[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 189 (Tuesday, September 29, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60928-60933]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20849]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2020-0300; FRL-10014-58-Region 6]


Air Plan Approval; Texas; Reasonable Further Progress Plan for 
the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Ozone Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions 
to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) to meet the Reasonable 
Further Progress (RFP) requirements for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 
(HGB) serious ozone nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Specifically, EPA is proposing to 
approve the RFP demonstration and associated motor vehicle emission 
budgets, contingency measures should the area fail to make RFP 
emissions reductions or attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable 
attainment date, and a revised 2011 base year emissions inventory for 
the HGB area.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 29, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2020-0300, at https://www.regulations.gov or via email to 
paige.carrie@epa.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from 
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public 
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, 
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written 
comment is considered the official comment and should include 
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not 
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary 
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For 
additional submission methods, please contact Carrie Paige, 214-665-
exception occurred on : 2020-20849.htm
exception occurred on : 2020-20849.htm
6521, paige.carrie[email protected]. For the full EPA public comment policy, 
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance 
on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available 
electronically at www.regulations.gov. While all documents in the 
docket are listed in the index, some information may not be publicly 
available due to docket file size restrictions or content (e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carrie Paige, EPA Region 6 Office, 
Infrastructure & Ozone Section, 214-665-6521, paige.carrie@epa.gov. Out 
of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff, the 
EPA Region 6 office may be closed to the public to reduce the risk of 
transmitting COVID-19. We encourage the public to submit comments via 
https://www.regulations.gov, as there may be a delay in processing mail 
and courier or hand deliveries may not be accepted. Please call or 
email the contact listed above if you need alternative access to 
material indexed but not provided in the docket.

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

I. Introduction

    On May 13, 2020, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 
(TCEQ or State) submitted to EPA a SIP revision addressing RFP 
requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the two serious ozone 
nonattainment areas in Texas (``the TCEQ submittal''). These two areas 
are the HGB and the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) areas. The TCEQ submittal 
also establishes motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the year 
2020 and includes contingency measures for each of the HGB and DFW 
areas, should the areas fail to make reasonable further progress, or to 
attain

[[Page 60929]]

the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.
    In this rulemaking action, we are addressing only that portion of 
the TCEQ submittal that refers to the HGB area. We are proposing to 
approve the RFP demonstration and associated contingency measures for 
RFP or failure-to-attain and MVEBs for the HGB area. We are also 
proposing to approve a revised 2011 base year emissions inventory (EI) 
for the HGB area. The portion of the TCEQ submittal that refers to the 
DFW area will be addressed in a separate rulemaking action.

