99-31723. Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Proposed Conditional Approval or Proposed Disapproval of the Attainment Demonstration State Implementation Plan for the Houston/Galveston Ozone Nonattainment Area  

  • [Federal Register Volume 64, Number 241 (Thursday, December 16, 1999)]
    [Proposed Rules]
    [Pages 70548-70562]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 99-31723]
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    
    40 CFR Part 52
    
    [TX101-2-7421; FRL-6503-4]
    
    
    Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; 
    Proposed Conditional Approval or Proposed Disapproval of the Attainment 
    Demonstration State Implementation Plan for the Houston/Galveston Ozone 
    Nonattainment Area
    
    AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
    
    ACTION: Proposed rule.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the State 
    Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for the Houston/Galveston 
    nonattainment area submitted by the State of Texas on May 19, 1998. 
    This submission was supplemented by a modeled control strategy and a 
    transportation conformity budget on November 15, 1999. The EPA is also 
    proposing, in the alternative, to disapprove the Attainment 
    Demonstration SIP submittal for the HGA area.
    
    DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 14, 2000.
    
    ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to Mr. 
    Thomas Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), at the EPA Region 6 
    Office listed below.
        Copies of the documents relevant to this action, including the 
    technical support document, are available for public inspection during 
    normal business hours at the following locations. Interested persons 
    wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the 
    appropriate office at least two working days in advance.
    
    Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Planning Section (6PD-
    L), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, 1445 Ross Avenue, 
    Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone: (214) 665-7214.
    Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Office of Air Quality, 
    12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Guy R. Donaldson, Air Planning 
    Section (6PD-L), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, 
    Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, 
    Texas 75202-2733, telephone: (214) 665-7242.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This section provides background information 
    on attainment demonstration SIPs for the 1-hour ozone national ambient 
    air quality standard (NAAQS) and an analysis of the 1-hour ozone 
    attainment demonstration SIP submittal for the Houston/Galveston area.
    
    Table of Contents
    
    I. Background Information
    II. EPA's Review and Technical Information
    III. Administrative Requirements
    
    I. Background Information
    
    A. What Is the Basis for the State's Attainment Demonstration SIP?
    
    1. Clean Air Act (CAA) Requirements
        The CAA requires EPA to establish national ambient air quality 
    standards (NAAQS or standards) for certain widespread pollutants that 
    cause or contribute to air pollution that is reasonably anticipated to 
    endanger public health or welfare. CAA Secs. 108 and 109. In 1979, EPA 
    promulgated the 1-hour 0.12 parts per million (ppm) ground-level ozone 
    standard. 44 FR 8202 (Feb. 8, 1979). Ground-level ozone is not emitted 
    directly by sources. Rather, emissions of nitrogen oxides 
    (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) react in the 
    presence of sunlight to form ground-level ozone. NOX and VOC 
    are referred to as precursors of ozone.
    
    [[Page 70549]]
    
        An area exceeds the 1-hour ozone standard each time an ambient air 
    quality monitor records a 1-hour average ozone concentration above 
    0.124 ppm. An area is violating the standard if, over a consecutive 
    three-year period, more than three exceedances occur, or would have 
    been expected to occur, at any one monitor. The CAA, as amended in 
    1990, required EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that was 
    violating the 1-hour ozone standard, generally based on air quality 
    monitoring data from the three-year period from 1987-1989. CAA 
    Sec. 107(d)(4); 56 FR 56694 (Nov. 6, 1991). The CAA further classified 
    these areas, based on the area's design value, as marginal, moderate, 
    serious, severe or extreme. CAA Sec. 181(a). Marginal areas were 
    suffering the least significant air pollution problems while the areas 
    classified as severe and extreme had the most significant air pollution 
    problems.
        The control requirements and dates by which attainment needs to be 
    achieved vary with the area's classification. Marginal areas are 
    subject to the fewest mandated control requirements and have the 
    earliest attainment date. Severe and extreme areas are subject to more 
    stringent planning requirements but are provided more time to attain 
    the standard. Under section 181(a)(1) and (2),serious areas are 
    required to attain the 1-hour standard by November 15, 1999, and severe 
    areas are required to attain by November 15, 2005 (Severe-15) or 
    November 15, 2007 (Severe-17). The Houston/Galveston area is classified 
    as severe-17 and its attainment date is November 15, 2007.
        Under section 182(c)(2) and (d) of the CAA, serious and severe 
    areas were required to submit by November 15, 1994, demonstrations of 
    how they would attain the 1-hour standard and how they would achieve 
    reductions in VOC emissions of 9 percent for each three-year period 
    until the attainment year (rate-of-progress or ROP). (In some cases, 
    NOX emission reductions can be substituted for the required 
    VOC emission reductions.) Today, EPA is proposing action on the 
    attainment demonstration SIP submitted by Texas for the Houston/
    Galveston area, including the State's commitment to submit by December 
    2000 the adopted measures necessary for attainment by 2007. The EPA is 
    also proposing action on the State's commitment to submit by December 
    2000 ROP target calculations and the adopted measures to achieve ROP 
    until the attainment year. (Note, EPA will be taking action on the 
    emission reduction plan for the three year period from 1996-1999 in a 
    separate action.) In addition, elsewhere in this Federal Register, EPA 
    is today proposing to take action on nine other serious or severe 1-
    hour ozone attainment demonstration and in some cases ROP SIPs. The 
    additional nine areas are Greater Connecticut, Springfield (Western 
    Massachusetts), New-York-North New Jersey-Long Island, Baltimore, 
    Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton, Metropolitan Washington, D.C., 
    Atlanta, Milwaukee-Racine, and Chicago-Gary-Lake County.
        In general, an attainment demonstration SIP includes a modeling 
    analysis component showing how the area will achieve the standard by 
    its attainment date and the control measures necessary to achieve those 
    reductions. Another component of the attainment demonstration SIP is a 
    motor vehicle emissions budget for transportation conformity purposes. 
    Transportation conformity is a process for ensuring that States 
    consider the effects of emissions associated with new or improved 
    federally-funded roadways on attainment of the standard. As described 
    in section 176(c)(2)(A), attainment demonstrations necessarily include 
    the estimates of motor vehicle emissions that are consistent with 
    attainment, which then act as a budget or ceiling for the purposes of 
    determining whether transportation plans and projects conform to the 
    attainment SIP.
    2. History and Time Frame for the State's Attainment Demonstration SIP
        Notwithstanding significant efforts by the States, in 1995 EPA 
    recognized that many States in the eastern half of the United States 
    could not meet the November 1994, time frame for submitting an 
    attainment demonstration SIP because emissions of NOX and 
    VOCs in upwind States (and the ozone formed by these emissions) 
    affected these nonattainment areas and the full impact of this effect 
    had not yet been determined. This phenomenon is called ozone transport.
        On March 2, 1995, Mary D. Nichols, EPA's then Assistant 
    Administrator for Air and Radiation, issued a memorandum to EPA's 
    Regional Administrators acknowledging the efforts made by States but 
    noting the remaining difficulties in making attainment demonstration 
    SIP submittals.1 Recognizing the problems created by ozone 
    transport, the March 2, 1995 memorandum called for a collaborative 
    process among the States in the eastern half of the country to evaluate 
    and address transport of ozone and its precursors. This memorandum led 
    to the formation of the Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG) 
    2 and provided for the States to submit the attainment 
    demonstration SIPs based on the expected time frames for OTAG to 
    complete its evaluation of ozone transport.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \1\ Memorandum, ``Ozone Attainment Demonstrations,'' issued 
    March 2, 1995. A copy of the memorandum may be found on EPA's web 
    site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html
        \2\ Letter from Mary A. Gade, Director, State of Illinois 
    Environmental Protection Agency to Environmental Council of States 
    Members, dated April 13, 1995.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        In June 1997, OTAG concluded and provided EPA with recommendations 
    regarding ozone transport. The OTAG generally concluded that transport 
    of ozone and the precursor NOX is significant and should be 
    reduced regionally to enable States in the eastern half of the country 
    to attain the ozone NAAQS.
        In recognition of the length of the OTAG process, in a December 29, 
    1997, memorandum, Richard Wilson, EPA's then Acting Assistant 
    Administrator for Air and Radiation, provided until April 1998 for 
    States to submit the following elements of their attainment 
    demonstration SIPs for serious and severe nonattainment areas: (1) 
    Evidence that the applicable control measures in subpart 2 of part D of 
    title I of the CAA were adopted and implemented or were on an 
    expeditious course to being adopted and implemented; (2) a list of 
    measures needed to meet the remaining ROP emissions reduction 
    requirement and to reach attainment; (3) for severe areas only, a 
    commitment to adopt and submit target calculations for post-1999 ROP 
    and the control measures necessary for attainment and ROP plans through 
    the attainment year by the end of 2000 3; (4) a commitment 
    to implement the SIP control programs in a timely manner and to meet 
    ROP emissions reductions and attainment; and (5) evidence of a
    
