[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 203 (Tuesday, October 21, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54598-54601]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27848]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[TX 57-1-7183: FRL-5911-6]
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans (SIP) for
Texas: Houston Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Offset Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 54599]]
SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to disapprove the SIP revision submitted
by the State of Texas for the Houston/Galveston Area (HGA) severe ozone
nonattainment area to meet the VMT offset plan requirements of section
182 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (the Act). The EPA is proposing
disapproval because the State's VMT Offset SIP uses modeling which
relies upon an Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program that was
halted. This action is being taken under sections 110 and 182 of the
Act.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 20, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to Mr.
Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section, at the EPA Region 6
Office listed below. Copies of the documents relevant to this action
are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
following locations. Persons interested in examining these documents
should make an appointment with the appropriate office at least 24
hours before the visiting day. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
6, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas,
Texas 75202-2733. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, 12100
Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78711-3087.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Sandra G. Rennie, Air Planning
Section (6PD-L), EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-
2733, telephone (214) 665-7367.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Section 182(d)of the Act, requires ozone nonattainment areas
classified as severe or above to develop plans for VMT offsets. Section
182(d)(1)(A) requires the State to submit plans which will identify and
adopt specific enforceable transportation control strategies and
Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) to offset growth in vehicle
emissions so that, as vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled
increase, vehicle emissions stay below an established ceiling as
projected out to the attainment date for the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for the nonattainment area requiring the VMT Offsets
plan. The HGA is classified as a severe ozone nonattainment area with
an attainment deadline of 2007. Reduction in vehicle emissions is to be
attained as necessary, in combination with other emission reduction
requirements to comply with periodic emissions reduction requirements.
States were directed to consider, choose, and implement measures as
specified in section 108(f). The VMT Offsets Plans were due to be
submitted to EPA by November 15, 1992. The State submitted a
``committal'' SIP to the EPA for VMT offsets for the HGA nonattainment
area on November 15, 1992. This submittal committed to submitting
subsequent SIPs in 1993 and 1994 to parallel the development of the
Rate-of-Progress SIP revision due November 15, 1993 and the
demonstration of attainment SIP revision due by November 1994.
On November 12, 1993, and November 6, 1994, the State of Texas
submitted a revision to the SIP for the VMT Offsets Plan to fulfill the
``committal'' SIP requirement. The Plan was submitted using specific
modeling for vehicle emissions based on, among other things, a vehicle
inspection and maintenance test-only program with most vehicles
receiving an I/M loaded mode transient emission test known as the
``IM240.'' EPA approved the I/M program on August 22, 1994 (59 FR
43046). This program began operation in January 1995, before being
halted by the Texas Legislature and Governor.
Various states, including Texas, desired greater flexibility in
implementing their I/M programs. On September 18, 1995, EPA revised and
finalized I/M rules that gave states much greater flexibility in
implementing I/M programs. One element of the I/M flexibility
amendments included a provision for a new low enhanced performance
standard that would allow for less stringent I/M programs if overall
air quality goals were met. In addition, on November 28, 1995,
President Clinton signed the National Highway System Designation Act of
1995 (NHSDA) which allowed even greater flexibility in I/M programs for
states, especially in the area of emission reduction estimates.
In response to this additional flexibility, the State of Texas
submitted a revised I/M program to EPA. The EPA proposed conditional
interim approval of this new plan on October 3, 1996 (61 FR 51651). As
a result, the State of Texas has implemented a decentralized testing
network which allows for both test-and-repair and test-only stations,
and includes remote sensing. Vehicles are subject to a two-speed idle
test, and an optional Acceleration Simulation Mode (ASM) loaded mode
test. This program is referred to as the Texas Motorist Choice Program.
Therefore, the modeling in the VMT Offset SIP is no longer current. The
Plan's modeling does not reflect the Texas Motorist Choice I/M program;
it reflects a program no longer in use. The EPA believes this is a
significant deficiency which prohibits approval of the SIP under
sections 110 and 182 of the Act.