II. Background

    In 2008, we revised the 8-hour ozone primary and secondary NAAQS to 
a level of 0.075 parts per million (ppm) to provide increased 
protection of public health and the environment (73 FR 16436, March 27, 
2008).\1\ The HGB area was classified as a marginal ozone nonattainment 
area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS \2\ and initially given an attainment 
date of no later than December 31, 2015 (77 FR 30088 and 77 FR 30160, 
May 21, 2012). The HGB area consists of Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, 
Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery and Waller counties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On October 1, 2015, the EPA promulgated a more protective 8-
hour ozone standard of 0.070 ppm (80 FR 65292, October 26, 2015). On 
April 30, 2018, the EPA promulgated designations under the 2015 
ozone standard (83 FR 25776, June 4, 2018) and in that action, the 
EPA designated Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, and 
Montgomery counties as a marginal ozone nonattainment area. The RFP 
plan is not required for a marginal nonattainment area under the 
2015 ozone standard. The TCEQ submittal does not specifically 
address the 2015 ozone standard, but provides progress toward 
attaining the new standard. For more information on ozone, see our 
Technical Support Document (TSD) in the docket for this rulemaking 
and visit https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution.
    \2\ Throughout this document, we refer to the 2008 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS as the ``2008 ozone NAAQS.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit Court issued a decision 
rejecting, among other things, our attainment deadlines for the 2008 
ozone nonattainment areas, finding that we did not have statutory 
authority under the CAA to extend those deadlines to the end of the 
calendar year. NRDC v. EPA, 777 F.3d 456, 464-69 (D.C. Cir. 2014). 
Consistent with the court's decision we modified the attainment 
deadlines for all nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and set 
the attainment deadline for all 2008 ozone marginal nonattainment 
areas, including the HGB area as July 20, 2015 (80 FR 12264, March 6, 
2015). The HGB area qualified for a 1-year extension of the attainment 
date and we revised the attainment date to July 20, 2016 (81 FR 26697, 
May 4, 2016). The HGB area did not meet the revised attainment deadline 
and we reclassified the area to moderate with an attainment date no 
later than July 20, 2018 (81 FR 90207, December 14, 2016). 
Subsequently, the HGB area did not meet the moderate attainment date 
and was reclassified as a serious ozone nonattainment area (84 FR 
44238, August 23, 2019).\3\ Accordingly, the State was required to 
submit revisions to the HGB SIP to meet serious area requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For more on the history of ozone in the HGB area, see our 
TSD in the docket for this rulemaking and visit https://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/sip/hgb/hgb-ozone-history.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CAA requires that areas designated as nonattainment for ozone 
and classified as moderate or worse demonstrate RFP by reducing 
emissions of ozone precursors (nitrogen oxides or NOX and 
volatile organic compounds or VOC).\4\ On March 6, 2015 (80 FR 12264), 
EPA published the final rule to implement the 2008 ozone standard (the 
``SIP Requirements Rule'' or ``SRR'') that addressed, among other 
things, the RFP control and planning obligations as they apply to areas 
designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone standard. In the SRR, RFP 
was defined (for the purposes of the 2008 ozone standard) as meaning 
the progress reductions required under sections 172(c)(2) and 182(b)(1) 
and (c)(2)(B) and (c)(2)(C) of the CAA (80 FR 12264, 12313).\5\ RFP 
plans must also include a MVEB, which provides the allowable on-road 
mobile emissions an area can produce and continue to demonstrate RFP 
(57 FR 13498, 13558, April 16, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See CAA sections 172(c)(2) and 182(b)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1110.
    \5\ See 40 CFR 51.1110.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The RFP plan for the HGB moderate ozone nonattainment area for the 
2008 ozone NAAQS was approved on February 13, 2019 (84 FR 3708) and it 
demonstrated required emissions reductions through the end of calendar 
year 2017. Because the HGB area was reclassified as a serious ozone 
nonattainment area, pursuant to CAA section 182(c)(2) and 40 CFR 
51.1110, the RFP SIP for the HGB area must demonstrate NOX 
and/or VOC emissions reductions of at least an average of 3 percent per 
year for the calendar years 2018, 2019, and 2020 for a total of 9 
percent and an additional 3 percent for contingency measures in 2021, 
should the area fail to meet RFP or fail to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS 
by the July 20, 2021 attainment date. Finally, the emissions reductions 
must occur within the HGB area.

III. EPA's Evaluation of the TCEQ Submittal

    We reviewed the TCEQ submittal for consistency with the 
requirements of the CAA and EPA regulations and guidance. A summary of 
our analysis and findings are provided below. For a more detailed 
discussion of our evaluation, please see our TSD in the docket for this 
rulemaking action.

A. Revised 2011 Base Year Emissions Inventory

    An emissions inventory (EI) is a collection of data that lists, by 
source, the amount of air pollutants discharged into the atmosphere, 
during a year or other time period. The EI includes estimates of the 
emissions associated with the air quality problems in the area (in this 
case, NOX and VOC) from various pollution sources. The State 
submitted a 2011 base year EI for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, which we 
approved for the HGB area (80 FR 9204).\6\ The State later revised the 
2011 base year EI for the HGB area, which we approved (84 FR 3708). In 
the TCEQ submittal, the State further refined the 2011 base year EI for 
the HGB area. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1110(b), the values in the 
submitted 2011 base year EI are actual ozone season day emissions. 
Pursuant to CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(b)(1), the submitted 2011 
base year EI consists of NOX and VOC emissions from all 
sources inside the nonattainment area. Compared with that approved at 
84 FR 3708, the submitted 2011 base year NOX emissions 
decrease by 17.02 tons per day (tpd) and VOC emissions increase by 3.66 
tpd. The revised 2011 base year EI was developed using EPA-approved 
guidelines for point, mobile, and area emission sources. Point source 
emissions data for 2011 were pulled from the State of Texas Air 
Reporting System (STARS) database--these data also include all 
authorized/planned Startup, Shutdown and Maintenance emissions.\7\ On-
road and nonroad mobile source emissions were calculated using the 
EPA's MOVES2014a model \8\ combined with

