
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 1 (Thursday, January 2, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51-54]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30876]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0333; FRL-9904-72-Region 6]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Texas; Reasonable Further Progress Plan, Contingency Measures, Motor 
Vehicle Emission Budgets, and a Vehicle Miles Traveled Offset Analysis 
for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 1997 8-Hour Severe Ozone 
Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving two 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of 
Texas on April 1, 2010, and revised on May 6, 2013, containing a 
reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, RFP contingency measures 
demonstration, motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs), and a vehicle 
miles traveled (VMT) offset analysis for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 
(HGB) 1997 8-hour ozone severe nonattainment area. EPA is approving SIP 
revisions in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act 
(CAA) and EPA regulations.

DATES: This final rule is effective February 3, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
Number EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0333. All documents in the docket are listed in 
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the 
electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., 
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as 
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for public inspection during normal 
business hours at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Carl Young, Air Planning Section 
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-6645; email 
address young.carl@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Throughout this document, whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is 
used, we mean EPA. On September 9, 2013 (78 FR 55029), EPA published a 
proposed approval of the 2010 RFP plan, RFP contingency measures, 
MVEBs, and VMT offset analysis for the HGB severe 1997 8-hour ozone 
nonattainment area. The SIP revisions for this action were formally 
submitted by the State of Texas on April 1, 2010, and revised on May 6, 
2013. The SIP revisions address the RFP and RFP contingency measures 
requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and establish MVEBs for 
2013. The revision also provides a VMT offset analysis demonstration, a 
severe area requirement, which shows the area does not need any 
additional transportation control measures (TCMs) or transportation 
control strategies (TCSs) to keep mobile source emissions below the 
established emissions ceiling. EPA's rationale for our proposed action 
is explained in the September 9, 2013 proposed rulemaking as well as a 
more detailed description of the two submittals, and will not be 
restated here. EPA is approving the SIP revisions because they satisfy 
the RFP, RFP contingency measures, and transportation conformity 
requirements for MVEBs of section 110 and part D of the CAA and 
associated EPA regulations, and section 182(d)(1)(A) of the CAA.

II. Response to Comments

    We received several comments from the Texas Commission on 
Environmental Quality. In addition to supporting our proposed approval, 
the state asked for clarification to support consistency across TCEQ 
and EPA documents for a number of items.
    Comment 1. Table 1: Revisions to the 2002 RFP Base Year Emissions 
Inventory on Page 55031 is not the original 2002 RFP Base Year. It is 
an attainment demonstration base year table. Table 2: RFP 2002 Baseline 
Emissions Inventory Summary is the revised RFP Base Year Emissions 
Inventory and is correct. Table 1 needs to be updated to contain the 
original base year information.
    Response 1: EPA acknowledges that some confusion may have occurred 
with the labeling of the base year columns in this table due to the 
fact that there were multiple submittals with one partial submittal, 
and with multiple references to base years. We have clarified Table 1 
by re-labeling the base year columns and republishing it below to 
better reflect the years for which the values were calculated. The 
values in the columns remain unchanged.

                        Table 1--Revisions to the 2002 RFP Base Year Emissions Inventory
                                                   [Tons/day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Source type                                  NOX                             VOC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Previously        Revised       Previously        Revised
                 Submittal date                      approved       inventory *      approved       inventory *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................          339.48          339.29          297.12          316.62

[[Page 52]]

 
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Submitted by the State on May 6, 2013.

    Comment 2: In the center column on Page 55031, there are several 
incorrect references to a 15% reduction for HGB between 2002 and 2008. 
The correct reduction for HGB between 2002 and 2008 is 18%. The 
references to the required reduction for HGB between 2002 and 2008 may 
need to be updated to be 18% throughout the whole document, as 
appropriate.
    Response 2: EPA approved the HGB moderate area RFP for the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard which included a 15% plan as well as contingency 
measures and associated MVEBs on April 22, 2009 (76 FR 18298). In that 
action, EPA recognized that the state had requested, and EPA had 
granted, a reclassification of the HGB area from moderate to severe on 
October 1, 2008 (73 FR 56983). With that reclassification the state was 
required to provide an RFP with emission reductions for VOC and/or 
NOX of 18% for the six-year period, plus 3% per year for all 
remaining three-year periods after the first six-year period out to the 
attainment date as prescribed in 40 CFR 51.910(a)(1)(ii)(B). We agree 
that the correct RFP reduction for the HGB area between 2002 and 2008 
is 18%.
    Comment 3: The EPA's RFP demonstration summary and the associated 
Table 6 on Page 55033 only discuss an RFP demonstration for 2018. There 
are RFP demonstrations for 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2018. The 
summaries of the RFP controls (Tables 4 and 5) have all five years but 
the RFP demonstration table only has 2018. The RFP demonstration 
discussion may need to be updated to include all five RFP demonstration 
years.
    Response 3: The efficacy of providing only the 2018 RFP 
demonstration table as an example of the state meeting RFP was done 
that way because the 2018 table was built upon all the other RFP 
demonstration tables which also showed the milestone RFP targets were 
met. We are providing a summary table here as Table 6-1 to show how all 
the RFP milestones were met.