For further information regarding EPA's analysis of the State
submittal, refer to the Technical Support Document for this action
found in the official docket.
II. Evaluation of Houston VMT SIP
While the current Texas Motorist Choice vehicle emission testing
program appears to fulfill the requirements of the NHSDA, the Clean Air
Act, and Federal I/M Rules, it presents a significant inconsistency
within the VMT Offset SIP. This review compares the State's VMT Offset
SIP submittal with the Act to determine compliance with requirements in
the Act. The following narrative highlights the deficiency and
rationale for disapproving this SIP revision.
The EPA interprets 182(d)(1)(A) to require sufficient measures be
adopted so that projected motor vehicle volatile organic compound
emissions will stay beneath a ceiling level established through
modeling of mandated transportation-related controls. When growth in
VMT and vehicle trips would otherwise cause a motor vehicle emissions
upturn, this upturn must be prevented by VMT offset measures. If
projected total motor vehicle emissions during the ozone season in one
year are not higher than during the ozone season the year before due to
the control measures in the SIP, the VMT offset requirement is
satisfied.
In order to make these projections, two curves of vehicle emissions
are calculated. The upper curve includes the effects of mandated
controls such as reformulated gasoline, Reid Vapor Pressure control of
gasoline, the employer trip reduction program, transportation control
measures committed to in the 1993 TCM SIP, and an enhanced I/M program.
The lower curve is produced by using an enhanced I/M program expanded
into additional counties and other TCMs.
The November 15, 1993, VMT Offset SIP revision included a
projection of the mobile source emissions profile for the HGA
nonattainment area through the year 2010. The profile included the
effects of required reductions from the mandatory vehicle I/M program
in Harris and Galveston Counties, Reid vapor pressure controls,
reformulated gasoline, an employee trip reduction program, Stage II
vapor recovery for refueling, and a clean fuel fleets program. An
estimation of the lowest point in these emissions projections was
established as a ceiling for mobile source emissions. The lower curve
includes the expansion of the enhanced
[[Page 54600]]
I/M program into three additional counties in 1995 and another three
counties in 1997.
The November 6, 1994, submittal included a modification of the
mobile source emissions projections and ceiling level to reflect
updated information and methodology as well as TCMs and mobile source
controls necessary to achieve VMT offset at least through the year
2010.
The final emissions estimates for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
were obtained by multiplying the VMT times the vehicle emissions
factor. Vehicle miles traveled data was generated from the Texas Travel
Demand Package developed and maintained by the Texas Department of
Transportation. Transit mode-choice estimates were performed by the
Metropolitan Transit Authority using their mode choice models. Mobile
source emission factors were obtained using the MOBILE5a model approved
by EPA. Results of the updated modeling demonstration are found in
Appendix B of the 1994 SIP submittal. The MOBILE5a model estimated
emissions based on a number of input parameters. Among these were I/M
program type and test type. The estimates were obtained using a test
only I/M program type with either a loaded/idle test or a transient
test. The geographic coverage of the I/M program in the Houston area
was assumed to cover eight counties to include the commuting areas
surrounding Harris County.
In the Texas Motorist Choice I/M Program, adopted by the State and
in operation, not only has the program type changed to primarily a
test-and-repair format, but the majority of the test stations offer
only the loaded/idle test. In addition, the geographic area for
mandatory testing has been reduced to just Harris County, with remote
testing proposed, but not yet implemented, to monitor traffic coming
into Harris County from the surrounding counties. With these major
changes in mobile source emission parameters, the modeling may project
different estimates of mobile source emissions, thereby impacting the
emission levels projected to demonstrate the VMT Offset SIP
requirements of the Act. The submitted SIP does not reflect any of the
changes discussed above.
Employee Trip Reduction (ETR) programs are no longer required under
the Act. Texas has dropped its ETR program and requested a withdrawal
of the ETR program from the SIP. However, ETR credits were used in
modeling VMT offsets. The ETR credits can no longer be used in VMT
modeling, further emphasizing the need to revise the SIP submittal.