[[Page 60930]]

local activity inputs including vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and 
average speed data, as well as local fleet, age distribution, and fuels 
information. Area sources include many categories of emissions. The EPA 
finds that these sources were adequately accounted for in the revised 
2011 base year EI. The methodology used to calculate emissions for each 
respective category followed relevant EPA EI guidance \9\ and was 
sufficiently documented in the TCEQ Submittal.\10\ We are proposing to 
approve the revised 2011 base year EI. Table 1 summarizes the revised 
EI for the HGB area. See our TSD for more detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See also the EI regulations at 40 CFR 51.1115.
    \7\ States are not obligated to include malfunction emissions in 
the base year inventory for RFP plans. See the discussion beginning 
on page 83 of Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of 
Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
(NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations EPA-454/B-17-003, available at 
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-07/documents/ei_guidance_may_2017_final_rev.pdf (hereinafter referred to as 
``EPA's EI Guidance'') (July 2017).
    \8\ EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) is a state-
of-the-science emission modeling system that estimates emissions for 
mobile sources at the national, county, and project level for 
criteria air pollutants, greenhouse gases, and air toxics. See 
https://www.epa.gov/moves.
    \9\ In addition to EPA's EI Guidance, see MOVES2014 and 
MOVES2014a Technical Guidance: Using MOVES to Prepare Emission 
Inventories for State Implementation Plans and Transportation 
Conformity, EPA-420-B-15-093, available at https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100NN9L.PDF?Dockey=P100NN9L.pdf (Nov. 2015).
    \10\ See our TSD and the TCEQ submittal with appendices in the 
docket for this rulemaking.

                                       Table 1--HGB RFP 2011 Base Year EI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    2011 Base year inventory, reported in tpd
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                NOX                             VOC
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                   Source type                    Approved at 84      Revised     Approved at 84      Revised
                                                      FR 3708        inventory        FR 3708        inventory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................          108.33          108.33           95.99           95.97
Area............................................           21.15           21.15          304.90          308.53
Non-road Mobile.................................          142.44          144.84           49.78           50.11
On-road Mobile..................................          188.02          168.60           80.73           80.45
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................          459.94          442.92          531.40          535.06
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Reasonable Further Progress Demonstration

    To calculate the required RFP emission reductions, CAA section 182 
and 40 CFR 51.1110(b) require that the percent reduction be calculated 
from the base year EI. The required reductions are then subtracted from 
the 2011 base year EI to provide the RFP emissions target numbers. See 
our TSD and the TCEQ submittal for more detail. The RFP calculations 
are shown in Table 2.

   Table 2--Calculation of RFP Target Emission Reductions Through 2020
                                  [tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Description                      NOX             VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. 2011 Emissions Inventory (totals from          442.92          535.06
 Table 1)...............................
b. Percent of NOX and VOC to meet 15%              10.0%            5.0%
 reduction \11\ (percentages must total
 15, and 10 + 5 = 15)...................
c. Percent of NOX and VOC to meet 9%                6.2%            2.8%
 reduction (percentages must total 9,
 and 6.2 + 2.8 = 9).....................
d. 15% NOX and VOC reduction, 2011-2017            44.29           26.75
 (row a multiplied by row b) (442.92 x
 0.1 = 44.29) and (535.06 x 0.05 =
 26.75).................................
e. 9% NOX and VOC reduction, 2018-2020             27.46           14.98
 (row a multiplied by row c) (442.92 x
 0.062 = 27.46) and (535.06 x 0.028 =
 14.98).................................
f. Total emissions reductions for 2011-            71.75           41.73
 2020 (row d plus row e)................
g. 2020 Target Level of Emissions (row a          371.17          493.33
 minus row f)...........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine whether the area is able to meet the RFP target, the 
State must establish the future year (2020) EI and subtract any control 
measures that will be applied to sources in the HGB area. Section 
182(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires that states provide sufficient control 
measures in their RFP plans to offset growth in emissions. The controls 
identified by the State to achieve RFP are listed in Table 3. For more 
detail on these controls, see our TSD and the TCEQ submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ To account for the reductions required and taken under the 
moderate area RFP plan, we reduce emissions by 15% between 2011 and 
2017. See 84 FR 3708.

