
 (SI) Phase I...................
Heavy-duty Non-Road Engines.....            5.76            7.91            9.64           12.02           12.56
Tier 2 and 3 Non-Road Diesel                8.13           14.01           18.76           23.25           24.29
 Engines........................
Federal Standards for New Small             1.25            1.65            1.85            1.99            2.04
 Non-Road Spark Ignition (SI)
 Engines (Phase II).............
Federal Standards for New Large            12.27           20.30           27.01           31.10           32.13
 Non-road SI and Recreational
 Marine.........................
Non-road TxLED..................            2.87            2.59            2.14            1.73            1.59
Non-road RFG....................            0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00
Tier 4 Federal Standards for                0.00            0.52            4.67           10.96           12.82
 Diesel Engines.................
Federal Marine Diesel Tier 2....            1.96            3.23            4.72            6.20            6.90
Sum of Control Reductions.......          678.70          821.18          964.09         1097.58         1138.63
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The negative NOX emissions reductions number from Small Non-Road SI Phase I engines is attributed to fleet
  growth in light of more stringent standards.


                       Table 5--Summary of HGB RFP VOC Emission Reductions in Tons per Day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Control strategy description         2008            2011            2014            2017            2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mass Emissions Cap and Trade                0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00
 Program (MECT).................
Tank Landing Loss Rule..........            0.00           11.50           11.50           11.50           11.50
Federal Portable Fuel Container             0.00            3.68            9.65           10.10           10.25
 (PFC) Rule.....................
Federal Motor Vehicle Control             109.17          148.83          188.98          222.89          232.44
 Program (FMVCP)................
Reformulated Gasoline (RFG).....           22.03           22.79           17.27           14.12           13.48
Inspection and Maintenance (I/M)            9.56            9.77            7.99            6.86            6.51

[[Page 55033]]

 
On-road Texas Low Emission                  0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00
 Diesel (TxLED).................
Tier I and II Locomotive NOX                0.27            0.34            0.43            0.53            0.59
 standards......................
Small Non-Road Spark Ignition               1.77            2.50            3.23            3.95            4.19
 (SI) Phase I...................
Heavy-Duty Non- Road Engines....            4.73            6.82            8.54           10.17           10.58
Tier 2 and 3 Non-Road Diesel                0.95            1.68            2.32            2.95            3.10
 Engines........................
Small Non-Road Spark Ignition              16.70           20.81           22.72           24.13           24.57
 (SI) Engines (Phase II)........
Large Non-Road SI and                       4.14            7.96           11.37           14.03           14.76
 Recreational Marine............
Non-road TxLED..................            0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00            0.00
Non-road RFG....................            0.04            0.13            0.22            0.30            0.33
Tier 4 Diesel Engines...........            0.00            0.03            0.26            0.52            0.59
Federal Marine Diesel Tier 2....            0.08            0.12            0.18            0.24            0.26
Sum of Control Reductions.......          169.44          236.96          284.66          322.29          333.15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine if 2018 RFP is met in the HGB nonattainment area, the 
total projected controlled emissions must be compared to the target 
levels calculated in the previous section of this document. As show 
below in Table 6, the total VOC and NOX emission projections 
meet the 2018 emission targets. Therefore, the 2018 RFP in the HGB 
nonattainment area is demonstrated.

              Table 6--Summary of RFP Demonstration for HGB
                               [Tons/Day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Inventory                      NOX               VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2018 Target.......................            555.22            907.50
2 2018 Uncontrolled Emissions.......           1636.21           1210.28
3 2008-2017 RFP Emission Reductions.           1097.60            302.46
4 2017-2018 RFP Emission Reductions.             41.03             10.86
5 Controlled RFP Emissions Forecast             497.59            896.95
 (Line 2 minus Line 3 minus Line 4).
6 Amount of Creditable Reductions                24.58              4.67
 Reserved for 2009-2018 Contingency.
7 2018 Projected Emissions after RFP            522.17            901.62
 Reductions (Add Lines 5 and 6).....
8 Excess(+)/Shortfall(-) (Line1                 +33.04             +5.88
 minus Line 7)......................
9 RFP Met? (Line 7 < Line 1)........               Yes               Yes
------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Control Measures and Emission Reductions for RFP

