
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 160 (Wednesday, August 19, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50248-50250]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20499]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2012-0205; FRL-9931-37-Region 6]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; El Paso 
Particulate Matter Contingency Measures

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve under the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Texas. These revisions 
pertain to contingency measures for particulate matter in the City of 
El Paso. The affected contingency measures are the paving of alleys and 
sweeping of streets.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 18, 
2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2012-0205, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions.
     Email: Jeffrey Riley at riley.jeffrey@epa.gov.
     Mail or delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning 
Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, 
Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2012-0205. 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 the 
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not submit 
electronically any information that you consider to be CBI or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The 
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which 
means that 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 the 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 along with any disk or CD-ROM submitted. 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 and any form of encryption and should be free of any defects 
or viruses. 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 information on 
submitting comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available 
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 6, 
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the 
docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly 
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), 
and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Riley, 214-665-8542, 
riley.jeffrey@epa.gov. To inspect the hard copy materials, please 
schedule an appointment with Mr. Riley or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-
7253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we'', 
``us'', or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

I. Background

A. El Paso PM10 History

    Under the 1990 CAA Amendments, the City of El Paso, Texas was 
designated by operation of law as nonattainment of the 1987 National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM) with 
an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal ten micrometers 
(PM10) and classified as a moderate nonattainment area. The 
EPA approved on January 18, 1994 at 59 FR 02532, the El Paso 
PM10 Attainment Demonstration SIP revision. The SIP 
included, among other things, PM control measures and a Memorandum of 
Understanding between the City of El Paso and the State of Texas (MOU). 
The EPA approved three types of PM control measures as contingency 
measures because they went beyond reasonably available control measures 
and were not relied upon to show attainment or reasonable further 
progress (RFP). The three types of PM control measures approved as 
contingency measures were prescribed burning, residential burning, and 
fugitive dust control measures. The fugitive dust measures include not 
only controls for roads, streets, alleys,

[[Page 50249]]

parking lots, construction and demolition sites, and materials 
handling, but also a requirement that existing unpaved alleys be paved 
at a rate of 15 miles per year and mechanical sweepers remove soil from 
roads four times per year in the city limits and six times per week in 
the central business district. The SIP MOU between the City of El Paso 
and the State of Texas outlines the responsibilities and regulatory 
requirements for both parties in implementing the dust control methods.

B. Texas' Submittals

    On March 7, 2012, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 
(TCEQ) submitted revisions to remove the requirement to pave alleys at 
the rate of 15 miles per year, and replace it with the following 
requirements: (1) All new alleys must be paved; (2) unpaved alleys 
cannot be used for residential garbage and recycling collection; and 
(3) recycled asphalt product (RAP) may be used as an alternate means of 
control for unpaved alleys. The revisions also changed the street 
sweeping frequency requirement from four times per year to three times 
per year in the city limits and from six times per week to four times 
per week in the central business district. TCEQ provided supplemental 
information dated December 3, 2014 updating the unpaved alleys 
inventory between 2010 through 2014.

