94-29195. Conditional Approval and Promulgation of Section 182(f) Exemption to the Nitrogen Oxides (NOINFX) Control Requirements for the Dallas- Fort Worth and El Paso Ozone Nonattainment Areas; Texas  

  • [Federal Register Volume 59, Number 227 (Monday, November 28, 1994)]
    [Unknown Section]
    [Page ]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 94-29195]
    
    
    [Federal Register: November 28, 1994]
    
    
    =======================================================================
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    
    40 CFR Part 52
    
    [TX-45-1-6654; FRL-5114-2]
    
    
    Conditional Approval and Promulgation of Section 182(f) Exemption 
    to the Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Control Requirements for the Dallas-
    Fort Worth and El Paso Ozone Nonattainment Areas; Texas
    
    AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
    
    ACTION: Final rule.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: In this action, the EPA is conditionally approving two 
    petitions from the State of Texas requesting that the Dallas-Fort Worth 
    (DFW) and El Paso ozone nonattainment areas be exempted from NOX 
    control requirements of section 182(f) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) as 
    amended in 1990. The State of Texas bases its request for DFW upon a 
    demonstration that the DFW nonattainment area would attain the National 
    Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone by the CAA mandated 
    deadline without the implementation of the additional NOX controls 
    required under section 182(f). Similarly, the State bases its exemption 
    request for El Paso on a demonstration that the El Paso nonattainment 
    area would attain the ozone NAAQS by the CAA mandated deadline without 
    implementing the additional NOX controls required under section 
    182(f), but for emissions emanating from Mexico. These exemptions are 
    being requested under authority similarly granted under section 182(f) 
    of the CAA.
    
    EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective as of November 21, 1994.
    
    ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to these actions are 
    available for public inspection during normal business hours at the 
    following locations. The interested persons wanting to examine these 
    documents should make an appointment with the appropriate office at 
    least 24 hours before the visiting day.
    
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Programs Branch 
    (6T6-A), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
    The Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U. S. 
    Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 
    20460.
    Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, 
    Texas 78711-3087.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Leila Yim Surratt or Mr. Quang 
    Nguyen, Planning Section (6T-AP), Air Programs Branch, EPA Region 6, 
    1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-7214.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    I. Background
    
        NOX are precursors to ground level (tropospheric) ozone, or 
    urban ``smog.'' When released into the atmosphere, NOX will react 
    with volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the presence of sunlight to 
    form ozone. Tropospheric ozone is an important factor in the nation's 
    urban air pollution problem.
        The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) made significant changes 
    to the air quality planning requirements for areas that do not meet the 
    ozone NAAQS. Subparts 1 and 2 of part D, title I of the CAA as amended 
    in 1990 contain the air quality planning requirements for ozone 
    nonattainment areas. Title I includes new requirements to control 
    NOX emissions in certain ozone nonattainment areas and ozone 
    transport regions. Section 182(f) requires States to apply the same 
    requirements to major stationary sources of NOX as are applied to 
    major stationary sources of VOC. The new NOX requirements are 
    reasonably available control technology (RACT) and new source review 
    (NSR). These provisions are explained more fully in the EPA's NOX 
    Supplement to the General Preamble published in the Federal Register 
    (FR) on November 25, 1992 (see 57 FR 55620). In addition, the general 
    and transportation conformity rules (conformity) required by section 
    176(c) contain new NOX requirements (see 58 FR 63214 and 58 FR 
    62188), and the vehicle inspection and maintenance rules required by 
    section 182(c)(3) also contain new NOX requirements (see 57 FR 
    52989).
        El Paso, Texas was designated nonattainment for ozone and 
    classified as serious pursuant to sections 107(d)(4) and 181(a) of the 
    CAA. The El Paso nonattainment area consists of El Paso County and 
    shares a common airshed with Juarez, Mexico. Under section 181(a), 
    serious areas must attain the ozone NAAQS by 1999. DFW was classified 
    as moderate with an attainment deadline of 1996. The DFW nonattainment 
    area consists of Dallas, Tarrant, Denton, and Collin Counties. Please 
    reference 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991, codified for Texas at title 40 
    of the Code of Federal Regulations in Sec. 81.344).
    