  Table 3--HGB Area Control Measures and Projected Emission Reductions
                            (tpd), 2011-2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Control strategy description              NOX             VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program             561.84          245.62
 (FMVCP)................................
Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) \12\/Low              101.55           16.96
 Sulfur Gasoline/Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel
 (ULSD).................................
Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) (66 FR             5.13            7.39
 57261, 11/14/2001).....................
On-road Texas Low-Emission Diesel                   2.39            0.00
 (TxLED) \13\...........................
Tier I and II locomotive NOX standards..           21.02            0.81
Small non-road spark-ignition (SI)                 -3.17           25.60
 engines (Phase I)......................
Heavy duty non-road engines.............           26.71           13.71
Tiers 2 and 3 non-road diesel engines...           30.22            2.62
Small non-road SI engines (Phase II)....            2.22           23.67
Large non-road SI and recreational                 37.37           16.51
 marine.................................
Non-road TxLED..........................            1.36            0.00

[[Page 60931]]

 
Non-road RFG............................            0.01            0.73
Tier 4 non-road diesel engines..........           17.70            0.78
Small SI (Phase III)....................            2.16           15.43
Drilling rigs: Federal engine standards             0.43            0.09
 and TxLED..............................
Commercial Marine Vessel engine                    14.76            0.12
 certification standards and fuel
 programs...............................
                                         -------------------------------
    Total Projected Emission Reductions.          821.70          370.04
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine whether the area will meet the RFP targets, we 
subtract the projected emission reductions (Table 3) from the projected 
EI of uncontrolled emissions for 2020. This projected EI will reflect 
emissions resulting from anticipated changes in activity from 2011 to 
2020, such as emissions increases due to growth in population and VMT. 
NOX emissions from sites with equipment applicable to the 
Mass Emissions Cap and Trade (MECT) Program were projected using the 
MECT cap. Major stationary sources of VOC emissions were projected by 
adding emissions growth allowed under the nonattainment New Source 
Review NSR major modification thresholds. The projected EI was also 
adjusted to account for available (unused) emissions credits.\14\ For 
more detail on the projected EI, please see our TSD and the TCEQ 
submittal. The methodology used to forecast the 2020 emissions for each 
respective category followed relevant EPA EI guidance and was 
sufficiently documented in the TCEQ submittal. The projected EI data in 
Table 4 are labeled as ``uncontrolled'' emissions. To achieve RFP, the 
amount of emissions remaining after subtracting the emissions 
reductions from the control measures must be equal to or less than the 
target inventories calculated in Table 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The RFG program is implemented in all 8 counties identified 
elsewhere in this proposal as the HGB area. For more information on 
the RFG program, visit https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards/reformulated-gasoline.
    \13\ The TxLED fuel rules apply to highway (on-road) and non-
road vehicles and were approved into the Texas SIP on November 14, 
2001 (66 FR 57196). Subsequent revisions were approved April 6, 2005 
(70 FR 17321), October 6, 2005 (70 FR 58325), October 24, 2008 (73 
FR 63378), and May 6, 2013 (78 FR 26255).
    \14\ Emissions credits are banked emissions reductions that may 
return to the air shed in the future when these emissions credits 
are used either to modify existing facilities, construct new 
facilities, or demonstrate compliance with source-specific emissions 
limit obligations where provided for in Texas SIP rules.

   Table 4--Summary of RFP Demonstration for the HGB Area Through 2020
                                  [tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Description                      NOX             VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. 2020 Uncontrolled emissions..........        1,165.66          854.65
b. Projected emissions reductions                 821.70          370.04
 through 2020 (total from Table 3)......
c. Projected Emissions after Reductions           343.96          484.61
 (subtract line b from line a)..........
d. 3% reductions reserved for prior                13.29  ..............
 (2017-2018) RFP milestone contingency
 measures...............................
e. Projected emissions, including prior           357.25          484.61
 contingency requirement (add lines c
 and d).................................
f. 2020 Target (from Table 2)...........          371.17          493.33
If the projected emissions (line e) are              Yes             Yes
 less than the RFP target (line f), the
 area demonstrates RFP. Is line e less
 than line f?...........................
g. Subtract line e from line f for                 13.92            8.72
 surplus................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Table 4, we see that the projected emissions in row e, after 
accounting for reductions from controls and the 2017-2018 contingency 
measures, are less than the 2020 RFP target emissions and thus, 
demonstrate RFP. We are proposing that the emissions reductions 
projected for 2020 are sufficient to meet the 2020 RFP targets.