                             Table 6-1--Update Summary of RFP Demonstration for HGB
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Inventory description                   2008         2011         2014         2017         2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forecast NOX Emissions.........................       642.55       635.68       571.88       528.37       522.17
NOX Target.....................................       816.10       754.15       667.70       580.60       555.22
Forecast VOC Emissions.........................       883.13       875.72       886.17       896.41       901.62
VOC Target.....................................       923.82       927.98       919.19       912.54       907.50
Targets Met?...................................          Yes          Yes          Yes          Yes          Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 4: The last column on Page 55033 indicates that the RFP 
contingency may be met by including a demonstration of 27% Volatile 
Organic Compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) reductions 
in the RFP plan. On Page 55034, the 27% is stated as being calculated 
by adding 15 and 12%. The RFP contingency is met by including a 
cumulative demonstration of 51%, which is the sum of the VOC and 
NOX reductions requirement, from 2002 base year, with 2008, 
2011, 2014, 2017 milestone years, 2018 attainment year, and 2019 
contingency year (18+9+9+9+3+3). Either the amount needs to be changed 
to 51% or a further explanation of the 27%, 15%, and 12% reductions is 
suggested for clarification.
    Response 4: EPA acknowledges this misstatement and corrects the 
percentage here in this final action to reflect that the actual 
achievement shown in the RFP is 51% and not the 27% as stated in the 
proposal. This change does not alter the final outcome of our analysis.
    Comment 5: In the first full paragraph of the middle column on Page 
55036, the description of the values in Table 9: RFP Motor Vehicle 
Emissions Budgets for HGB are referred to as the total projected 
transportation emissions for milestone years 2008 to 2018. In 
actuality, the values are the MVEBs, which are the projected emissions 
adjusted with transportation conformity safety margins. The description 
may be more accurate if it is modified: (a) To indicate the safety 
margin adjustment; or (b) to refer to values as the MVEBs rather than 
projected emissions.
    Response 5: EPA agrees that the values in Table 9 show the total 
projected transportation emissions for milestone years 2008 through 
2018 plus safety margins. We modify here our description preceding 
Table 9 to include this clarifying phrase: ``Table 9 shows the total 
projected transportation emissions plus safety margins for milestone 
years 2008-2018 as submitted in Tables 7-43 through 7-47 of the 2013 
SIP Submittal.''
    Comment 6: Clarification is needed to support consistency across 
TCEQ and EPA documents. As EPA notes in the technical support document 
(TSD), there was an error in the spreadsheet calculation that lowered 
the VOC values in Tables 7-29 through 7-31 by 19.82 tons per day of 
VOC. This error resulted in a conservative projection of VOC emission 
reductions taking place by that amount. The resulting surplus of VOCs 
could have been greater by 19.82 tons per day. EPA should clarify in 
the final approval notice that this surplus is appropriate for the HGB 
area, and that TCEQ will address this error in the next SIP submittal, 
without penalty.

[[Page 53]]

    Response 6: For the purposes of the proposal, EPA did not see the 
need to mention the particulars of this error in the proposed approval. 
However, in this final action we are acknowledging that the excess 
emissions of VOC available to the TCEQ for future SIP submittals is 
actually 19.82 ton per day more than the 5.88 tons per day shown in 
Table 7-31 of the 2013 submittal. This provides the state with 25.60 
tons per day of excess VOC emissions available for future planning 
purposes. We are not modifying any tables in this final action to 
reflect this because the tables show what was in the 2013 submittal.

III. Final Action

    The EPA is approving the 2010 RFP plan; RFP contingency measures; 
2013 MVEBs; and the VMT offset analysis for the HGB 1997 8-hour severe 
ozone nonattainment area. The SIP revision satisfies requirements for 
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS nonattainment areas classified as severe and 
demonstrates reasonable further progress in reducing ozone precursors. 
The VMT offset analysis demonstrates that the credited TCSs and TCMs 
for the attainment year are sufficient to offset the anticipated 
increase in VMT over time, and therefore no additional TCSs or TCMs are 
needed to attain the NAAQS.

IV. 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 Act and 
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this 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.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as 
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy 
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller 
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this 
action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. 
House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United 
States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A 
major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in 
the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 
5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 3, 2014. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of 
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for 
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness 
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in 
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: December 16, 2013.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart SS--Texas

0
2. In Sec.  52.2270, the second table in paragraph (e) entitled ``EPA 
Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the 
Texas SIP'' is amended by adding, at the end of the table, entries for 
``Reasonable Further Progress Plan (RFP), RFP Contingency Measures''; 
``RFP Transportation Conformity Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (2008, 
2011, 2014, 2017 and 2018)'' and ``Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Offset 
Analysis'' to read as follows:


Sec.  52.2270  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

 

[[Page 54]]

              EPA-Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Applicable
      Name of SIP provision          geographic or     State  submittal/   EPA-approval date       Comments
                                  nonattainment area    effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Reasonable Further Progress Plan  Houston-Galveston-  4/1/2010, 5/6/2013  [Insert page
 (RFP), RFP Contingency Measures.  Brazoria, TX.                           number where the
                                                                           document begins].
RFP Motor Vehicle Emission        Houston-Galveston-  5/6/2013..........  [Insert page
 Budgets (2008, 2011, 2014, 2017   Brazoria, TX.                           number where the
 and 2018).                                                                document begins].
Vehicle miles traveled offset     Houston-Galveston-  5/6/2013..........  [Insert page
 analysis.                         Brazoria, TX.                           number where the
                                                                           document begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2013-30876 Filed 12-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