    II. Applicable EPA Guidance
    
        The CAA specifies in section 182(f) that if one of the conditions 
    listed below is met, the new NOX requirements would not apply:
        1. In any area, the net air quality benefits are greater without 
    NOX reductions from the sources concerned;
        2. In a non-transport region, additional NOX reductions would 
    not contribute to ozone attainment in the nonattainment area; or
        3. In a transport region, additional NOX reductions would not 
    produce net ozone benefits in the transport region.
        In addition, section 182(f)(2) states that the application of the 
    new NOX requirements may be limited to the extent that any portion 
    of those reductions are demonstrated to result in ``excess reductions'' 
    of NOx. The NOX provisions of the conformity requirements would 
    also not apply in an area that is granted a section 182(f) exemption 
    (see 58 FR 63214 and 58 FR 62188). In addition, certain NOX 
    provisions of the vehicle inspection and maintenance requirements would 
    not apply in an area that is granted a section 182(f) exemption (57 FR 
    52989).
        The EPA's Guideline for Determining the Applicability of Nitrogen 
    Oxides Requirements under Section 182(f) (December 1993) describes how 
    the EPA intends to interpret the NOX exemption provisions of 
    section 182(f). In addition, a memorandum signed by John S. Seitz, 
    Director of the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, dated 
    May 27, 1994, describes certain revisions to the process the EPA 
    currently intends to follow for granting exemptions from NOX 
    control requirements.
        As described more fully in the Seitz memorandum, petitions 
    submitted under section 182(f)(3) are not required to be submitted as 
    State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions. Consequently, the State is 
    not required under the CAA to hold a public hearing in order to 
    petition for an areawide NOX exemption determination. Similarly, 
    it is not necessary to have the Governor submit the petition.
    
    III. International Border Area
    
        Section 818 of the 1990 CAAA incorporates a new section 179B into 
    the CAA which contains special provisions for nonattainment areas that 
    are affected by emissions emanating from outside the United States. The 
    section 818 provisions are hereinafter referred to as section 179B. 
    Because the El Paso nonattainment area shares a common airshed with 
    Juarez, Mexico, the section 179B provisions apply to El Paso.
        Under section 179B, the EPA will approve a SIP if the area meets 
    all other CAA requirements and establishes that implementation of the 
    plan would achieve attainment of the ozone standard by the CAA 
    statutory deadline ``but for emissions emanating from outside the 
    United States.'' Customarily, an area must demonstrate, using EPA 
    guideline models, that it would attain the relevant NAAQS. Since El 
    Paso and Juarez, Mexico share an airshed and data are not available for 
    a Juarez emission inventory, modeling of the entire airshed is not 
    possible at this time. Current EPA policy allows an area subject to 
    section 179B, such as El Paso, to perform modeling using only U.S. air 
    emission data. Such modeling may form an acceptable basis for 
    demonstrating attainment for analysis purposes required under section 
    179B. For areas on an international border that demonstrate attainment, 
    ``but for emissions emanating from a foreign country,'' the provisions 
    of section 179B will keep such areas from being subject to the ``bump 
    up'' provisions of section 181(b)(2), which require reclassification to 
    the next higher ozone nonattainment classification if the area fails to 
    attain the relevant NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. See 57 FR 
    13498, 13569-13570 (April 16, 1992).
        The State of Texas performed Urban Airshed Modeling (UAM) using 
    only El Paso emissions data, and demonstrated that El Paso would attain 
    the ozone standard by 1996 ``but for emissions emanating from Mexico.'' 
    The El Paso UAM ozone modeling analysis will be referred to in this 
    notice as the ``attainment demonstration'' for El Paso.
        Although the EPA allows an area such as El Paso to demonstrate 
    attainment on a basis of U.S.-only modeling, it is understood that 
    ultimately basin-wide modeling must occur in order to develop a control 
    strategy in El Paso that will achieve the NAAQS. The United States 
    entered into the Agreement for Environmental Cooperation along the 
    U.S.-Mexico Border, referred to as the La Paz Agreement, with Mexico in 
    1983 to address environmental concerns along the border between the two 
    countries. Annex V of the Agreement, negotiated in 1989, calls for 
    basin-wide modeling to be accomplished for the El Paso/Juarez airshed. 
    The EPA has been working with Mexico and with the Texas Natural 
    Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) to accomplish the basin-wide 
    modeling. Since the statutory attainment date for serious ozone 
    nonattainment areas such as El Paso is 1999, concerned agencies intend 
    to complete such modeling by 1999.
    