C. Contingency Measures

    As noted earlier, RFP plans for moderate and above nonattainment 
areas must include contingency measures, which, consistent with CAA 
section 172(c)(9), ``shall provide for the implementation of specific 
measures to be undertaken if the area fails to make reasonable further 
progress, or to attain the national primary ambient air quality 
standard by the attainment date applicable under this part.'' EPA has 
long interpreted the contingency measures provision to allow states to 
rely on measures already in place and implemented so long as those 
reductions are beyond those relied on for purposes of the attainment or 
RFP planning SIP.\15\ In addition, the April 16, 1992 General Preamble 
provided the following guidance: ``States must show that their 
contingency measures can be implemented with minimal further action on 
their part and with no additional rulemaking actions such as public 
hearings or legislative review. In general, EPA will expect all actions 
needed to affect full implementation of the measures to occur within 60 
days after EPA notifies the State of its failure.'' (57 FR 13512).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ This interpretation has been upheld by the Fifth Circuit 
Court of Appeals (and the State of Texas is within the Fifth Circuit 
jurisdiction). See LEAN v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575 (5th Cir. 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the CAA does not specify the type of measures or quantity of 
emissions reductions required, EPA interprets the CAA to mean that 
implementation of these contingency measures would provide additional 
emissions reductions of up to 3 percent of the adjusted base year 
inventory (or a lesser percentage that will make up the identified 
shortfall) in the year following the missed milestone, whether it be 
RFP or attainment.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See the April 16, 1992 General Preamble section III.A.3.c 
(57 FR 13498 at 13511).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The TCEQ submittal provides NOX reductions for the HGB 
contingency measures. These contingency measure reductions for the HGB 
area are not

[[Page 60932]]

relied upon for RFP or for attainment. The TCEQ submittal includes but 
is not limited to surplus emissions reductions from the 2020 RFP 
demonstration (see Table 4, line g) for the HGB area contingency 
measure demonstration. The TCEQ submittal also includes emission 
reductions that will take place during calendar year 2021 for the HGB 
area contingency measure demonstration--these contingency measures 
consist of State mobile source measures that are already approved in 
the SIP (I/M, RFG, and TxLED) \17\ and federal measures (FMVCP and 
ULSD). Thus, the contingency measures for 2021 are reliable, permanent, 
and enforceable. The contingency measures are listed in Table 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ As noted earlier in this rulemaking, the I/M program was 
approved into the SIP in 2001 (66 FR 57261). See footnotes 14 and 15 
regarding approval of RFG and TxLED in the SIP.