    The control measures upon which Texas relies for credit to 
demonstrate RFP requirements for the HGB nonattainment area are 
described in Chapter 4 of the 2010 SIP submittal. To demonstrate RFP 
for the HGB nonattainment area, Texas used a combination of (1) 
stationary point, (2) highway mobile, and (3) non-road mobile source 
control measures.
    Stationary point source NOX reductions are from the mass 
emissions cap and trade program (MECT). The MECT program is mandatory 
for stationary facilities that emit NOX in the HGB ozone 
nonattainment area (at sites that have a collective design capacity of 
10 tons per year or more) and which are subject to the Texas Commission 
on Environmental Quality NOX rules as found at 30 TAC 
Chapter 117. Non-road emission reductions are from Federal controls on 
non-road engines. Reduction in on-road mobile source emissions are from 
the inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, summer reformulated 
gasoline, the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP), and the 
Texas low emission diesel (TxLED) program.
    The EPA initially approved the MECT rules on November 14, 2001 (66 
FR 571252). The most recent revision to these rules was on July 16, 
2009 (74 FR 34503). All non-road, summer RFG and the FMVCP are federal 
programs. The I/M program was initially approved November 14, 2001 (66 
FR 57268), with the most recent revision on September 6, 2006 (71 FR 
52670). The TxLED program was initially approved November 14, 2001 (66 
FR 57196), with the most recent revision on May 6, 2013 (78 FR 26255). 
Emission reductions from these control measures are summarized in 
Tables 5 and 6 above.

E. Contingency Measures

    Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA requires a state with a moderate or 
above ozone nonattainment area to include sufficient additional 
contingency measures in its RFP plan in case the HGB nonattainment area 
fails to meet RFP requirements. The same provision of the CAA also 
requires that the contingency measures must be fully adopted control 
measures or rules. Upon failure to meet and RFP milestone requirement, 
the state must be able to implement the contingency measures without 
any further rulemaking activities. Upon implementation of these 
measures, additional emission reductions of at least 3 percent of the 
adjusted 2002 baseline must be achieved. For more information on 
contingency measures, see the April 16, 1992 General Preamble (57 FR 
13498, at 13512) and the November 29, 2005 Phase 2 8-hour ozone 
implementation rule (70 FR 71612).
    To meet the requirements for contingency emission reductions, the 
EPA interprets the CAA to allow for the use of early implementation of 
control measures as contingency measures. The EPA also interprets the 
CAA to allow for the substitution of NOX emission reductions 
for VOC emission reductions in the contingency plans (by any 
combination of NOX and VOC, as long as the 3 percent 
reduction is achieved and 0.50 percent of the total is attributable to 
VOCs as prescribed by Texas).
    The RFP contingency requirement may be met by including in the RFP 
plan a demonstration of 27 percent VOC and NOX RFP 
reductions. The

[[Page 55034]]

additional 12 percent above the 15 percent requirement must be 
attributed to specific measures. Texas elected to use emission 
reductions in excess of those needed for RFP as the contingency 
measures for the HGB RFP SIP. Tables 7-47 and 7-48 in the state's 
submittal show how this is done. Table 7 below summarizes these 
calculations and results for the 2018 attainment year. Contingency 
measures for the 2008-2017 milestone years were calculated in a similar 
manner.

 Table 7--Contingency Measure Demonstration for the 2018 Attainment Year
                               [Tons/Day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Description                     NOX               VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 ABY Emission Inventory.........           1003.92            935.59
Percent for contingency calculation               2.50              0.50
 (total of 3%)......................
3% needed for contingency (2018-                 25.10              4.68
 2019)..............................
Control reductions to meet            ................  ................
 contingency requirements...........
Surplus reductions from 2018 RFP                 33.04              5.88
 demonstration......................
Subtract 2018 RFP MVEB safety margin            -11.00             -5.18
 from surplus reductions from 2018
 RFP demonstration..................
State and federal control measures               33.00             10.83
 (see TSD)..........................
Total contingency reductions........             55.04             11.53
Contingency excess (+) or shortfall             +29.95             +6.85
 (-)................................
Contingency met?....................               Yes               Yes
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine if Texas meets the 3 percent contingency measure 
requirement for the HGB nonattainment area, the total projected 
controlled emissions (including growth, but excluding reductions from 
the non-creditable pre-1990 FMVCP) must be compared to the contingency 
measure target levels calculated above. Texas has sufficient early 
contingency measures in place to meet the contingency measure 
requirement for the HGB nonattainment area for purposes of 
demonstrating RFP in the attainment year and in the milestone years.