    [[Page 70550]]
    
    public hearing on the State submittal.4 5 This 
    submission is sometimes referred to as the Phase 2 submission. Motor 
    vehicle emissions budgets can be established based on a commitment to 
    adopt the measures needed for attainment and identification of the 
    measures needed. Thus, State submissions due in April 1998 under the 
    Wilson policy should have included a motor vehicle emissions budget.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \3\ [Severe areas only] In general, a commitment for severe 
    areas to adopt by December 2000 the control measures necessary for 
    attainment and ROP plans through the attainment year applies to any 
    additional measures that were not otherwise required to be submitted 
    earlier. (For example, this memorandum was not intended to allow 
    States to delay submission of measures required under the CAA, such 
    as inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs or reasonable available 
    control technology (RACT) regulations, required at an earlier time.) 
    Thus, this commitment applies to any control measures or emission 
    reductions on which the State relied for purposes of the modeled 
    attainment demonstration or for ROP. To the extent Texas has relied 
    on a commitment to submit these measures by December 2000 for the 
    Houston nonattainment area, EPA is proposing a conditional approval 
    of the area's attainment demonstration. Some severe areas submitted 
    the actual adopted control measures and are not relying on a 
    commitment.
        \4\ Memorandum, ``Guidance for Implementing the 1-Hour Ozone and 
    Pre-Existing PM 10 NAAQS,'' issued December 29, 1997. A copy of this 
    memorandum may be found on EPA's web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/
    oarpg/t1pgm.html.
        \5\ In general, a commitment for severe areas to adopt by 
    December 2000 the control measures necessary for attainment and ROP 
    plans through the attainment year applies to any additional measures 
    necessary for attainment that were not otherwise required to be 
    submitted earlier. (For example, this memorandum was not intended to 
    allow States to delay submission of measures required under the CAA, 
    such as inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs or reasonable 
    available control technology (RACT) regulations, required at an 
    earlier time.) Thus, this commitment applies to any control measures 
    or emission reductions on which the State relied for purposes of the 
    modeled attainment demonstration. To the extent Houston has relied 
    on a commitment to submit these measures by December 2000, EPA is 
    proposing a conditional approval of the area's attainment 
    demonstration. Some severe areas submitted the actual adopted 
    control measures and are not relying on a commitment.
        The EPA recognizes that motor vehicle emissions budgets can be 
    established from the items listed in the Wilson memorandum.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Building upon the OTAG recommendations and technical analyses, in 
    November 1997, EPA proposed action addressing the ozone transport 
    problem. In its proposal, the EPA found that current SIPs in 22 States 
    and the District of Columbia (23 jurisdictions) were insufficient to 
    provide for attainment and maintenance of the 1-hour standard because 
    they did not regulate NOX emissions that significantly 
    contribute to ozone transport. 62 FR 60318 (Nov. 7, 1997). The EPA 
    finalized that rule in September 1998, calling on the 23 jurisdictions 
    to revise their SIPs to require NOX emissions reductions 
    within the State to a level consistent with a NOX emissions 
    budget identified in the final rule. 63 FR 57356 (Oct. 27, 1998). This 
    final rule is commonly referred to as the NOX SIP Call. 
    Texas participated in the OTAG but was not included in the SIP call.
    3. Time Frame for Taking Action on Attainment Demonstration SIPs for 10 
    Serious and Severe Areas
        The States generally submitted the SIPs between April and October 
    of 1998; some States are still submitting additional revisions as 
    described below. Under the CAA, EPA is required to approve or 
    disapprove a State's submission no later than 18 months following 
    submission. (The statute provides up to six months for a completeness 
    determination and an additional 12 months for approval or disapproval.) 
    The EPA believes that it is important to keep the process moving 
    forward in evaluating these plans and, as appropriate, approving them. 
    Thus, in today's Federal Register, EPA is proposing to take action on 
    the 10 serious and severe 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIPs 
    (located in 13 States and the District of Columbia) and intends to take 
    final action on these submissions over the next 6-12 months. The reader 
    is referred to individual dates in this document for specific 
    information on actions leading to EPA's final rulemaking on these 
    plans.
    4. Options for Action on a State's Attainment Demonstration SIP
        Depending on the circumstances unique to each of the 10 area SIP 
    submissions on which EPA is proposing action today, EPA is proposing 
    one or more of these types of approval or disapproval in the 
    alternative. In addition, these proposals may identify additional 
    action that will be necessary from the State.
        The CAA provides for EPA to approve, disapprove, partially approve 
    or conditionally approve a State's plan submission. CAA section 110(k). 
    The EPA must fully approve the submission if it meets the attainment 
    demonstration requirement of the CAA. If the submission is deficient in 
    some way, EPA may disapprove the submission. In the alternative, if 
    portions of the submission are approvable, EPA may partially approve 
    and partially disapprove, or may conditionally approve based on a 
    commitment to correct the deficiency by a date certain, which can be no 
    later than one year from the date of EPA's final conditional approval.
        The EPA may partially approve a submission if separable parts of 
    the submission, standing alone, are consistent with the CAA. For 
    example, if a State submits a modeled attainment demonstration, 
    including control measures, but the modeling does not demonstrate 
    attainment, EPA could approve the control measures and disapprove the 
    modeling for failing to demonstrate attainment.
        The EPA may issue a conditional approval based on a State's 
    commitment to expeditiously correct a deficiency by a date certain that 
    can be no later than one year following EPA's conditional approval. 
    Such commitments do not need to be independently enforceable because, 
    if the State does not fulfill its commitment, the conditional approval 
    is converted to a disapproval. For example, if a State commits to 
    submit additional control measures and fails to submit them or EPA 
    determines the State's submission of the control measures is 
    incomplete, the EPA will notify the State by letter that the 
    conditional approval has been converted to a disapproval. If the State 
    submits control measures that EPA determines are complete or that are 
    deemed complete, EPA will determine through rulemaking whether the 
    State's attainment demonstration is fully approvable or whether the 
    conditional approval of the attainment demonstration should be 
    converted to a disapproval.
        Finally, EPA has recognized that in some limited circumstances, it 
    may be appropriate to issue a full approval for a submission that 
    consists, in part, of an enforceable commitment. Unlike the commitment 
    for conditional approval, such an enforceable commitment can be 
    enforced in court by EPA or citizens. In addition, this type of 
    commitment may extend beyond one year following EPA's approval action. 
    Thus, EPA may accept such an enforceable commitment where it is 
    infeasible for the State to accomplish the necessary action in the 
    short term.
    
    B. What Are the Components of a Modeled Attainment Demonstration?
    
        The EPA provides that States may rely on a modeled attainment 
    demonstration supplemented with additional evidence to demonstrate 
    attainment. 6 In order to have a complete modeling 
    demonstration submission, States should have submitted the required 
    modeling analysis and identified any additional evidence that EPA 
    should consider in evaluating whether the area will attain the 
    standard.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \6\ The EPA issued guidance on the air quality modeling that is 
    used to demonstrate attainment with the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. See U.S. 
    EPA, Guideline for Regulatory Application of the Urban Airshed 
    Model, EPA-450/4-91-013, (July 1991). A copy may be found on EPA's 
    web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/ (file name: ``UAMREG''). 
    See also U.S. EPA, Guidance on Use of Modeled Results to Demonstrate 
    Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS, EPA-454/B-95-007, (June 1996). A copy 
    may be found on EPA's web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/ 
    (file name: ``O3TEST'').
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    1. Modeling Requirements
        For purposes of demonstrating attainment, the CAA requires serious 
    and severe areas to use photochemical grid modeling or an analytical 
    method EPA determines to be as effective. The photochemical grid model 
    is set up
    
    [[Page 70551]]
    