    IV. State Submittal
    
        On June 17, 1994, the TNRCC submitted to the EPA two petitions 
    pursuant to section 182(f), requesting that the DFW and El Paso 
    nonattainment areas be exempted by the EPA from the NOX control 
    requirements of section 182(f) of the CAA.
        The State bases its petitions on a demonstration that NOX 
    reductions would not contribute to attainment in either area, as 
    allowed for under the test (2) listed above, because such NOX 
    reductions would be in excess of the reductions necessary for 
    attainment. Consistent with the EPA's December 1993 section 182(f) 
    guidance, the State's excess emissions reductions demonstration is tied 
    to the attainment demonstration SIP required under section 182(c)(2)(A) 
    of the CAA.
        The State's submission for each petition includes: (1) A letter 
    from Anthony C. Grigsby, Executive Director of the TNRCC, to Jane N. 
    Saginaw, Regional Administrator of the EPA Region 6, transmitting the 
    NOX exemption petition; (2) the petition from the TNRCC 
    summarizing the State's UAM attainment demonstration results; and (3) 
    technical reports documenting the State's base case UAM inputs. The 
    State has also previously submitted to the EPA the 15 percent 
    Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) SIPs for the DFW and El Paso areas, 
    as required by section 182(b)(1) of the CAA. The 15 percent RFP SIPs 
    contain regulations that are estimated to reduce VOC emissions in each 
    area by 15 percent from 1990 levels, net of any growth that may occur. 
    The State of Texas supplemented its petitions by submitting to the EPA 
    in July 1994, two additional technical reports on the UAM for each 
    area, which contained the following: base case performance evaluation, 
    attainment year emissions report, and attainment year modeling report. 
    These additional technical reports provided supplemental detail and 
    documentation on the modeling information already provided to the EPA 
    in the State's petitions.
        On August 29, 1994, the EPA proposed to conditionally approve the 
    section 182(f) petitions for the DFW and El Paso areas (see 59 FR 
    44386). The proposed rulemaking notice provides a detailed discussion 
    of the EPA's rationale for proposing conditional approval of the 
    State's petitions and should be referred to. In that notice, the EPA 
    explained that although the State had completed its attainment 
    demonstration SIPs for both areas, the SIPs had not yet been adopted by 
    the State, nor submitted to the EPA. The EPA further explained that the 
    EPA would not take final action to conditionally approve the petitions 
    for each area unless and until the State submitted the attainment 
    demonstration SIPs to the EPA in accordance with section 182(c)(2)(A) 
    of the CAA.
        The TNRCC adopted the attainment demonstration SIP for the DFW area 
    on September 21, 1994, and submitted it to the EPA on October 3, 1994, 
    in accordance with section 182(c)(2)(A) of the CAA. Similarly, the 
    TNRCC adopted the attainment demonstration SIP for the El Paso area on 
    September 14, 1994, and submitted it to the EPA on October 3, 1994. The 
    EPA is therefore proceeding to take final action on the section 182(f) 
    petitions submitted by the TNRCC for the DFW and El Paso areas.
    