II. The EPA's Evaluation

    Section 110(l) of the CAA states that the EPA cannot approve a SIP 
revision if the revision would interfere with any applicable 
requirement concerning attainment and RFP, or any other applicable 
requirement of the CAA. Contingency Measures are a required element of 
an attainment demonstration, to be implemented if the area fails to 
attain. In this case, the City implemented early the contingency 
measures for paving of alleys and street sweeping on an on-going basis 
since 1991, even though not required by the EPA. Implementation of 
these measures has continued even after the 1994 attainment date. To 
demonstrate noninterference, Texas provided a qualitative analysis of 
the emission reductions achieved by these measures coupled with 
evaluation of air quality data to show that the level of emissions 
provided for by the revised early implemented contingency measures 
would not interfere with attainment or RFP.
    At the time of the EPA's approval of the paving of alleys as a 
contingency measure, there were an estimated 89 miles of unpaved 
alleys, and all unpaved roads in the city of El Paso were required to 
be paved in order to reduce this source category's projected 1994 
PM10 emissions by 0.5 percent. The State documents that the 
inventory of unpaved alleys in El Paso has decreased from 66% of total 
alley miles in 1991, to 16% of total alley miles in 2010, with 
approximately 23 miles of unpaved alleys remaining. The supplemental 
information provided to the EPA shows that between 2010 through 2014, 
the percentage of unpaved alleys has continued to decrease to 13% of 
the total inventory, with approximately 17 miles of unpaved alleys 
remaining. A total of 72 alley miles have been paved, the estimated 
emissions reductions for 1994 were met in 1994, and emissions 
reductions continued after that date. In the SIP submittal, the City 
commits to continue paving alleys. The additional compliance option of 
using RAP as a paving material helps ensure continued reduction of the 
inventory of uncontrolled alleys. The EPA agrees that RAP can be 
effective in suppressing dust.
    The overall inventory of unpaved alleys in El Paso has continued to 
decrease, and thereby further reductions in PM10 levels have 
occurred well beyond the decrease in inventory of unpaved alleys 
approved as the contingency measures. Furthermore, there will be no 
increase in unpaved alleys because the SIP revision requires that all 
new alleys be paved. As a practical matter, the EPA recognizes that a 
rate of 15 miles of paving per year could not be maintained unless the 
City were to create unpaved alleys in order to pave them.
    As additional support for the change to the rate of paving of 
alleys, the submitted revision prohibits garbage collection in unpaved 
alleys; the City since 1997 stopped garbage collection in paved and 
unpaved alleys. The significant paving progress, the requirement to 
pave new alleys, and prohibition of garbage collection in alleys have 
reduced the overall amount of fugitive dust in the El Paso area. In the 
SIP submittal, the City commits to continue sweeping on a different 
schedule. Because the emissions reductions from paving and street 
sweeping are from already-implemented contingency measures, thus above 
what was needed to show attainment, and the reductions continue, the PM 
reductions from these measures are above and beyond what is required to 
show continued maintenance of the NAAQS.
    The State's submittal also relied upon ambient monitoring data for 
the years 2007 through 2009 to demonstrate there will be no 
interference with attainment. The El Paso area continues to monitor 
attainment of the PM10 NAAQS based on data for all three 
years from 2011 through 2013. See the TSD for additional information on 
the monitoring data.
    Because the fugitive dust controls are early implemented 
contingency measures, they were not relied upon for demonstrating 
attainment or RFP; paving of new alleys is required; the inventory of 
pre-existing unpaved alleys has been reduced from 66% of total alleys 
to 13%; and paving continues using the effective RAP, the EPA finds 
that the SIP revision will not interfere with the area's ability to 
continue to attain or maintain the affected NAAQS or other CAA 
requirements.

III. Proposed Action

    We are proposing to approve revisions to the Texas SIP that pertain 
to changes to the PM10 contingency measures in the City of 
El Paso. The State's revisions submitted on March 7, 2012 amend rule 30 
TAC Sec.  111.147(1)(E) by removing the requirement to pave alleys at 
the rate of 15 miles/year, and replace it with the following 
requirements:
    (1) All new alleys must be paved;
    (2) Alleys may not be used for trash pickup; and
    (3) The use of recycled asphalt product as defined in Sec.  111.145 
and Sec.  111.147(1) may be used as an alternate means of particulate 
matter control for alleys.
    We also are proposing to approve 30 TAC Sec.  111.145 and Sec.  
111.147(1) that define RAP, and 30 TAC Sec.  111.147(2) that changes 
the sweeping frequency requirement from four to three time per year in 
the city limits and from six to four times per week in the El Paso 
central business district. We have evaluated the State's submittals and 
have determined that they meet the applicable requirements of the Clean 
Air Act and EPA regulations, and are consistent with EPA policy.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this action, we are proposing to include in a final rule 
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance 
with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by 
reference revisions to the Texas regulations as described in the 
Proposed Action section above. We have made, and will continue to make, 
these documents generally available electronically through 
www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office.

[[Page 50250]]

V. 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);
     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 the 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 the 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, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

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

    Dated: August 5, 2015.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2015-20499 Filed 8-18-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