    using meteorological conditions conducive to the formation of ozone. 
    Emissions for a base year are used to evaluate the model's ability to 
    reproduce actual monitored air quality values and to predict air 
    quality changes in the attainment year due to the emission changes 
    which include growth up to and controls implemented by the attainment 
    year. A modeling domain is chosen that encompasses the nonattainment 
    area. Attainment is demonstrated when all predicted concentrations 
    inside the modeling domain are at or below the NAAQS or at an 
    acceptable upper limit above the NAAQS permitted under certain 
    conditions by EPA's guidance. When the predicted concentrations are 
    above the NAAQS, an optional weight of evidence determination which 
    incorporates, but is not limited to, other analyses such as air quality 
    and emissions trends may be used to address uncertainty inherent in the 
    application of photochemical grid models.
        The EPA guidance identifies the features of a modeling analysis 
    that are essential to obtain credible results. First, the State must 
    develop and implement a modeling protocol. The modeling protocol 
    describes the methods and procedures to be used in conducting the 
    modeling analyses and provides for policy oversight and technical 
    review by individuals responsible for developing or assessing the 
    attainment demonstration (State and local agencies, EPA Regional 
    offices, the regulated community, and public interest groups). Second, 
    for purposes of developing the information to put into the model, the 
    State must select air pollution days, i.e., days in the past with bad 
    air quality, that are representative of the ozone pollution problem for 
    the nonattainment area. Third, the State needs to identify the 
    appropriate dimensions of the area to be modeled, i.e., the domain 
    size. The domain should be larger than the designated nonattainment 
    area to reduce uncertainty in the boundary conditions and should 
    include large upwind sources just outside the nonattainment area. In 
    general, the domain is considered the local area where control measures 
    are most beneficial to bring the area into attainment. Fourth, the 
    State needs to determine the grid resolution. The horizontal and 
    vertical resolutions in the model affect the dispersion and transport 
    of emission plumes. Artificially large grid cells (too few vertical 
    layers and horizontal grids) may dilute concentrations and may not 
    properly consider impacts of complex terrain, complex meteorology, and 
    land/water interfaces. Fifth, the State needs to generate 
    meteorological data that describe atmospheric conditions and emissions 
    inputs. Finally, the State needs to verify that the model is properly 
    simulating the chemistry and atmospheric conditions through diagnostic 
    analyses and model performance tests. Once these steps are 
    satisfactorily completed, the model is ready to be used to generate air 
    quality estimates to support an attainment demonstration.
        The modeled attainment test compares model predicted 1-hour daily 
    maximum concentrations in all grid cells for the attainment year to the 
    level of the NAAQS. A predicted concentration above 0.124 ppm ozone 
    indicates that the area is expected to exceed the standard in the 
    attainment year and a prediction at or below 0.124 ppm indicates that 
    the area is expected to attain the standard. This type of test is often 
    referred to as an exceedance test. The EPA's guidance recommends that 
    States use either of two modeled attainment or exceedance tests for the 
    1-hour ozone NAAQS, a deterministic test or a statistical test.
        The deterministic test requires the State to compare predicted 1-
    hour daily maximum ozone concentrations for each modeled day 
    7 to the attainment level of 0.124 ppm. If none of the 
    predictions exceed 0.124 ppm, the test is passed.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \7\ The initial, ``ramp-up'' days for each episode are excluded 
    from this determination.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        The statistical test takes into account the fact that the form of 
    the 1-hour ozone standard allows exceedances. If, over a three-year 
    period, the area has an average of one or fewer exceedances per year, 
    the area is not violating the standard. Thus, if the State models a 
    very extreme day, the statistical test provides that a prediction above 
    0.124 ppm up to a certain upper limit may be consistent with attainment 
    of the standard. (The form of the 1-hour standard allows for up to 
    three readings above the standard over a three-year period before an 
    area is considered to be in violation.)
        The acceptable upper limit above 0.124 ppm is determined by 
    examining the size of exceedances at monitoring sites which meet the 1-
    hour NAAQS. For example, a monitoring site for which the four highest 
    1-hour average concentrations over a three-year period are 0.136 ppm, 
    0.130 ppm, 0.128 ppm and 0.122 ppm is attaining the standard. To 
    identify an acceptable upper limit, the statistical likelihood of 
    observing ozone air quality exceedances of the standard of various 
    concentrations is equated to the severity of the modeled day. The upper 
    limit generally represents the maximum ozone concentration observed at 
    a location on a single day and it would be the only reading above the 
    standard that would be expected to occur no more than an average of 
    once a year over a three-year period. Therefore, if the maximum ozone 
    concentration predicted by the model is below the acceptable upper 
    limit, in this case 0.136 ppm, then EPA might conclude that the modeled 
    attainment test is passed. Generally, exceedances well above 0.124 ppm 
    are very unusual at monitoring sites meeting the NAAQS. Thus, these 
    upper limits are rarely substantially higher than the attainment level 
    of 0.124 ppm.
    2. Additional Analyses Where Modeling Fails to Show Attainment
        When the modeling does not conclusively demonstrate attainment, 
    additional analyses may be presented to help determine whether the area 
    will attain the standard. As with other predictive tools, there are 
    inherent uncertainties associated with modeling and its results. For 
    example, there are uncertainties in some of the modeling inputs, such 
    as the meteorological and emissions data bases for individual days and 
    in the methodology used to assess the severity of an exceedance at 
    individual sites. The EPA's guidance recognizes these limitations, and 
    provides a means for considering other evidence to help assess whether 
    attainment of the NAAQS is likely. The process by which this is done is 
    called a weight of evidence (WOE) determination.
        Under a WOE determination, the State can rely on and EPA will 
    consider factors such as other modeled attainment tests, e.g., a 
    rollback analysis; other modeled outputs, e.g., changes in the 
    predicted frequency and pervasiveness of exceedances and predicted 
    changes in the design value; actual observed air quality trends; 
    estimated emissions trends; analyses of air quality monitored data; the 
    responsiveness of the model predictions to further controls; and, 
    whether there are additional control measures that are or will be 
    approved into the SIP but were not included in the modeling analysis. 
    This list is not an exclusive list of factors that may be considered 
    and these factors could vary from case to case. The EPA's guidance 
    contains no limit on how close a modeled attainment test must be to 
    passing to conclude that other evidence besides an attainment test is 
    sufficiently compelling to suggest attainment. However, the further a 
    modeled attainment test is from being passed, the more compelling the 
    WOE needs to be.
    
    [[Page 70552]]
    
        The EPA's 1996 modeling guidance also recognizes a need to perform 
    a mid-course review as a means for addressing uncertainty in the 
    modeling results. Because of the uncertainty in long term projections, 
    EPA believes a viable attainment demonstration that relies on WOE needs 
    to contain provisions for periodic review of monitoring, emissions, and 
    modeling data to assess the extent to which refinements to emission 
    control measures are needed. The mid-course review is discussed in 
    Section C.6.
    
    C. What Is the Frame Work for Proposing Action on the Attainment 
    Demonstration SIPs?
    
        In addition to the modeling analysis and WOE support demonstrating 
    attainment, the EPA has identified the following key elements which 
    must be present in order for EPA to approve or conditionally approve 
    the 1-hour attainment demonstration SIPs. These elements are listed 
    below and then described in detail.
         CAA measures and measures relied on in the modeled 
    attainment demonstration SIP. This includes adopted and submitted rules 
    for all previously required CAA mandated measures for the specific area 
    classification. This also includes measures that may not be required 
    for the area classification but that the State relied on in the SIP 
    submission for attainment and ROP plans on which EPA is proposing to 
    take action on today.
         NOX reductions affecting boundary conditions.
         A motor vehicle emissions budget which can be determined 
    by EPA to be adequate for conformity purposes.
         Tier 2/Sulfur program benefits where needed to demonstrate 
    attainment. Inclusion of reductions expected from EPA's Tier 2 tailpipe 
    and low sulfur-in-fuel standards in the attainment demonstration and 
    the motor vehicle emissions budget.
         In certain areas, additional measures to further reduce 
    emissions to support the attainment test. Additional measures may be 
    measures adopted regionally such as in the Ozone Transport Region, or 
    locally (intrastate) in individual States.
         Mid-course review. An enforceable commitment to conduct a 
    mid-course review and evaluation based on air quality and emission 
    trends. The mid-course review would show whether the adopted control 
    measures are sufficient to reach attainment by the area's attainment 
    date, or that additional control measures are necessary.
    1. CAA Measures and Measures Relied on in the Modeled Attainment 
    Demonstration SIP
        The States should have adopted the control measures already 
    required under the CAA for the area classification. Since these 10 
    serious and severe areas need to achieve substantial reductions from 
    their 1990 emissions levels in order to attain, EPA anticipates that 
    these areas need all of the measures required under the CAA to attain 
    the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
        In addition, the States may have included control measures in its 
    attainment strategy that are in addition to measures required in the 
    CAA. (For serious areas, these should have already been identified and 
    adopted, whereas severe areas have until December 2000 to submit 
    measures necessary to achieve ROP through the attainment year and to 
    attain.) For purposes of fully approving the State's SIP, the State 
    will need to adopt and submit all VOC and NOX controls 
    within the local modeling domain that were relied on for purposes of 
    the modeled attainment demonstration.
        The following tables present a summary of the CAA requirements that 
    need to be met for each serious and severe nonattainment area for the 
    1-hour ozone NAAQS. These requirements are specified in section 182 of 
    the CAA. Information on more measures that States may have adopted or 
    relied on in their current SIP submissions is not shown in the tables. 
    The EPA will need to take final action approving all measures relied on 
    for attainment, including the required ROP control measures and target 
    calculations, before EPA can issue a final full approval of the 
    attainment demonstration as meeting CAA section 182(c)(2) (for serious 
    areas) or (d) (for severe areas).
    
                       CAA Requirements for Serious Areas
     
     
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    --NSR for VOC and NOX**, including an offset ratio of 1.2:1 and a major
     VOC and NOX source cutoff of 50 tons per year (tpy)
    --Reasonable Available Control Technology (RACT) for VOC and NOX**
    --Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program
    --15% volatile organic compound (VOC) plans
    --Emissions inventory
    --Emission statements
    --Attainment demonstration
    --9 percent ROP plan through 1999
    --Clean fuels program or substitute
    --Enhanced monitoring--Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Stations
     (PAMS)
    --Stage II vapor recovery
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    **Areas that are currently attaining the standard or can demonstrate
      that NOX controls are not needed can request a NOX waiver under
      section 182(f). Houston/Galveston Area is not such an area.
    