    V. Response to Comments
    
        The EPA requested public comments on all aspects of the proposed 
    action to conditionally approve the section 182(f) petitions for the 
    DFW and El Paso areas. The EPA received 27 letters of support from the 
    utility, transportation authority, metropolitan planning organization 
    and local governments in the DFW area. The EPA received three letters 
    of support from the City of El Paso, a local utility, and a 
    metropolitan planning organization in the El Paso area.
        Three adverse comment letters were received from environmental 
    groups, one of which applied only to DFW, while two of which applied to 
    both DFW and El Paso. One of the letters was submitted by three 
    environmental groups and contained generic comments objecting to the 
    EPA's general policy on section 182(f) exemptions. The three 
    environmental groups who submitted the generic letter requested that it 
    be included in each EPA rulemaking action for each section 182(f) 
    petition.
        Comment: One group objected to the use of methyl tertiary butyl 
    ether (MTBE) as a fuel additive in reformulated gasoline. The TNRCC 
    included the use of reformulated gasoline in its 15 percent RFP SIP for 
    DFW as a control strategy to reduce VOC emissions.
        Response: This comment applies to the State's reformulated gasoline 
    program, and its 15 percent RFP SIP for the DFW area that had 
    previously been adopted by the State and submitted to the EPA. The EPA 
    does not believe that this comment is relevant to the rulemaking action 
    on the State's petition for a section 182(f) NOX exemption, since 
    in this action, the EPA is not taking action on the State's 
    reformulated gasoline program nor its 15 percent RFP plan. The EPA will 
    rule on those control programs in a separate rulemaking action.
        Comment: One group felt that the UAM model for DFW was flawed from 
    a scientific perspective so as to be inadequate to make sound 
    predictions of attainment. They cited the fact that only three of the 
    four episodes initially analyzed by the State had acceptable 
    performance. In addition, they felt that the emissions inventories were 
    significantly inaccurate so as to discredit the modeling results.
        Response: The EPA disagrees with this comment that the UAM modeling 
    demonstration for DFW is flawed. Due to the large number of factors 
    that influence ozone formation, the EPA agrees that the UAM model 
    cannot precisely predict the exact relationship between VOC, NOX, 
    and ozone. However, if the model performs within certain bounds of 
    accuracy, the EPA believes that the model can and should be used to 
    develop the attainment strategy since Congress clearly intended that 
    photochemical grid modeling be used to form the basis of a control 
    strategy plan. The EPA has established general criteria to evaluate the 
    relative accuracy of a given modeling demonstration, and believes that 
    models that meet those criteria are accurate enough to form the basis 
    of the attainment strategy.
        The EPA's ``Guideline for Regulatory Application of the Urban 
    Airshed Model'' generally requires that three episodes with acceptable 
    model performance be used in the attainment demonstration. Because 
    Texas had three episodes which exhibited acceptable performance, Texas' 
    attainment modeling is fully consistent with the EPA's requirements. In 
    addition, the EPA's model performance criteria apply to each individual 
    episode rather than across episodes. Therefore, it is inaccurate to 
    conclude that the model was 75 percent accurate because only three of 
    the four episodes exhibited acceptable model performance.
        The EPA disagrees with the comment that the emissions inventories 
    were too inaccurate to produce acceptable modeling results. The EPA 
    evaluated the State's 1990 base year emissions inventories and a final 
    approval was published in the FR on November 8, 1994.
        Comment: One group stated that NOX controls should be required 
    because NOX emissions cause other adverse health and environmental 
    effects besides contributing to ozone formation.
        Response: The EPA agrees that high NOX emissions can 
    contribute to air pollution problems independent of their role in ozone 
    formation; however, the EPA disagrees that the NOX controls 
    required under section 182(f) of the CAA should be implemented in the 
    DFW area regardless of their impact on ozone. Because ambient air 
    monitoring shows that the DFW area is in attainment for the nitrogen 
    dioxide NAAQS standard, the EPA does not believe that the current level 
    of NOX emissions pose a public health or environmental risk in the 
    DFW area. In addition, section 182(f)(2)(B)(i) specifically provides 
    for an exemption in cases where NOX emission reductions would not 
    contribute to the attainment of the NAAQS for ozone in the area. The 
    TNRCC has demonstrated that the NOX reductions required by section 
    182(f) would be in excess of the emission reductions necessary for 
    attaining the ozone NAAQS. Finally, for the purposes of reducing acid 
    rain deposition, certain NOX sources will still be required to 
    reduce NOX emissions under Title IV of the CAA. For these reasons, 
    the EPA does not believe that the NOX controls required under 
    section 182(f) of the CAA should be implemented in the DFW area 
    regardless of their impact on ozone.
        Comment: One group questioned whether the current ozone standard of 
    120 parts per billion provides sufficient protection of public health.
        Response: The EPA does not believe that this comment is relevant to 
    this rulemaking action on the section 182(f) petitions for DFW and El 
    Paso. The EPA is currently reviewing the ozone primary and secondary 
    standards and will address concerns over the current ozone standard 
    through a separate rulemaking process. If the standard is revised, the 
    EPA will determine at that time what action is appropriate for 
    attainment SIPs and NOX exemption petitions that had previously 
    been approved.
        Comment: One group felt that EPA's action to propose conditional 
    approval of the State's exemption petitions without the attainment SIPs 
    was premature and denied adequate public input on the issue. They 
    commented that EPA should wait until the State actually submits the 
    attainment SIPs before making any determination as to the feasibility 
    of the two areas actually achieving the NAAQS for ozone.
        Response: The EPA disagrees with this comment for several reasons. 
    The EPA does not believe its action proposing approval of the petitions 
    was premature. As explained in the FR notice which proposed approval of 