In summary, the HGA VMT SIP submittal is based on out-of-date
modeling and must be revised. Motor vehicle emission reductions claimed
for the vehicle I/M program will have changed since the SIP revision
was submitted in 1993 and 1994. Elimination of the ETR program by the
State eliminates the use of ETR emission reductions in the VMT SIP
modeling demonstration. Based on the above analysis, EPA cannot approve
the HGA VMT SIP.
III. Proposed Action
The EPA proposes to disapprove the HGA VMT Offset SIP under
sections 110(k) and 182 of the Act because one or more of the elements
of the VMT SIP submitted on November 12, 1993, and August 16, 1994, are
incorrect. The VMT SIP submittal represents vehicle emission credits at
one level based on modeling using a test-only I/M loaded mode transient
emission test (IM240). That particular program was halted after a few
weeks of operation. The State has since chosen to implement a different
program, the Texas Motorist Choice Program, which is a test and repair
program with a two-speed idle test or ASM loaded mode test, in a
reduced geographic area, plus remote sensing to cover the outlying
commuter areas. It is EPA's position that the emission reduction
credits for the Texas Motorist Choice Program will be significantly
different than those for an IM240 test only program. Consequently, the
projected motor vehicle emissions in the August 16, 1994, VMT Offset
SIP submittal are incorrect. They are based on an I/M program that is
not in existence. They also do not reflect the projections of the new
program.
In addition, due to the elimination of the ETR program, the
modeling is based on incorrect information. Therefore, the emission
reductions projected could not be reflecting the trends of VMT in the
Houston area.
The State recently approved and submitted a revision to the HGA VMT
offset SIP to correct concerns raised in this notice. We expect to
review and take appropriate action on the latest revision rather than
finalize this disapproval.
Under section 179(a)(2), if the EPA Administrator takes final
disapproval action on a submission under section 110(k) for an area
designated nonattainment based on the submission's failure to meet one
or more of the elements required by the Act, and the deficiency is not
corrected within 18 months of the effective date of the final
disapproval action, the Administrator must apply one of the sanctions
set forth in section 179(b) of the Act. Section 179(b) provides two
sanctions available to the Administrator: revocation of highway funding
and the imposition of emission offset requirements. If the
administrator imposes the first sanction and the deficiency is not
corrected within six months, the second sanction shall apply. The
sanctions shall apply until the administrator determines that the State
has come into compliance. This sanctions process is set forth in 40 CFR
52.31. Today's action serves only to propose disapproval of the State's
revision, and does not constitute final agency action. Thus, the
sanctions process described above does not commence with today's
action. The 18 month period for the State to correct the deficiency
would begin upon the effective date of a final disapproval action.
Nothing in today's action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and
regulatory requirements.
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory
action from Executive Order 12866 review.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. See 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
The EPA's proposed disapproval of the State request under sections
110 and 301, and subchapter I, part D of the Act does not affect any
existing requirements applicable to small entities. Any preexisting
Federal requirements remain in place after this proposed disapproval.
Federal disapproval of the State submittal does not affect its State-
enforceability. Moreover, the EPA's disapproval of the submittal does
not impose any new Federal requirements. Therefore, the EPA certifies
that this proposed
[[Page 54601]]
disapproval action does not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because it does not remove existing
requirements, nor does it impose any new Federal requirements.
C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
Under section 801(a)(1)(A) of the Administrative Procedures Act
(APA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. House of Representatives and the
Comptroller General of the General Accounting Office prior to
publication of the rule in today's Federal Register. This rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined by section 804(2) of the APA as amended.
D. Unfunded Mandates Act
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995,
signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact
statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local or
tribal governments in aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100
million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-
effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203
requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small
governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
The EPA has determined that the proposed disapproval action does
not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action does not
impose new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State,
local, or tribal governments, or private sector, result from this
action.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: October 8, 1997.
Jerry Clifford,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-27848 Filed 10-20-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