    
                        CAA Requirements for Severe Areas
     
     
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    --All of the nonattainment area requirements for serious areas
    --NSR, including an offset ratio of 1.3:1 and a major VOC and NOX source
     cutoff of 25 tons per year (tpy)
    --Reformulated gasoline
    --9% ROP plan through attainment year
    --Measures to offset VMT growth
    --Requirement for fees for major sources for failure to attain
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    2. NOX Reductions Consistent With the Modeling Demonstration
        The EPA completed final rulemaking on the NOX SIP call 
    on October 27, 1998, which required States to address transport of 
    NOX and ozone to other States. To address transport, the 
    NOX SIP call established emissions budgets for 
    NOX that 23 jurisdictions were required to show they would 
    meet through enforceable SIP measures adopted and submitted by 
    September 30, 1999. The NOX SIP call is intended to reduce 
    emissions in upwind States that significantly contribute to 
    nonattainment problems. The EPA did not identify specific sources that 
    the States must regulate nor did EPA limit the States' choices 
    regarding where to achieve the emission reductions. Subsequently, a 
    three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
    Circuit issued an order staying the portion of the NOX SIP 
    call rule requiring States to submit rules by September 30, 1999.
        The NOX SIP call rule establishes budgets for the States 
    in which nine of the nonattainment areas for which EPA is proposing 
    action today are located. The nine areas are: Greater Connecticut, 
    Springfield, MA, New York-North New Jersey-Long Island (NY-NJ-CT), 
    Baltimore, MD, Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton (PA-NJ-DE-MD), 
    Metropolitan Washington, D.C. (DC-MD-VA), Atlanta, GA, Milwaukee-Racine 
    WI, and Chicago-Gary-Lake County (IL-IN).
        Emission reductions that will be achieved through EPA's 
    NOX SIP call will reduce the levels of ozone and ozone 
    precursors entering nonattainment areas at their boundaries. For 
    purposes of developing attainment
    
    [[Page 70553]]
    
    demonstrations, States define local modeling domains that include both 
    the nonattainment area and nearby surrounding areas. The ozone levels 
    at the boundary of the local modeling domain are reflected in modeled 
    attainment demonstrations and are referred to as boundary conditions. 
    With the exception of Houston, the 1-hour attainment demonstrations on 
    which EPA is proposing action have relied, in part, on the 
    NOX SIP Call reductions for purposes of determining the 
    boundary conditions of the modeling domain. Emission reductions assumed 
    in the attainment demonstrations are modeled to occur both within the 
    State and in upwind States; thus, intrastate reductions as well as 
    reductions in other States impact the boundary conditions. Although the 
    court has indefinitely stayed the SIP submission deadline, the 
    NOX SIP Call rule remains in effect. Therefore, EPA believes 
    it is appropriate to allow States to continue to assume the reductions 
    from the NOX SIP call in areas outside the local 1-hour 
    modeling domains. If States assume control levels and emission 
    reductions other than those of the NOX SIP call within their 
    State but outside of the modeling domain, States must also adopt 
    control measures to achieve those reductions in order to have an 
    approvable plan.
        Accordingly, States in which the nonattainment areas are located 
    will not be required to adopt measures outside the modeling domain to 
    achieve the NOX SIP call budgets prior to the time that all 
    States are required to comply with the NOX SIP call. If the 
    reductions from the NOX SIP call do not occur as planned, 
    States will need to revise their SIPs to add additional local measures 
    or obtain interstate reductions, or both, in order to provide 
    sufficient reductions needed for attainment.
        As provided in section 1 above, any controls assumed by the State 
    inside the local modeling domain 8 for purposes of the 
    modeled attainment demonstration must be adopted and submitted as part 
    of the State's 1-hour attainment demonstration SIP. It is only for 
    reductions occurring outside the local modeling domain that States may 
    assume implementation of NOX SIP call measures and the 
    resulting boundary conditions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \8\ For the purposes of this document, ``local modeling domain'' 
    is typically an urban scale domain with horizontal dimensions less 
    than about 300 km on a side, horizontal grid resolution less than or 
    equal to 5  x  5 km or finer. The domain is large enough to ensure 
    that emissions occurring at 8 am in the domain's center are still 
    within the domain at 8 pm the same day. If recirculation of the 
    nonattainment area's previous day's emissions is believed to 
    contribute to an observed problem, the domain is large enough to 
    characterize this.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    3. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget
        The EPA believes that attainment demonstration SIPs must 
    necessarily estimate the motor vehicle emissions that will be produced 
    in the attainment year and demonstrate that this emissions level, when 
    considered with emissions from all other sources, is consistent with 
    attainment. The estimate of motor vehicle emissions is used to 
    determine the conformity of transportation plans and programs to the 
    SIP, as described by CAA section 176(c)(2)(A). For transportation 
    conformity purposes, the estimate of motor vehicle emissions is known 
    as the motor vehicle emissions budget. The EPA believes that 
    appropriately identified motor vehicle emissions budgets are a 
    necessary part of an attainment demonstration SIP. A SIP cannot 
    effectively demonstrate attainment unless it identifies the level of 
    motor vehicle emissions that can be produced while still demonstrating 
    attainment.
        The EPA has determined that except for the Western MA (Springfield) 
    attainment demonstration SIP, the motor vehicle emission budgets for 
    all areas in today's proposals are inadequate or missing from the 
    attainment demonstration. Therefore, EPA is proposing to disapprove the 
    attainment demonstration SIPs for those nine areas if the States do not 
    submit motor vehicle emissions budgets that EPA can find adequate by 
    May 31, 2000.9 In order for EPA to complete the adequacy 
    process by the end of May, States should submit a budget no later than 
    December 31, 1999.10 If an area does not have a motor 
    vehicle emissions budget that EPA can determine adequate for conformity 
    purposes by May 31, 2000, EPA plans to take final action at that time 
    disapproving in full or in part the area's attainment demonstration. 
    The emissions budget should reflect all the motor vehicle control 
    measures contained in the attainment demonstration, i.e., measures 
    already adopted for the nonattainment area as well as those yet to be 
    adopted.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \9\ For severe areas, EPA will determine the adequacy of the 
    emissions budgets associated with the post-1999 ROP plans once the 
    States submit the target calculations, which are due no later than 
    December 2000.
        \10\ A final budget is preferred; but, if the State public 
    process is not yet complete, then a draft budget for public hearing 
    may be submitted. The adequacy process generally takes at least 90 
    days. Therefore, in order for EPA to complete the adequacy process 
    no later than the end of May, EPA must have by February 15, 2000, 
    the final budget or a draft that is substantially similar to what 
    the final budget will be. The State must submit the final budget by 
    April 15, 2000.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    4. Tier 2/Sulfur Program Benefits
        On May 13, 1999, EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
    proposing a major, comprehensive program designed to significantly 
    reduce emissions from passenger cars and light trucks (including sport-
    utility vehicles, minivans, and pickup trucks) and to reduce sulfur in 
    gasoline. Under the proposed program, automakers would produce vehicles 
    designed to have very low emissions when operated on low-sulfur 
    gasoline, and oil refiners would provide that cleaner gasoline 
    nationwide. The EPA subsequently issued two supplemental notices. 64 FR 
    35112 (June 30, 1999); 64 FR 57827 (October 27, 1999).
        These notices provide 1-hour ozone modeling and monitoring 
    information that support EPA's belief that the Tier 2/Sulfur program is 
    necessary to help areas attain the 1-hour NAAQS. Under the proposed 
    rule, NOX and VOC emission reductions (as well as other 
    reductions not directly relevant for attainment of the 1-hour ozone 
    standard) would occur beginning in the 2004 ozone season although 
    incentives for early compliance by vehicle manufacturers and refiners 
    will likely result in some reductions prior to 2004. Nationwide, the 
    Tier 2/Sulfur program is projected to result in reductions of 
    approximately 800,000 tons of NOX per year by 2007 and 
    1,200,000 tons by 2010.
        In the October 27, 1999, supplemental notice, EPA reported in Table 
    1 that EPA's regional ozone modeling indicated that 17 metropolitan 
    areas for which the 1-hour standard applies need the Tier 2/Sulfur 
    program reductions to help attain the 1-hour ozone standard. The 
    Houston area is included on that list.
        The EPA issued a memorandum that provides estimates of the 
    emissions reductions associated with the Tier 2/Sulfur program 
    proposal.11 The memorandum provides the NOX and 
    VOC tonnage benefits for the Tier 2/Sulfur program in 2007 on a county-
    by-county basis for all counties within the 10 serious and severe 
    nonattainment areas for which EPA is proposing to take action today and 
    the 2005 tonnage
    