    the petitions (see 59 FR 44386), the attainment demonstrations rely on 
    VOC regulations contained in the 15 percent RFP SIPs which had 
    previously gone through public comment, State adoption, and submission 
    to the EPA. For this reason, the EPA did not anticipate that the 
    substance of the final attainment demonstration SIPs would differ from 
    what had already been submitted to the EPA by the TNRCC in the section 
    182(f) exemption petitions. In addition, the EPA further explained that 
    the EPA would not take final action to conditionally approve the 
    petitions for each area unless and until the State had submitted the 
    attainment demonstration SIPs to the EPA in accordance with section 
    182(c)(2)(A) of the CAA. Therefore, the EPA has waited until the State 
    submitted its attainment SIPs before making any final determination.
        The EPA believes the public has had adequate opportunity for public 
    comment. The control strategies contained in the attainment SIPs had 
    previously gone through public comment and State adoption as part of 
    the 15 percent RFP SIP. In addition, the State proposed the attainment 
    SIPs on July 27, 1994. The State's public comment period on the 
    attainment SIPs closed September 2, 1994, while the comment period on 
    the EPA's proposed action to conditionally approve the petitions closed 
    on September 28, 1994. The proposed attainment SIPs were therefore 
    available for public review for two months prior to and during the 
    EPA's public comment period on the proposed action on the petitions.
        Finally, the EPA's action to approve the petitions is conditioned 
    upon the EPA finally approving the modeling portion of the attainment 
    SIPs, which will provide another opportunity for comment on the 
    adequacy of the attainment SIPs as a basis for the section 182(f) 
    exemptions.
        Comment: Three groups provided a generic comment arguing that 
    NOX exemptions are provided for in two separate parts of the CAA, 
    section 182(b)(1) and section 182(f). Because the NOX exemption 
    tests in subsections 182(b)(1) and 182(f)(1) include language 
    indicating that action on such requests should take place ``when [EPA] 
    approves a plan or plan revision,'' these commenters conclude that all 
    NOX exemption determinations by the EPA, including exemption 
    actions taken under the petition process established by subsection 
    182(f)(3), must occur during consideration of an approvable attainment 
    or maintenance plan, unless the area has been redesignated as 
    attainment. These commenters also argue that even if the petition 
    procedures of subsection 182(f)(3) may be used to relieve areas of 
    certain NOX requirements, exemptions from the NOX conformity 
    requirements must follow the process provided in subsection 182(b)(1), 
    since this is the only provision explicitly referenced by section 
    176(c), the CAA's conformity provisions.
        Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenters regarding the 
    process for considering exemption requests under section 182(f), and 
    instead believes that subsections 182(f)(1) and 182(f)(3) provide 
    independent procedures by which the EPA may act on NOX exemption 
    requests. The language in subsection 182(f)(1), which indicates that 
    the EPA should act on NOX exemptions in conjunction with action on 
    a plan or plan revision, does not appear in subsection 182(f)(3). And, 
    while subsection 182(f)(3) references subsection 182(f)(1), the EPA 
    believes that this reference encompasses only the substantive tests in 
    paragraph (1) (and, by extension, paragraph (2)), not the procedural 
    requirement that the EPA act on exemptions only when acting on SIPs. 
    Additionally, paragraph (3) provides that ``person[s]'' (which section 
    302(e) of the CAA defines to include States) may petition for NOX 
    exemptions ``at any time,'' and requires the EPA to make its 
    determination within six months of the petition's submission. These key 
    differences lead the EPA to believe that Congress intended the 
    exemption petition process of paragraph (3) to be distinct and more 
    expeditious than the longer plan revision process intended under 
    paragraph (1).
        The CAA requires conformity with regard to federally-supported 
    NOX-generating activities in relevant nonattainment and 
    maintenance areas. However, EPA's conformity rules explicitly provide 
    that these NOX requirements would not apply if the EPA grants an 
    exemption under section 182(f). In response to the comment that section 
    182(b)(1) should be the appropriate vehicle for dealing with exemptions 
    from the NOX requirements of the conformity rule, the EPA notes 
    that this issue has previously been raised in a formal petition for 
    reconsideration of the EPA's final transportation conformity rule and 
    in litigation pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 
    of Columbia Circuit on the substance of both the transportation and 
    general conformity rules. The issue, thus, is under consideration 
    within the EPA, but at this time remains unresolved. Additionally, 
    subsection 182(f)(3) requires that NOX exemption petition 
    determinations be made by the EPA within six months. The EPA has stated 
    in previous guidance that it intends to meet this statutory deadline as 
    long as doing so is consistent with the public notice requirements of 
    the Administrative Procedures Act. Absent the EPA action now, this 
    deadline, as it applies with respect to the DFW and El Paso exemption 
    requests, which were submitted in June 1994, would not be met. The EPA, 
    therefore, believes that until a resolution of this issue is achieved, 
    the applicable rules governing this issue are those that appear in the 
    EPA's final conformity regulations, and the EPA remains bound by their 
    existing terms.
        Comment: Three groups provided a generic comment on all section 
    182(f) actions that the modeling required by EPA is insufficient to 
    establish that NOX reductions would not contribute to attainment 
    since only one level of NOX control, i.e., ``substantial'' 
    reductions, is required to be analyzed. They further explained that an 
    area must submit an approvable attainment plan before EPA can know 
    whether NOX reductions will aid or undermine attainment.
        Response: The EPA does not believe that this comment is applicable 
    to the DFW or El Paso actions because attainment plans have been 
    submitted for both areas in conjunction with the section 182(f) 
    petitions. The TNRCC based its petitions for DFW and El Paso on a 
    demonstration that the NOX reductions would be in excess of the 