F. Vehicle Miles Traveled Offset Analysis

1. What is a VMT offset analysis?
    Section 182(d)(1)(A) of the Act directs states containing ozone 
nonattainment areas classified as severe, pursuant to section 181(a) of 
the Act, to adopt specific enforceable transportation control 
strategies (TCSs) and transportation control measures (TCMs) to offset 
increases in emissions resulting from growth in vehicle miles traveled 
(VMT) or numbers of vehicle trips and to obtain reductions in motor 
vehicle emissions as necessary (in combination with other emission 
reduction requirements) to comply with the Act's RFP milestones 
(sections 182(b)(1) and (c)(2)(B)) and attainment demonstration 
requirements (section 182(c)(2)(A)). Section 182(d)(1)(A) of the Act 
directs states to submit the VMT Offset SIP by November 15, 1992, for 
any severe and above ozone nonattainment area. Texas has one severe 
1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, the HGB area, with an attainment 
deadline of 2018.
    The EPA originally interpreted section 182(d)(1)(A) in the April 
16, 1992, General Preamble to Title I of the Act (57 FR 13498, 13521-
13523). In that interpretation, EPA allowed areas to meet the 
requirement by using the aggregate motor vehicle emissions from a prior 
year as the appropriate baseline against which to measure the change in 
emissions to determine whether VMT offsets are required. In other 
words, a plan was approvable if it showed decreases in aggregate year-
over-year motor vehicle emissions from a base year through the 
applicable attainment year. EPA applied this interpretation in 
approving numerous states' VMT offset demonstrations, including our 
2001 approval of the HGB area's first VMT offset demonstration. 
Although a commenter objected to this interpretation in our 2001 
approval, it did not challenge it in court. However, EPA's historical 
interpretation of section 182(d)(1)(A), as applied to California's 2003 
South Coast 1-Hour Ozone SIP, was finally challenged in the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. In 2011, that court rejected EPA's 
interpretation, stating that section 182(d)(1)(A) requires VMT offsets 
if there is ``any increase in the level of emissions solely from VMTs 
(italics added).'' \3\ The court explained that EPA incorrectly 
interpreted the phrase ``growth in emissions'' as meaning a growth in 
``aggregate motor vehicle emissions'' versus a growth solely from VMT. 
As a result, the court held that EPA should have required the State to 
implement TCMs to offset growth in emissions from growth in VMT. 
However, the Court acknowledged that ``clean car technology'' advances 
could result in there being no increase in emissions even in the face 
of VMT growth, which would then allow VMT to increase without 
triggering the requirement to adopt offsetting TCMs. In response to the 
court's decision, EPA provided new guidance for states with severe or 
above areas. The guidance, Implementing Clean Air Act Section 
182(d)(1)(A): Transportation Control Measures and Transportation 
Control Strategies To Offset Growth in Emissions Due to Growth in 
Vehicle Miles Travelled,\4\ recommends that both TCSs and TCMs should 
be included in calculations for the purpose of determining the degree 
to which any hypothetical growth in emissions due to growth in VMT 
should be offset.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 632 F.3d 584, at 
596-597 (9th Cir. 2011), reprinted as amended on January 27, 2012.
    \4\ Office of Transportation and Air Quality, EPA-420-B-12-053, 
August 2012. This guidance is available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/policy/general/420b12053.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The approved HGB 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration (November 
14, 2001, 66 FR 57160) relies on the EPA approval of a VMT Offset 
analysis dated November 14, 2001 (66 FR 57247). On May 6, 2013, the 
State submitted an analysis based on the new EPA guidance, which 
demonstrates how the HGB area meets the VMT Offset requirement of CAA 
182(d)(1)(A). This was done in concert with the revised emission 
inventory, the RFP, and the MVEBs for 2018.

2. How is the VMT offset requirement satisfied?

    The August 2012 guidance cited above explains how States may 
demonstrate that the VMT offset requirement is satisfied. States are 
recommended to estimate emissions for two different years: The 
nonattainment area's base year and three different scenarios for the 
attainment year. One emission inventory is developed for the

[[Page 55035]]