    [[Page 70554]]
    
    benefits for the Tier 2/Sulfur program for each county for three areas.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \11\ Memorandum, ``1-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstrations and 
    Tier 2/Sulfur Rulemaking'' from Lydia Wegman, Office of Air Quality 
    Planning and Standards and Merrylin Zaw-Mon, Office of Mobile 
    Sources to the Air Division Directors, Regions I-VI, issued November 
    8, 1999. A copy of this memorandum may be found on EPA's web site at 
    http://www.epa.gov/oms/transp/traqconf.htm.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        The EPA also issued a memorandum which explains the connection 
    between the Tier 2/Sulfur program, motor vehicle emissions budgets for 
    conformity determinations, and timing for SIP revisions to account for 
    the Tier 2/Sulfur program benefit.12 This memorandum 
    explains that conformity analyses in serious and severe ozone 
    nonattainment areas can begin including Tier 2/Sulfur program benefits 
    once EPA's Tier 2 rule is promulgated, provided that the attainment 
    demonstration SIPs and associated motor vehicle emissions budgets 
    include the Tier 2 benefits. For areas that require all or some portion 
    of the Tier 2 benefits to demonstrate attainment but have not yet 
    included the benefits in the motor vehicle emissions budgets, EPA's 
    adequacy finding will include a condition that conformity 
    determinations may not take credit for Tier 2 until the SIP budgets are 
    revised to reflect Tier 2 benefits. See EPA's memorandum for more 
    information.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \12\ Memorandum, ``Guidance on Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 
    in One-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstrations,'' from Merrylin Zaw-
    Mon, Office of Mobile Sources, to Air Division Directors, Regions I-
    VI, issued November 3, 1999. A copy of this memorandum may be found 
    on EPA's web site at http://www.epa.gov/oms/transp/traqconf.htm.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        For the New York-North New Jersey-Long Island area, Philadelphia-
    Wilmington-Trenton, Baltimore, Atlanta and Houston/Galveston 
    nonattainment areas, the EPA is proposing to determine that additional 
    emission reductions beyond those provided by the SIP submission are 
    necessary for attainment. With the exception of the Atlanta 
    nonattainment area, a portion of that reduction will be achieved by 
    EPA's Tier 2/Sulfur program, which EPA expects to finalize shortly. In 
    the case of the Houston/Galveston area, Texas has already included a 
    preliminary estimate of the reductions for Tier II in their air quality 
    modeling in the November 15, 1999 supplemental SIP submission. Our 
    preliminary analysis of Texas' November 15, 1999 submission indicates 
    that further additional emission reductions beyond Tier II will be 
    necessary for the area to attain.
        States that need to rely in whole or in part on the Tier 2 benefits 
    to help demonstrate attainment will need to adjust the demonstration 
    for their SIP submission, emission inventories and motor vehicle 
    emissions budgets to include the Tier 2/Sulfur program reductions in 
    order for EPA to approve the SIP submittal. The submittal requirement 
    including the analysis to make that submission is described in the two 
    memoranda cited. States may use the tonnage benefits and guidance in 
    these memoranda to make these adjustments to the SIP submission and 
    motor vehicle emission budgets. The EPA encourages States to submit 
    these SIP revisions by December 31, 1999 to allow EPA to include them 
    in the motor vehicle emissions budget adequacy determinations which 
    need to be completed by May 31, 2000. Alternatively, these revisions 
    should be submitted by July 2000 for serious nonattainment areas, as 
    EPA anticipates completing rulemaking on these SIPs in the fall of 
    2000. For severe nonattainment areas, these revisions should be 
    submitted by December 31, 2000.
        A number of areas for which the EPA is not proposing to determine 
    that additional emission reductions beyond those provided by the SIP 
    submission are necessary for attainment will be taking a partial credit 
    for Tier 2 when they use credit from national low emissions vehicles 
    (NLEV) in their attainment demonstration. These nonattainment areas are 
    the Milwaukee-Racine, Chicago-Gary-Lake County and Metropolitan 
    Washington, D.C. areas. By regulation, the NLEV standards do not extend 
    beyond the 2003 model year unless EPA promulgates Tier 2 vehicle 
    standards at least as stringent as the NLEV standards. See 40 CFR 
    86.1701-99(c). Thus, the emission reductions relied upon from 2004 and 
    later model year NLEV vehicles will actually be due to the promulgation 
    of the Tier 2 standards, either through the extension of the NLEV 
    program or a portion of the reduction from vehicles meeting the Tier 2 
    standards.
        Like all the other SIPs that rely on Tier 2 reductions in order to 
    demonstrate attainment, the attainment demonstrations for the 
    Milwaukee-Racine, Chicago-Gary-Lake County and Metropolitan Washington, 
    D.C. areas must be revised to estimate the effects of Tier 2 according 
    to our policy before EPA can take final action approving such 
    attainment demonstrations. Until the SIPs are revised to include full 
    Tier 2 credit, EPA can determine by May 31, 2000 that a motor vehicle 
    emissions budget is adequate if the budget would be otherwise adequate. 
    No conditions need be placed on such adequacy determinations since the 
    budgets in such SIPs already include reductions equivalent to the 
    amount of emission reductions the areas will be relying on from Tier 2 
    by virtue of the NLEV reductions included in the budgets.
        a. Revisions to the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget and the 
    Attainment Demonstration When EPA Issues the MOBILE6 Model. Within one 
    year of when EPA issues the MOBILE6 model for estimating mobile source 
    emissions which takes into account the emissions benefit of EPA's Tier 
    2/Sulfur program, States will need to revise their motor vehicle 
    emissions budgets in their attainment demonstration SIPs if the Tier 2/
    Sulfur program is necessary for attainment. In addition, the budgets 
    will need to be revised using MOBILE6 in those areas that do not need 
    the Tier 2/Sulfur program for attainment but decide to include its 
    benefits in the motor vehicle emissions budget anyway. The EPA will 
    work with States on a case-by-case basis if the new emission estimates 
    raise issues about the sufficiency of the attainment demonstration.
        States described in the paragraph above will need to submit an 
    enforceable commitment in the near term to revise their motor vehicle 
    emissions budget within one year after EPA's release of MOBILE6. This 
    commitment should be submitted to EPA along with the other commitments 
    discussed elsewhere in this notice, or alternatively, as part of the 
    SIP revision that modifies the motor vehicle emission inventories and 
    budgets to include the Tier 2/Sulfur program benefits needed in order 
    for EPA to approve the SIP submittal.13
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \13\ For purposes of conformity, the State needs a commitment 
    that has been subject to public hearing. If the State has submitted 
    a commitment that has been subject to public hearing and that 
    provides for the adoption of all measures necessary for attainment, 
    the State should submit a letter prior to December 31, 1999, 
    amending the commitment to include the revision of the budget after 
    the release of MOBILE6.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    5. Additional Measures To Further Reduce Emissions
        The EPA is proposing to find that the attainment demonstrations for 
    New York-North New Jersey-Long Island; Baltimore; Philadelphia-
    Wilmington-Trenton; Houston-Galveston-Brazoria and Atlanta, even 
    considering the Tier II/Sulfur program reductions and the WOE, will not 
    achieve attainment without the application of additional emission 
    control measures to achieve additional emission reductions. Our 
    proposal for Houston is based on a preliminary analysis of the Houston 
    November 15, 1999 submission which indicates even considering Tier II/
    Sulfur program reductions and WOE, sufficient measures have not been 
    identified to achieve attainment. The EPA is also proposing to find 
    that additional emission control measures are needed for the Atlanta 
    area. Thus, for each of
    
    [[Page 70555]]
    