    reductions necessary for attainment. In contrast, the above comment 
    refers to section 182(f) petitions that are based on a demonstration 
    that NOX reductions would not contribute to attainment. Such a 
    demonstration requires that various emission reduction scenarios be 
    modeled which include substantial reductions of NOX.
        As described in Chapter 6 of the EPA's December 1993 section 182(f) 
    guidance, the excess reductions demonstration used by the TNRCC for DFW 
    and El Paso must be tied to the areas' attainment demonstration SIPs. 
    This test must show that the excess reductions are reductions in excess 
    of those specified in the attainment demonstration required by section 
    182, and either contained in the approved SIP or as adopted by the 
    State to meet the section 182 attainment demonstration requirement, and 
    submitted to the EPA for approval. The EPA believes that the more 
    precise modeling analysis contained in the State's attainment 
    demonstration SIP is required for the excess reduction test because the 
    demonstration must show that a specific portion of the total area-wide 
    NOX emissions is not beneficial under one of the three tests 
    listed above. The tie to the attainment demonstration assures that an 
    excess reductions petition would not arbitrarily be based on small 
    emissions and would not undermine the State's control strategy.
        In addition, the EPA's guidance specifies that photochemical grid 
    modeling is generally needed to document cases where NOX 
    reductions do not contribute to attainment or include excess 
    reductions. The UAM is an acceptable model for these purposes. The EPA 
    guidance also states that application of UAM should be consistent with 
    techniques specified in the EPA ``Guideline on Air Quality Models 
    (Revised).'' Further, application of UAM should also be consistent with 
    procedures contained in the EPA ``Guidelines for Regulatory Application 
    of the Urban Airshed Model'' (July 1991).
        Comment: Three groups provided a generic comment on all section 
    182(f) actions that three years of ``clean'' data fail to demonstrate 
    that NOX reductions would not contribute to attainment.
        Response: The EPA does not believe that this comment is applicable 
    to the DFW and El Paso actions because neither area has based its 
    section 182(f) petition on ``clean'' air monitoring data.
        Comment: Three groups provided a generic comment on all section 
    182(f) actions that a waiver of NOX controls is unlawful if such 
    waiver will impede attainment and maintenance of the ozone standard in 
    separate downwind areas.
        Response: The EPA believes that, while this generic comment may be 
    applicable to proposed NOX exemption actions for other areas, it 
    is not applicable to the DFW and El Paso exemption actions because the 
    EPA is unaware of, and the comment itself does not specify, any 
    downwind area for which NOX transport is of concern. This is 
    unlike the case regarding comments received by the EPA for certain 
    areas for which NOX exemptions are pending such as in Ohio, for 
    example, where the downwind areas of concern are clearly identified as 
    areas in the Northeast Ozone Transport Region. It should also be noted 
    that neither DFW nor El Paso is located near or within an ozone 
    transport region.
        Comment: Three groups provided a generic comment on all actions 
    exempting areas from the NOX requirements of the conformity rules 
    that such exemptions waive only the requirements of section 182(b)(1) 
    to contribute to specific annual reductions, not the requirement that 
    conformity SIPs contain information showing the maximum amount of motor 
    vehicle NOX emissions allowed under the transportation conformity 
    rules and, similarly, the maximum allowable amounts of any such 
    NOX emissions under the general conformity rules. The commenters 
    admit that, in prior guidance, the EPA has acknowledged the need to 
    amend a drafting error in the existing transportation conformity rules 
    to ensure consistency with motor vehicle emissions budgets for 
    NOX. The commenters, however, want the EPA to explicitly affirm 
    this obligation in FR actions on NOX exemptions and to avoid 
    granting waivers until a budget controlling future NOX increases 
    is in place.
        Response: In its ``Conformity; General Preamble for Exemption From 
    Nitrogen Oxides Provisions,'' 59 FR 31238, 31241 (June 17, 1994), the 
    EPA reiterated its view that in order to conform, nonattainment and 
    maintenance areas must demonstrate that their transportation plans and 
    transportation improvement plans are consistent with the motor vehicle 
    emissions budget for NOX even where a conformity NOX waiver 
    has been granted. Due to a drafting error, that view is not reflected 
    in the current transportation conformity rules. As the commenters 
    correctly note, the EPA states in its June 17 notice that it intends to 
    remedy the problem by amending the conformity rule. Although that 
    notice specifically mentions only requiring consistency with the 
    approved maintenance plan's NOX motor vehicle emissions budget, 
    the EPA also intends to require consistency with the attainment 
    demonstration's NOX motor vehicle emissions budget. The DFW and El 
    Paso exemptions, however, were submitted pursuant to section 182(f)(3), 
    and the EPA does not believe it is appropriate to delay the statutory 
    deadline for acting on these petitions until the conformity rule is 
    amended. As noted earlier in response to a previous issue raised by 
    these commenters, this issue has also been raised in a formal petition 
    for reconsideration of the EPA's final transportation conformity rule 
    and in litigation pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
    District of Columbia Circuit on the substance of both the 
    transportation and general conformity rules. This issue, thus, is under 
    consideration within the EPA, but at this time remains unresolved. The 
    EPA, therefore, believes that until a resolution of this issue is 
    achieved, the applicable rules governing this issue are those that 
    appear in the EPA's final conformity regulations, and the EPA remains 
    bound by their existing terms.
        Comment: Three groups provided a generic comment on all section 
    182(f) actions that the CAA does not authorize delaying implementation 
    of NOX controls if modeling is not complete.
        Response: The EPA does not believe that this comment is applicable 
    to the DFW or El Paso actions because complete attainment modeling has 
    been submitted for both areas, as part of the attainment SIPs, in 
    conjunction with the section 182(f) petitions.
    