base year and three different inventory scenarios are developed for the 
attainment year. For the attainment year the state would present three 
emissions estimates, two of which would represent hypothetical 
emissions scenarios that would provide the basis to identify the 
``growth in emissions'' due solely to growth in VMT, and one that would 
represent projected actual motor vehicle emissions after fully 
accounting for projected VMT growth and offsetting emissions reductions 
obtained by all creditable TCMs and TCSs. See the guidance for specific 
details on how states might conduct the calculations. To properly 
construct these inventories, a special version of MOVES2010 was 
provided to the State, MOVES2010bROP, which was designed by EPA to be 
used exclusively for VMT Offset demonstrations. MOVES2010bROP is 
identical to the original April 2012 release of MOVES2010b except that 
it allows users to set a base year other than 1990 for the purposes of 
the VMT offset calculation.
    The base year (2002) on-road VOC emissions should be based on VMT 
in that year and it should reflect all enforceable TCSs and TCMs in 
place in the base year. This would include the vehicle emissions 
standards, State and local control programs such as inspection and 
maintenance programs or fuel rules, and any additional implemented TCSs 
and TCMs that were already required by or credited in the SIP as of 
that base year.
    The first of the attainment year emissions calculations for the 
attainment year (2018) would be based on the projected VMT for that 
year, and assume that no new TCSs or TCMs beyond those already credited 
in the base year inventory have been put in place since the base year. 
This calculation demonstrates how emissions would hypothetically change 
if no new TCSs or TCMs were implemented, and VMT was allowed to grow at 
the projected rate from the base year. This estimate would show the 
potential for an increase in emissions due solely to growth in VMT. 
This represents a no-action-taken scenario. Emissions in the attainment 
year may be lower than those in the base year due to the fleet that was 
on the road in the base year gradually being replaced through fleet 
turnover, but they would still be higher than they would have been 
assuming VMT had held constant.
    The second of the attainment year's emissions calculations for the 
attainment year would also assume that no new TCSs or TCMs beyond those 
already credited were added or implemented after the base year and 
would also assume that there was no growth in VMT between the base year 
and attainment year. This estimate would reflect the hypothetical 
emissions level that would have occurred had no further TCMs or TCSs 
been adopted or implemented and had VMT levels held constant. Like the 
first estimate, emissions in the attainment year may be lower than 
those in the base year due to the fleet that was on the road in the 
base year gradually being replaced through fleet turnover, but in this 
case they would not be influenced by any growth in VMT. This emissions 
estimate would reflect a ceiling on the emissions that should be 
allowed to occur under the statute as interpreted by the Court in the 
attainment year because it shows what would happen under a scenario in 
which no new TCSs or TCMs are put in place and VMT is ``held constant'' 
during the period from the area's base year to its attainment year. 
This represents a VMT ceiling scenario. This hypothetical status quo is 
a necessary step in identifying the target level of emissions from 
which states would determine whether further TCMs or TCSs would need to 
be adopted and implemented in order to offset ``any increase in 
emissions due solely to VMT'' as shown by the first calculation. The 
comparison of these first two calculations would thus identify whether 
there is a hypothetical growth in emissions from growth in VMT that 
would need to be offset.
    Finally, the state would present the emissions that are actually 
expected to occur in the area's attainment year, giving credit to all 
enforceable post-baseline-year added and credited TCSs and TCMs that 
have actually been adopted. This estimate would be based on the VMT 
that is expected to occur in the attainment year (i.e., the VMT level 
from the first estimate) and all of the TCSs and TCMs that are in 
reality expected to be in place and for which the SIP will take credit 
in the area's attainment year, including any TCMs and TCSs adopted and 
credited since the baseline year. This represents the Attainment Year 
scenario (or the ``actual'' scenario). If this emissions estimate is 
less than or equal to the emissions ceiling that was established in the 
second of the attainment year calculations, the credited TCSs or TCMs 
for the attainment year would be sufficient to already offset the 
hypothetical growth in emissions represented by comparing the first two 
calculations. If, instead, the estimated attainment year emissions are 
greater than the ceiling which was established in the second of the 
emissions attainment year calculations, the state would need to 
implement additional TCSs or TCMs to further offset the growth in 
emissions and bring the actual emissions down to at least the ``had VMT 
held constant'' ceiling estimated in the second of the attainment year 
calculations.
3. What does Texas' demonstration show?
    The May 6, 2013 VMT analysis provides a 2002 base year inventory 
based on VMT in that year and includes all enforceable TCSs and TCMs in 
place in that base year of 2002. It also provides the three different 
scenarios for the attainment year inventories including the No-Action 
scenario, the VMT Offset Ceiling scenario, and the 2018 Attainment Year 
(actual) scenario, as described above. These were prepared using 
MOVES2010bROP, as provided by EPA specifically for the VMT offset 
analysis. In addition, for the actual scenario, the State clearly 
identified all enforceable post-base year TCMs and TCSs, relied upon in 
the attainment demonstration SIP submittal. These include, among other 
things, the vehicle inspection and maintenance, federal on-road and 
non-road emission control programs, and state and federal clean fuel 
programs.\5\ A comparison of the 2018 attainment year inventory with 
the VMT Offset Ceiling scenario's results (step 3 in the guidance) 
shows that the emissions level calculated in step 4 is less than the 
emissions level calculated in step 3. See Table 8 below and Table 7-45 
in the May 6, 2013 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Approval of the VMT Offset Plan requires approval of all the 
TCSs and TCMs that Texas relies on in the actual scenario. EPA has 
previously approved all such TCSs and TCMs. November 14, 2001, 66 FR 
57195, 66 FR 57196, and 66 FR 57 261.