    these areas, EPA has identified specific tons per day emissions of 
    NOX and/or VOC that must be reduced through additional 
    control measures in order to demonstrate attainment and to enable EPA 
    to approve the demonstration. The need for additional emission 
    reductions is generally based on a lack of sufficient compelling 
    evidence that the demonstration shows attainment at the current level 
    of adopted or planned emission controls.
        The method used by EPA to calculate the amount of additional 
    reductions is described in a technical support document for this 
    proposed rule. Briefly, the method makes use of the relationship 
    between ozone and its precursors (VOC and NOX) to identify 
    additional reductions that, at a minimum, would bring the model 
    predicted future ozone concentration to a level at or below the 
    standard. The relationship is derived by comparing changes in either 
    (1) The model predicted ozone to changes in modeled emissions or (2) in 
    observed air quality to changes in actual emissions.
        The EPA is not requesting that States perform new photochemical 
    grid modeling to assess the full air quality impact of the additional 
    measures that would be adopted. Rather, as described above, one of the 
    factors that EPA can consider as part of the WOE analysis of the 
    attainment demonstration is whether there will be additional emission 
    reductions anticipated that were not modeled. Therefore, EPA will 
    consider the reductions from these additional measures as part of the 
    WOE analysis if the State adopts the measures or, as appropriate, 
    submits an enforceable commitment to adopt the measures.
        As an initial matter, for areas that need additional measures, the 
    State must submit a commitment to adopt additional control measures to 
    meet the level of reductions that EPA has identified as necessary for 
    attainment. For purposes of conformity, if the State submitted a 
    commitment, which has been subject to public hearing, to adopt the 
    control measures necessary for attainment and ROP through the area's 
    attainment date in conformance with the December 1997 Wilson policy, 
    the State will not need an additional commitment at this time. However, 
    the state will need to amend its commitment by letter to provide two 
    things concerning the additional measures.
        First, the State will need to identify a list of potential control 
    measures (from which a set of measures could be selected) that, when 
    implemented, would be expected to provide sufficient additional 
    emission reductions to meet the level of reductions that EPA has 
    identified as necessary for attainment. States need not commit to adopt 
    any specific measures on their list at this time, but if they do not do 
    so, they must identify sufficient additional emission reductions to 
    attain the standard with the submitted motor vehicle emissions budget. 
    These measures may not involve additional limits on highway 
    construction beyond those that could be imposed under the submitted 
    motor vehicle emissions budget. (See memorandum, ``Guidance on Motor 
    Vehicle Emissions Budgets in One-Hour Ozone Attainment 
    Demonstrations,'' from Merrylin Zaw-Mon, Office of Mobile Sources, to 
    Air Division Directors, Regions I-VI 14.) States may, of 
    course, select control measures that do impose limits on highway 
    construction, but if they do so, they must revise the budget to reflect 
    the effects of specific, identified measures that were either committed 
    to in the SIP or were actually adopted. Otherwise, EPA could not 
    conclude that the submitted motor vehicle emissions budget would be 
    providing for attainment, and EPA could not find it adequate for 
    conformity purposes.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \14\ Memorandum, ``Guidance on Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 
    in One-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstrations'', from Merrylin Zaw-
    Mon, Office of Mobile Sources, to Air Division Directors, Regions I-
    VI, issued November 3, 1999. A copy of this memorandum may be found 
    on EPA's web site at http://www.epa.gov/oms/transp/traqconf.htm.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Second, the letter should provide that the State will recalculate 
    and submit a revised motor vehicle emissions budget that includes the 
    effects, if any, of the measure or measures that are ultimately adopted 
    when those measures are submitted as SIP revisions should any of the 
    measures pertain to motor vehicles.
        For purposes of approving the SIP, the State will need an 
    enforceable commitment that identifies the date by which the additional 
    measures will be submitted, identifies the percentage reductions needed 
    of VOC and NOX, and provides that the State will recalculate 
    and submit a revised motor vehicle emissions budget that includes the 
    effects, if any, of the measure or measures that are ultimately adopted 
    when these measures are submitted as SIP revisions should any of the 
    measures pertain to motor vehicles. To the extent the State's current 
    commitment does not include one of the above items or to the extent 
    that a State plans to revise one of the above items in an existing 
    commitment, the State will need a new public hearing.
        Texas already provided in its May 18, 1998 submission an 
    enforceable commitment to adopt, by December 31, 2000, all measures 
    necessary for attainment in Houston without identifying any specific 
    measure. This commitment was reaffirmed in the November 15, 1999 
    submission with specific measures identified and modeled. 
    Unfortunately, the measures identified in the November 15, 1999 
    submission were not sufficient to demonstrate attainment. Therefore, 
    Texas needs to send a list of additional measures beyond those 
    identified in the November 15, 1999 submission that can be used to 
    achieve the additional reductions needed to achieve attainment. If 
    Texas determines that it needs additional time beyond December 31, 2000 
    to adopt some or all of the additional measures not identified in the 
    November 15, 1999 submission, it must submit an enforceable commitment 
    to adopt these measures by a date certain that is as expeditiously as 
    practicable. Moreover, the commitment must specify the necessary 
    additional percentage reduction. The EPA will work with Texas on what 
    constitutes an expeditious schedule for adoption.
        a. Guidance on Additional Control Measures. Much progress has been 
    made over the past 25 years to reduce VOC emissions and over the past 9 
    years to reduce NOX emissions. Many large sources have been 
    controlled to some extent through RACT rules or other emission 
    standards or limitations, such as maximum achievable control technology 
    (MACT), new source performance standards (NSPS) and the emission 
    control requirements for NSR--lowest achievable emissions rate (LAER) 
    and best achievable control technology (BACT). However, there may be 
    controls available for sources that have not yet been regulated as well 
    as additional means for achieving reductions from sources that have 
    already been regulated. The EPA has prepared a report to assist States 
    in identifying additional measures. This report is called ``Serious and 
    Severe Ozone Nonattainment Areas: Information on Emissions, Control 
    Measures Adopted or Planned and Other Available Control Measures''. The 
    purpose of this report is to provide information to State and local 
    agencies to assist them in identifying additional control measures that 
    can be adopted into their SIPs to support the attainment demonstrations 
    for the serious and severe nonattainment areas under consideration. 
    This report has been added to the record for this proposal.
        In Summary, the report provides information in four areas. First, 
    the report contains detailed information on emissions for ozone 
    precursor emissions
    
    [[Page 70556]]
    
    of NOX and VOCs. This inventory data gives an indication of 
    where the major emissions are coming from in a particular geographic 
    area and may indicate where it will be profitable to look for further 
    reductions. Second, the report contains information on control measures 
    for emission sources of NOX and VOC (including stationary, 
    area and mobile source measures) for which controls may not have been 
    adopted by many jurisdictions. This would include many measures listed 
    among the control measures EPA considered when developing the 
    Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for promulgation of the 8-hour ozone 
    NAAQS. Third, the report includes information on standards EPA has 
    issued for the NSPS and MACT programs as well as information on 
    alternative control techniques (ACT) documents. This may be useful to 
    States who may already specify emission limits on existing source 
    categories to which NSPS and MACT for new sources apply, but the 
    current RACT level of control for these existing sources may not match 
    the level specified in the NSPS or MACT standards for new sources or 
    sources which emit hazardous air pollutants. Finally, the report 
    includes information on the control measures not already covered 
    elsewhere that States have adopted, or have proposed to adopt at the 
    date of the report, into their SIPs. Comparison of information on 
    measures already adopted into others' SIPs may help inform States about 
    reductions that may be available from their sources whose emissions are 
    currently not regulated.
        Another source of information is the BACT and LAER determinations 
    that States have made for individual new sources. Information on BACT/
    LAER determinations is available through EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER 
    Clearinghouse (RBLC) which may be accessed on EPA's web site on the 
    internet at the following address: www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/.
        The ACT documents for VOC and NOX are valuable because 
    EPA has not issued control technique guidelines (CTGs) that specify the 
    level of RACT for several categories of sources. For some of these 
    source categories, EPA has prepared ACT documents which describe 
    various control technologies and associated costs for reducing 
    emissions. While States were required to adopt RACT for major sources 
    within these source categories, the ACT documents may identify an 
    additional level of control for regulated sources or may provide 
    control options for non-major sources within these source categories. 
    States are free to evaluate the various options given and use the 
    results to assist in formulating their own regulations.
        The EPA report lists the various sources EPA used to develop the 
    lists of additional measures. These sources include an EPA draft 
    control measure data base, State and Territorial Air Pollution 
    Administrators and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control 
    Official's (STAPPA/ALAPCO's) books ``Controlling Nitrogen Oxides under 
    the Clean Air Act: A Menu of Options'', and ``Meeting the 15-Percent 
    Rate-of-Progress Requirement Under the Clean Air Act: A Menu of 
    Options'', California's ozone SIP for the South Coast and various ACT 
    documents.
        There is one control approach which bears special mention because 
    it is broader in application than any one specific control measure. 
    This is the approach of ``cap and trade.'' In this approach, a cap is 
    placed on emissions, and existing sources are given emission 
    allotments. Under a declining cap, emissions would be decreased each 
    year. Sources may over-control and sell part of their allotments to 
    other sources which under-control. Overall, the percentage decrease in 
    emissions is maintained, but the reductions are made where they are 
    most economical. A cap and trade program has been in operation in the 
    South Coast Air Quality Management District in California since about 
    1992.
        The State of Illinois has adopted a declining cap and trade 
    program. The Illinois program will set a cap on future emissions of 
    major sources in the Chicago area that in most cases is 12 percent 
    lower than baseline emissions. Illinois will issue a number of emission 
    allotments corresponding to the cap level and will require each source 
    to have VOC emissions at or below the level for which it holds emission 
    allotments. Trading of emission allotments will be allowed, so that 
    sources that reduce VOC emissions more than 12 percent may sell 
    emission allotments, and sources that reduce VOC emissions less than 12 
    percent must buy emission allotments. The proposed reductions are 
    planned to begin in the next ozone season, May 2000.
        In addition, EPA's draft economic incentives program guidance (EIP) 
    was proposed in September 1999. This encourages cost-effective and 
    innovative approaches to achieving air pollution goals through 
    emissions trading. Such an approach has been demonstrated to be 
    successful and cost-effective in reducing air pollution in EPA's acid 
    rain emissions trading program. These and other similar programs should 
    allow cost-effective implementation of additional control measures.
        Finally, a reduction in VOC and NOX emissions can be 
    achieved through a wide range of control measures. These measures range 
    from technology based actions such as retrofitting diesel trucks and 
    buses, and controlling ground service equipment at airports to activity 
    based controls such as increased use of transit by utilizing existing 
    Federal tax incentives, market and pricing based programs, and ozone 
    action days. States can also achieve emission reductions by 
    implementing programs involving cleaner burning fuels. The State of 
    Texas is also considering a rule to change the times during the day in 
    which construction can occur to reduce ozone precursor emissions during 
    periods when ozone formation is occurring. There are a wide range of 
    new and innovative programs beyond the few examples listed here. These 
    measures, if taken together, can provide significant emission 
    reductions for attainment purposes. In addition, a variety of mobile 
    source measures could be considered as part of the commitment to meet 
    the need for additional emission reduction measures.
    6. Mid-Course Review
        A mid-course review (MCR) is a reassessment of modeling analyses 
    and more recent monitored data to determine if a prescribed control 
    strategy is resulting in emission reductions and air quality 
    improvements needed to attain the ambient air quality standard for 
    ozone as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the statutory 
    dates.
        The EPA believes that a commitment to perform a MCR is a critical 
    element of the WOE analysis for the attainment demonstration on which 
    EPA is proposing to take action today. In order to approve the 
    attainment demonstration SIP for the Houston/Galveston area, EPA 
    believes that Texas must submit an enforceable commitment to perform a 
    MCR as described here.15
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \15\ For purposes of conformity, the State needs a commitment 
    that has been subject to public hearing. If the State has submitted 
    a commitment that has been subject to public hearing and that 
    provides for the adoption of all measures necessary for attainment, 
    the State should submit a letter prior to December 31, 1999, 
    amending the commitment to include the MCR.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        As part of the commitment, the State should commit to work with EPA 
    in a public consultative process to develop a methodology for 
    performing the MCR and developing the criteria by which adequate 
    progress would be judged.
    