    Table 5--Demonstration for 2021 for the HGB Area RFP Contingency
                                Measures
                                  [tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                NOX             VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. 2011 Base year Emissions Inventory             442.92          535.06
 (from Table 1).........................
b. Percent of NOX and VOC to meet                     3%               0
 contingency measure requirement (total
 must equal 3%).........................
c. 3% NOX reduction for 2021 (row a                13.29               0
 multiplied by row b) (442.92 x 0.03 =
 13.29).................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Excess reductions to meet contingency requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Surplus RFP reductions (from Table 4)           13.92            8.72
e. Subtract 2020 RFP MVEB safety margin            -8.21           -5.49
 \18\...................................
f. 2020 to 2021 emission reductions                24.19           13.05
 (FMVCP, I/M, RFG, 2017 low sulfur
 gasoline standard on-road TxLED, and
 ULSD)..................................
g. 2020 to 2021 emission reductions                 4.59            2.29
 (federal non-road mobile new vehicle
 certification standards, non-road RFG,
 and non-road TxLED)....................
h. Total projected emissions, accounting           34.49           18.57
 for contingency measures (add lines d,
 e, f, and g)...........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Total surplus or shortfall
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Line h is greater than line c. Subtract            21.20           18.57
 line c from line h for surplus.........
Is the contingency measure requirement               Yes             Yes
 met?...................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Table 5, we see that the contingency measures provided for the 
HGB area, after accounting for the MVEB safety margin, are more than 
sufficient to meet the 3 percent contingency requirement. Indeed, if 
the HGB area relied only on the contingency measures scheduled for 
implementation during 2021 (Table 5, lines f and g), after accounting 
for the MVEB safety margin, those contingency measures alone would be 
adequate to meet the 3 percent contingency requirement. In addition, 
the contingency measures that occur from 2020 to 2021 are State and 
Federal measures that are already approved into the Texas SIP and as 
such are expected to be implemented with no further action by the State 
and with no additional rulemaking actions. Our evaluation of these 
contingency measures finds that the full implementation of such 
measures within 60 days after EPA notifies the State of its failure is 
achievable as, the contingency measures that occur from 2020 to 2021 
are State and Federal measures already approved into the Texas SIP and 
as such are expected to be implemented with no further action by the 
State. We are proposing to approve the contingency measures for the HGB 
area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The safety margin allows for unanticipated growth in 
vehicle miles traveled, changes, and uncertainty in vehicle mix 
assumptions, etc., that will influence the emission estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets

    The MVEB is the mechanism to determine if future transportation 
plans conform to the SIP. Transportation conformity is required by CAA 
section 176(c) and mandates that future transportation plans must not 
produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, delay 
RFP milestones, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. Thus, pursuant 
to CAA section 176(c), the RFP plan must include MVEBs for 
transportation conformity purposes. The MVEB is the maximum amount of 
emissions allowed in the SIP for on-road motor vehicles. The HGB RFP 
SIP contains VOC and NOX MVEBs for RFP milestone year 2020 
(see Table 6). On-road emissions must be shown in future transportation 
plans to be less than the MVEBs for 2020 and subsequent years.
    EPA is evaluating the adequacy of the submitted MVEBs in parallel 
to this proposed approval action. Once EPA finds the submitted MVEBs 
are adequate for transportation conformity purposes, those MVEBs must 
be used by State and Federal agencies in determining whether proposed 
transportation projects conform to the SIP as required by section 
176(c) of the CAA. EPA's criteria for determining adequacy of a MVEB 
are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). The process for determining 
adequacy is described in our TSD.
    EPA intends to make its determination on the adequacy of the 2020 
RFP MVEBs for the HGB area for transportation conformity purposes soon, 
by completing the adequacy process that was started on June 3, 
2020.\19\ After EPA finds the 2020 MVEBs adequate or approves them, the 
new MVEBs for NOX and VOC must be used for future 
transportation conformity determinations. For required regional 
emissions analysis years 2020 and beyond, the applicable budgets will 
be the new 2020 MVEBs. We are proposing to approve the 2020 MVEBs for 
the HGB area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ On June 3, 2020, EPA posted the HGB area NOX and 
VOC MVEBs on EPA's website for the purpose of soliciting public 
comments, as part of the adequacy process. The comment period closed 
on July 3, 2020, and we received no comments. For more information, 
visit https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/state-implementation-plans-sip-submissions-currently-under-epa#houston-texas-rea.

[[Page 60933]]



          Table 6--RFP Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for HGB
                                  [tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Year                         NOX              VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020..................................           87.69            57.70
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed Action

    We are proposing to approve revisions to the Texas SIP that address 
the RFP requirements for the HGB serious ozone nonattainment area for 
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Specifically, we are proposing to approve the RFP 
demonstration and associated MVEBs, contingency measures for RFP or 
failure-to-attain, and the revised 2011 base year EI for the HGB area. 
Further, as part of today's action, EPA is describing the status of its 
adequacy determination for the NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2020 in 
accordance with 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2). Within 24 months from the 
effective date of EPA's adequacy determination for the MVEBs or the 
publication date for the final rule for this action, whichever is 
earlier, the transportation partners will need to demonstrate 
conformity to the new NOX and VOC MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR 
93.104(e)(3).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 
country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will 
not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt 
tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 
9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: September 16, 2020.
Kenley McQueen,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2020-20849 Filed 9-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