    VI. Effective Date
    
        This rulemaking is effective as of November 21, 1994. The 
    Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), permits the 
    effective date of a substantive rule to be less than thirty days after 
    publication of the rule if the rule ``relieves a restriction.'' Since 
    the approval of the section 182(f) exemptions for the DFW and El Paso 
    areas, is a substantive rule that relieves the restrictions associated 
    with the CAA title I requirements to control NOX emissions, the 
    NOX exemption approval may be made effective upon signature by the 
    EPA Administrator.
    
    VII. Final Action
    
        In this action, the EPA is conditionally approving1 the 182(f) 
    NOX exemption petitions submitted by the State of Texas for the 
    DFW and El Paso ozone nonattainment areas, conditioned upon the EPA 
    approving the modeling portion of the attainment demonstration SIPs. If 
    the EPA proposes to disapprove the modeling portion of the SIPs, the 
    EPA will also propose disapproval of the section 182(f) NOX 
    exemption petitions, based on the fact that the technical basis for the 
    exemption is no longer valid. Upon final disapproval of the modeling 
    portion of the attainment SIPs, the EPA will issue a final disapproval 
    of the section 182(f) NOX exemption petitions as well.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \1\This conditional approval is distinct from the conditional 
    approval authority granted under section 110(k)(4), which pertains 
    to SIP actions. As discussed in the previously cited John S. Seitz 
    memorandum dated May 27, 1994, concerning the EPA's processing of 
    section 182(f) petitions, these NOX exemptions petitions are 
    not revisions to the SIP.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        There are several consequences if the EPA disapproves the section 
    182(f) NOX exemption petitions based on the conclusion that the 
    attainment SIPs were not approved by the EPA. The State would be 
    required to submit NOX RACT rules and implement the relevant 
    NOX conformity, NSR, and vehicle inspection and maintenance 
    requirements for the DFW and El Paso areas. The EPA would issue a 
    finding of nonsubmittal of the NOX RACT rules. As provided under 
    section 179(a) of the CAA, if the State did not make a complete 
    submittal within 18 months after the finding of failure to submit, the 
    EPA would be required to impose the requirement to provide two-to-one 
    NSR offsets. If the State had not corrected its deficiency within six 
    months after imposing the offset sanction, the EPA would impose a 
    second sanction, on highway funding. Any sanction the EPA imposes must 
    remain in place until the EPA determines that the State has corrected 
    the deficiency. In addition, the finding of failure to submit would 
    trigger the 24-month clock for the EPA to impose a Federal 
    Implementation Plan as required by section 110(c)(1) of the CAA.
        The EPA believes that all section 182(f) exemptions that are 
    approved, should be approved only on a contingent basis. As described 
    in the EPA's NOX Supplement to the General Preamble (57 FR 55628, 
    November 25, 1992), the EPA would rescind a NOX exemption in cases 
    where NOX reductions were later found to be beneficial in the 
    area's attainment plan. That is, a modeling based exemption would last 
    for only as long as the area's modeling continued to demonstrate 
    attainment without the additional NOX reductions required by 
    section 182(f).
        If the EPA later determines that NOX reductions are beneficial 
    based on new photochemical grid modeling in an area initially exempted, 
    the area would be removed from exempt status and would be required to 
    adopt the NOX RACT and NSR rules, except to the extent that 
    modeling shows NOX reductions to be ``excess reductions.'' In the 
    rulemaking action which removes the exempt status, the EPA would 
    specify a schedule for States to adopt the NOX RACT and NSR rules 
    and for sources to comply with the NOX RACT emission limits.
        The subsequent modeling analyses mentioned above need not be 
    limited to the purpose of demonstrating attainment in the 1994 SIP 
    revisions without the need for NOX controls required under section 
    182(f). For example, future modeling might also be initiated to resolve 
    issues related to transport of ozone and ozone precursors into downwind 
    nonattainment areas. An area might want to consider a strategy that 
    phases-in NOX reductions only after certain VOC reductions are 
    implemented. As improved emission inventories and ambient data become 
    available, areas may choose to remodel. In addition, alternative 
    control strategy scenarios might be considered in subsequent modeling 
    analyses in order to improve the cost-effectiveness of the attainment 
    plan.
        In summary, the EPA is conditionally approving the section 182(f) 
    exemptions for the DFW and El Paso areas, conditioned upon EPA's 
    approval of the modeling portion of the attainment demonstrations for 
    these areas. These exemptions will remain effective for only as long as 
    modeling in each nonattainment area continues to show that NOX 
    control activities would not be beneficial in the DFW or El Paso 
    nonattainment areas.
        In addition, the State of Texas and EPA have committed to data-
    gathering and modeling throughout the El Paso-Juarez air basin in 
    accordance with Annex V of the La Paz Agreement for Environmental 
    Cooperation on the U.S.-Mexico Border. Once the data are collected and 
    basin-wide modeling is concluded, the EPA, the State of Texas, and the 
    Republic of Mexico can develop a binational control strategy that will 
    result in improved air quality throughout the airshed. If EPA review of 
    modeling and air quality data confirms that NOX control 
    requirements on local U.S. sources would not be beneficial, the 
    exemption would be sustained. In contrast, if the EPA determines that 
    NOX control requirements would be beneficial, the exemption would 
    be rescinded.
    