    [[Page 70557]]
    
        For severe areas, the States must have an enforceable commitment to 
    perform the MCR, preferably following the 2003 ozone season, and to 
    submit the results to EPA by the end of the review year (e.g., by 
    December 31, 2003). The EPA believes that an analysis in 2003 would be 
    most robust since some or all of the regional NOX emission 
    reductions should be achieved by that date. The EPA would then review 
    the results and determine whether any States need to adopt and submit 
    additional control measures for purposes of attainment. The EPA is not 
    requesting that States commit now to adopt new control measures as a 
    result of this process. It would be impracticable for the States to 
    make a commitment that is specific enough to be considered enforceable. 
    Moreover, the MCR could indicate that upwind States may need to adopt 
    some or all of the additional controls needed to ensure an area attains 
    the standard. Therefore, if EPA determines additional control measures 
    are needed for attainment, EPA would determine whether additional 
    emission reductions are necessary from States in which the 
    nonattainment area is located or upwind States, or both. The EPA would 
    require the affected State or States to adopt and submit the new 
    measures within a period specified at the time. The EPA anticipates 
    that these findings would be made as calls for SIP revisions under 
    section 110(k)(5) and, therefore, the period for submission of the 
    measures would be no longer than 18 months after the EPA finding. A 
    draft guidance document regarding the MCR process is located in the 
    docket for this proposal and may also be found on EPA's web site at 
    http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/.
    
    D. In Summary, What Does EPA Expect To Happen With Respect to 
    Attainment Demonstrations for the Houston-Galveston Area 1-Hour Ozone 
    Nonattainment Area?
    
        The following table shows a summary of information on what EPA 
    expects from Texas to allow EPA to approve the 1-hour ozone attainment 
    demonstration SIP.
    
     Summary Schedule of Future Actions Related to Attainment Demonstration
          for the Houston-Galveston Severe Nonattainment Area in Texas
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Required no later than:                       Action
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    12/31/99.....................  State submits the following to EPA:
                                   --Motor vehicle emissions budget. 1
                                   --Commitments 2 to do the following:
                                      --Submit by 12/31/00 measures for
                                       additional emission reductions as
                                       required in the attainment
                                       demonstration test.
                                      --Submit revised SIP & motor vehicle
                                       emissions budget by 12/31/00 if
                                       additional measures (due by 12/31/00)
                                       affect the motor vehicle emissions
                                       inventory.
                                      --Submit revised SIP & motor vehicle
                                       emissions budget 1 year after MOBILE6
                                       issued.3
                                      --Perform a mid-course review.
                                   --A list of potential control measures
                                    that could provide additional emission
                                    reductions needed to attain the
                                    standard. 4
    4/15/00......................  State submits in final any submissions
                                    made in draft by 12/31/99.
    Before EPA final rulemaking..  State submits enforceable commitments for
                                    any above-mentioned commitments that may
                                    not yet have been subjected to public
                                    hearing.
    12/31/00.....................  --State submits adopted rules that
                                    reflect measures that are needed for ROP
                                    and attainment.
                                   --State revises & submits SIP & motor
                                    vehicle emissions budget if changes in
                                    the adopted control measures affect the
                                    motor vehicle category.
                                   --State revises & submits SIP & motor
                                    vehicle emissions budget to account for
                                    Tier 2 reductions as needed.5
    Within 1 yr. after release of  State submits revised motor vehicle
     MOBILE6 model.                 emissions budget based on MOBILE6.
    12/31/03.....................  State submits to EPA results of mid-
                                    course review.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Final budget preferable; however, if public process is not yet
      complete, then a ``draft'' budget (the one undergoing public process)
      may be submitted at this time with a final budget by 4/15/00. However,
      if a final budget is significantly different from the draft submitted
      earlier, the final budget must be submitted by 2/15/00 to accommodate
      the 90 day processing period prior to the 5/31/00 date by which EPA
      must find the motor vehicle emissions budget adequate. Note that the
      budget can reflect estimated Tier 2 emission reductions--see
      memorandum from Lydia Wegman and Merrylin Zaw-Mon, ``1-Hour Ozone
      Attainment Demonstrations and Tier 2/Sulfur Rulemaking.'' Note, Texas
      provided a budget for Houston in its November 15, 1999 submission.
    \2\ As provided in the preamble text, the State may clarify by letter an
      existing commitment, which has been subject to public hearing, to
      submit the control measures needed for attainment. if the State has
      not yet submitted such a commitment, the State should adopt a
      commitment after public hearing. if the public hearing process is not
      yet complete, then draft commitments may be submitted at this time.
      The final commitment should be submitted no later than 4/15/00. Note,
      Texas provides in its May 19, 1998 SIP revision a commitment to adopt
      all necessary measures. Texas will need to provide public notice and
      comment if it wishes to revise this commitment.
    \3\ The revision for MOBILE6 is only required for SIPs that include the
      effects of Tier 2. The commitment to revise the SIP after MOBILE6 may
      be submitted at the same time that the state submits the budget that
      includes the effects of Tier 2 (no later than 12/31/00). Note that
      Texas included the effects of Tier 2 in the SIP and associated
      attainment budget submitted in November 1999.
    \4\ The State is not required to commit to adopt any specific measures.
      However, if the State does not do so, the list cannot include any
      measures that place limits on highway construction.
    \5\ If the State submits such a revision, it must be accompanied by a
      commitment to revise the SIP and motor vehicle emissions budget 1 year
      after MOBILE6 is issued (if the commitment has not already been
      submitted).
    
    A. What Are Some Significant Policy and Guidance Documents?
    
        This proposal has cited several policy and guidance memoranda. The 
    EPA has also developed several technical documents related to the 
    rulemaking action in this proposal. Some of the documents have been 
    referenced above. Some other documents and their location on EPA's web 
    site are listed below; these documents will also be placed in the 
    docket for this proposal action.
    Recent Documents
        1. ``Guidance for Improving Weight of Evidence Through 
    Identification of Additional Emission Reductions, Not Modeled.'' U.S. 
    Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
    Standards, Emissions,
    
    [[Page 70558]]
    
    Monitoring, and Analysis Division, Air Quality Modeling Group, Research 
    Triangle Park, NC 27711. November 1999. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/
    ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html.
        2. ``Serious and Severe Ozone Nonattainment Areas: Information on 
    Emissions, Control Measures Adopted or Planned and Other Available 
    Control Measures.'' Draft Report. November 3, 1999. Ozone Policy and 
    Strategies Group. U.S. EPA, RTP, NC.
        3. Memorandum, ``Guidance on Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in 
    One-Hour Attainment Demonstrations,'' from Merrylin Zaw-Mon, Office of 
    Mobile Sources, to Air Division Directors, Regions I-VI. November 3, 
    1999. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/oms/transp/traqconf.htm.
        4. Memorandum from Lydia Wegman and Merrylin Zaw-Mon to the Air 
    Division Directors, Regions I-VI, ``1-Hour Ozone Attainment 
    Demonstrations and Tier 2/Sulfur/Sulfur Rulemaking.'' November 8, 1999. 
    Web site: http://www.epa.gov/oms/transp/traqconf.htm.
        5. Draft Memorandum, ``1-Hour Ozone NAAQS--Mid-Course Review 
    Guidance.'' From John Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 
    and Standards. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html.
        6. Memorandum, ``Guidance on Reasonably Available Control Measures 
    (RACM) Requirement and Attainment Demonstration Submissions for Ozone 
    Nonattainment Areas.'' John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality 
    Planning and Standards. November 30, 1999. Web site: http://
    www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html.
    Previous Documents
        1. U.S. EPA, (1991), Guideline for Regulatory Application of the 
    Urban Airshed Model, EPA-450/4-91-013, (July 1991). Web site: http://
    www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/ (file name: ``UAMREG'').
        2. U.S. EPA, (1996), Guidance on Use of Modeled Results to 
    Demonstrate Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS, EPA-454/B-95-007, (June 
    1996). Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/ (file name: ``O3TEST'').
        3. Memorandum, ``Ozone Attainment Demonstrations,'' from Mary D. 
    Nichols, issued March 2, 1995. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/
    t1pgm.html.
        4. Memorandum, ``Extension of Attainment Dates for Downwind 
    Transport Areas,'' issued July 16, 1998. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/
    ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html .
        5. December 29, 1997 Memorandum from Richard Wilson, Acting 
    Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation ``Guidance for 
    Implementing the 1-Hour Ozone and Pre-Existing PM10 NAAQS.'' Web site: 
    http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html.
    