[[Page 55036]]



                               Table 8--VMT Offset Inventory Scenarios and Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Fleet turnover
      VMT Offset scenario          Description       VMT Year      Control year        year        VOC Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scenario 1....................  Base Year.......            2002            2002            2002          124.47
Scenario 2....................  No Action.......            2018            2002            2018           87.32
Scenario 3....................  VMT Offset                  2002            2002            2018           58.15
                                 Ceiling.
Scenario 4....................  Attainment Year.            2018            2018            2018           51.84
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this case, any increased emissions due to solely increased VMT 
identified in the difference between the levels of the No Action and 
VMT Offset Ceiling scenarios have been adequately offset by TCSs and 
TCMs used to identify emissions levels in the Attainment Year scenario. 
That is, the credited TCSs or TCMs for the attainment year will be 
sufficient to offset the hypothetical growth in emissions represented 
by comparing the first two calculations. So, the VMT Offset requirement 
is met, and no additional offsetting TCSs or TCMs beyond those already 
identified are required.
    Therefore, we propose to approve the VMT Offset analysis for the 
HGB ozone nonattainment area.

G. Transportation Conformity Budgets

    Transportation conformity is required by CAA section 176(c). The 
EPA's conformity rule requires that transportation plans, programs and 
projects conform to state air quality implementation plans and 
establishes the criteria and procedure for determining whether they do 
or not. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will 
not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or 
delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. The MVEB is the mechanism to 
determine if the future transportation plans conform to the SIP. A MVEB 
is the maximum amount of emissions allowed in the SIP for on-road motor 
vehicles. The MVEB establishes an emissions ceiling for the regional 
transportation network. States must establish VOC and NOX 
MVEBs for each of the milestone years up to the attainment year and 
submit the mobile budgets to the EPA for approval. Upon an adequacy 
determination or approval by the EPA, states must conduct 
transportation conformity analyses for their Transportation Improvement 
Programs and long range transportation plans to ensure highway vehicle 
emissions will not exceed relevant MVEBs.
    Texas discusses MVEBs in Chapter 7 of the 2013 submittal and 
Chapter 5 in the 2010 submittal. The State worked with the Houston-
Galveston Area Council to establish the budgets for 2008 and beyond. 
The mobile emission inventory was calculated using EPA's MOVES2010a 
mobile source emissions model.
    Table 9 shows the total projected transportation emissions for 
milestone years 2008-2018, as submitted in Tables 7-43 through 7-47 of 
the 2013 SIP Submittal.

          Table 9--RFP Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for HGB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Year                    NOX (Tons/Day)  VOC (Tons/Day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008....................................          261.95          102.50
2011....................................          234.92           93.56
2014....................................          171.63           71.56
2017....................................          130.00           59.76
2018....................................          120.99           57.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the budgets to be approvable, they must meet, at a minimum, 
EPA's adequacy criteria (See 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)). The Notice of 
Adequacy Determination for these RFP MVEBs finding the revised 2010 RFP 
MVEBs (also termed transportation conformity budgets) adequate because 
they meet all of the criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) was signed by the 
Regional Administrator on July 19, 2013. In addition to the budgets 
being adequate for transportation conformity purposes, EPA found the 
procedures Texas used to develop the MVEBs to be reasonable. In this 
action we propose to approve the revised budgets submitted on May 6, 
2013.
    We are proposing to find that the MVEBs are fully consistent with 
RFP, and proposing to find that the RFP plan is fully approvable, as it 
sets the allowable on-road mobile emissions the HGB area can produce 
and use to continue to demonstrate RFP. These budgets are approvable 
because they conform to the emissions inventory projections provided 
for this RFP. Therefore, the 2013 budgets are proposed for approval.

IV. Proposed Action

    The EPA's review of the 2008-2018 emission inventory, the RFP plan, 
the RFP contingency measures, the VMT Offset Plan, and the 2008-2018 
transportation conformity budgets contained in the April 1, 2010 and 
May 6, 2013, submittals for the HGB nonattainment area fully address 
the CAA requirements, EPA's regulations, and are consistent with EPA 
guidance. Therefore, the EPA is proposing approval of these specific 
elements of the HGB 8-hour ozone plan. The EPA is soliciting public 
comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will 
be considered before taking final action.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and 
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, 
this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, these proposed actions:
     Are not ``significant regulatory actions'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     do not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     are certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     do not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     are not economically significant regulatory actions based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);

[[Page 55037]]

     are not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     are not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Ozone, 
Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: August 28, 2013.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2013-21883 Filed 9-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