    Regulatory Process
    
        Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., the EPA 
    must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of 
    any proposed or final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). 
    Alternatively, the EPA may certify that the rule will not have a 
    significant economic 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.
        Approvals of NOX exemption petitions under section 182(f) of 
    the CAA do not create any new requirements. Therefore, because the 
    Federal approval of the petitions does not impose any new requirements, 
    the EPA certifies that it does not have a significant impact on 
    affected small entities. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-
    State relationship under the CAA, preparation of a regulatory 
    flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic 
    reasonableness of State action. The CAA forbids the EPA to base its 
    actions concerning SIPs on such grounds (Union Electric Co. v. U.S. 
    E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S. Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410 (a)(2)).
        If the conditional approval is converted to a disapproval based on 
    the State's failure to meet the condition upon which the approval is 
    granted, it will not affect any existing State requirements applicable 
    to small entities. Federal disapproval of the State submittal does not 
    affect its State-enforceability. Moreover, the EPA's disapproval of the 
    submittal does not impose a new Federal requirement. Therefore, the EPA 
    certifies that this disapproval action would not have a significant 
    impact on a substantial number of small entities because such 
    disapproval would not remove existing State requirements, nor does it 
    substitute a new Federal requirement.
        Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
    of this action must be filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
    appropriate circuit by January 27, 1995. Filing a petition for 
    reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
    the finality of this rule 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).)
    
    Executive Order 12866
    
        Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the 
    EPA must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'', 
    and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review 
    and the requirements of the Executive Order. It has been determined 
    that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the 
    terms of Executive Order 12866, and is therefore not subject to OMB 
    review.
    
    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
    
        Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
    Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic 
    compounds.
    
        Dated: November 21, 1994.
    Carol M. Browner,
    Administrator.
    
        40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
    
        1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
    
        Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
    
    Subpart SS--Texas
    
        2. Section 52.2308 is added to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 52.2308  Area-wide nitrogen oxides (NOX) exemptions.
    
        (a) The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) 
    submitted to the EPA on June 17, 1994, a petition requesting that the 
    Dallas ozone nonattainment area be exempted from the NOX control 
    requirements of section 182(f) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) as amended in 
    1990. The Dallas nonattainment area consists of Dallas, Tarrant, 
    Denton, and Collin counties. The exemption request was based on a 
    photochemical grid modeling which shows that the Dallas nonattainment 
    area would attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 
    for ozone by the CAA mandated deadline without the implementation of 
    the additional NOX controls required under section 182(f). On 
    November 21, 1994, the EPA conditionally approved this exemption 
    request, conditioned upon the EPA approving the modeling portion of the 
    Dallas attainment demonstration SIP.
        (b) The TNRCC submitted to the EPA on June 17, 1994, a petition 
    requesting that the El Paso ozone nonattainment area be exempted from 
    the NOX control requirements of section 182(f) of the Clean Air 
    Act (CAA) as amended in 1990. The El Paso nonattainment area consists 
    of El Paso county, and shares a common airshed with Juarez, Mexico. The 
    exemption request was based on a photochemical grid modeling which 
    shows that the El Paso nonattainment area would attain the NAAQS for 
    ozone by the CAA mandated deadline without the implementation of the 
    additional NOX controls required under section 182(f), but for 
    emissions emanating from Mexico. On November 21, 1994, the EPA 
    conditionally approved this exemption request, conditioned upon the EPA 
    approving the modeling portion of the El Paso attainment demonstration 
    SIP.
    
    [FR Doc. 94-29195 Filed 11-25-94; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
11/21/1994
Published:
11/28/1994
Department:
Environmental Protection Agency
Entry Type:
Uncategorized Document
Action:
Final rule.
Document Number:
94-29195
Dates:
This action is effective as of November 21, 1994.
Pages:
0-0 (None pages)
Docket Numbers:
Federal Register: November 28, 1994, TX-45-1-6654, FRL-5114-2
CFR: (1)
40 CFR 52.2308