    II. EPA's Review and Technical Information
    
    A. What Action Is EPA Taking for the Houston/Galveston Ozone Attainment 
    Demonstration SIP revision?
    
        EPA's options for acting on a SIP revision are described in Section 
    I.A.4. We are proposing to conditionally approve the 1-hour ozone 
    Attainment Demonstration SIP revision for the Houston/Galveston 
    nonattainment area, which was submitted by the Governor in a letter 
    dated May 19, 1998, and as supplemented by a modeled control strategy 
    and a budget submitted by the Governor on November 15, 1999. Based on 
    our preliminary review of the November 15, 1999 submission, to meet the 
    framework described in Section I.C., Texas should provide the elements 
    discussed later in this notice. Please note, this action is based on 
    only a preliminary analysis of the November 15, 1999 submission.
        Alternatively, we are proposing to disapprove the May 19, 1998 SIP 
    submission as supplemented by the November 15, 1999 modeled control 
    strategy and an attainment motor vehicle emissions budget if EPA 
    determines there is not an adequate motor vehicle emissions budget.
        With the May 19, 1998, letter from the Governor, Texas also 
    submitted revisions to address the requirement for Post `96 Rate of 
    Progress (ROP) Reductions. In this action, we are not addressing the 
    portions of the May 19, 1998, SIP revision pertaining to the Post-96 
    ROP Plan. However, EPA will propose and take final action on the Post-
    96 ROP Plan before issuing a final full approval of the area's 
    attainment demonstration as meeting the requirement of section 
    182(c)(2) and (d).
    What About the November 15, 1999 SIP Revision?
        The Governor of Texas has submitted on November 15, 1999 a revision 
    to the SIP intended to correct deficiencies in the May 19, 1998 SIP 
    revision. As previously discussed, we are proposing action on the May 
    19, 1998 SIP submittal at this time, as supplemented by the modeled 
    control strategy and the budget in the November 15, 1999 SIP revision. 
    Our review of the November 15, 1999 submission, to date, has been a 
    cursory review of the modeled control strategy and the adequacy of the 
    related motor vehicle emissions budget, because we believe an adequate 
    motor vehicle emissions budget is necessary before we can finalize 
    conditional approval of the May, 1998 SIP revision. We will perform a 
    detailed review of the November 15, 1999 submission to determine its 
    approvability (e.g., the modeling, the weight of evidence analysis, 
    etc.) in an expeditious manner but we have not had sufficient time to 
    include an evaluation of the approvability of the more recent 
    submission in this action.
        The November 15, 1999 submission does include a modeled control 
    strategy and an associated motor vehicle emissions budget. 
    Unfortunately, the modeled control strategy in the November 15, 1999 
    submission, while calling for significant emission reductions in 
    NOX, does not project attainment of the ozone standard. In 
    fact, the control strategy modeling indicates additional emissions 
    reductions are necessary to demonstrate attainment by 2007.
    Why Is EPA Proposing To Conditionally Approve the May 19, 1998 SIP 
    Revision as Supplemented by the 1999 SIP Revision?
        We cannot fully approve the May 19, 1998, SIP revision because it 
    did not include control strategy modeling showing how the area will 
    attain the one-hour ozone standard and an explicit motor vehicle 
    emissions budget. In the May 19, 1998 SIP revision, Texas committed to 
    provide by the end of 2000 the adopted measures to achieve the needed 
    emission reductions for Post-99 Rate of Progress and 2007 attainment. 
    On January 5, 1999, Texas committed to submit by November 15, 1999, a 
    control strategy modeled to show attainment. On July 19, 1999, Texas 
    committed to submit by November 15, 1999, an adequate motor vehicle 
    emissions budget.
        Texas provided a modeled control strategy and a motor vehicle 
    emissions budget by November 15, 1999. We will post the availability of 
    this SIP revision on the EPA's conformity web page (http://www.epa.gov/
    oms/transp/conform/currsips.htm) to start EPA's adequacy determination 
    process and to receive comment on the adequacy of the budget.
    What Must Texas Do Before EPA Can Finalize This Conditional Approval?
        We will have to determine that the motor vehicle emissions budget 
    is adequate. Our preliminary analysis indicates, that the November 15, 
    1999 submitted budget is derived from attainment demonstration modeling 
    that does not have sufficient emission reductions identified to result 
    in attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard
    
    [[Page 70559]]
    
    by 2007. This modeling and associated motor vehicle emissions budget 
    included estimates of Tier II emission reductions. Therefore, in order 
    for the budget to be determined by the EPA to be adequate, Texas must 
    submit the following: (1) A list of measures that could be used to 
    achieve the needed additional emissions reductions; (2) A commitment to 
    recalculate and resubmit a motor vehicle emissions budget that includes 
    the effects (if any) of the measures that are ultimately adopted should 
    any of these measures pertain to motor vehicles; (3) A commitment to 
    submit a revised motor vehicle budget 1 year after MOBILE 6 is issued; 
    and (4) A commitment to perform a mid-course review.
        Texas provided a commitment to adopt the measures necessary for 
    attainment and ROP in its May 19, 1998, SIP revision. For purposes of 
    finding the budget adequate, Texas can amend this commitment in a 
    letter to add the above items. However, before EPA can finalize this 
    conditional approval, Texas will have to provide for notice and comment 
    on these additional elements. We expect that Texas will submit the list 
    of measures and enforceable commitments in draft by 12/31/99 and in 
    final by 
    4/15/00. The list of additional control measures should be submitted in 
    the same time frame as the enforceable commitments. We will include any 
    additional submission of additional commitments or list of measures in 
    the administrative record for this rule. Please note, if the final list 
    of additional measures and commitments is significantly different than 
    the draft submitted earlier, the final list and commitments should be 
    submitted by February 15, 2000 to accommodate the 90 day processing 
    period so the budget can be determined adequate by May 31, 2000.
    What Are the Proposed Conditions?
        We are proposing the following conditions:
        (1) Texas must submit target calculations and adopted rules that 
    meet the Post-99 Rate of Progress requirements of the Act by December 
    31, 2000.
        (2) Texas must submit by, December 31, 2000, adopted rules that are 
    needed for attainment by 2007.
    How Can Texas Receive Full Approval of the Attainment Plan?
        EPA will have to complete its analysis of the modeling in the 
    November 15, 1999 SIP modeling demonstration to determine if it meets 
    the requirements of the Act, rules, and policies. Then, Texas must 
    submit the adopted control measures to achieve rate of progress and 
    attainment. If EPA determines they are complete, or they are deemed 
    complete, the EPA will determine through additional rulemaking action 
    whether the State's submittals meet requirements of the Act, rules and 
    policies.
    Is the May 19, 1998, SIP Revision Consistent With the December 27, 1997 
    Policy?
        The provisions of the December 27, 1997 policy are discussed in 
    section I.A.2. The May 19, 1998 SIP revision included modeling that 
    shows that a 65-85 percent, across the board, reduction in 
    NOX emissions would be needed for the area to attain the 
    ozone standard. Texas submitted documentation and information to 
    support the analysis. The modeling shows the sensitivity of ozone 
    levels to overall emission reductions. Texas did not, however, model a 
    specific control strategy that would achieve the needed reductions. It 
    is necessary to model the specific control strategy being considered to 
    make sure the planned controls on specific sources will be effective in 
    reducing ozone. This cannot be ascertained by modeling across the board 
    reductions of all sources.
        Texas also has provided SIP revisions to address all of the 
    measures and regulations required for a severe-17 ozone nonattainment 
    area by subpart 2 of the Act. We are reviewing SIP revisions for the 
    97-99 (9%) ROP plan, the Vehicle Miles Traveled Offset SIP, Industrial 
    Wastewater RACT, and Batch Processing RACT. We will take action to 
    address these submissions in separate Federal Register notices.
        Texas also provided a list of potential control measures in the May 
    19, 1998, SIP revision. These measures have not, however, been modeled 
    to determine, if implemented, whether attainment of the one-hour 
    standard would be demonstrated.
        The May 19, 1998, SIP submission also contained a commitment to 
    submit a SIP revision with the remaining components by December 30, 
    2000. These items must include a Post-1999 ROP Plan, and adopted 
    regulations to achieve the required ROP reductions through 2007 and to 
    attain the 1-hour NAAQS.
        Finally, Texas also included evidence that public hearings were 
    held on the May 19, 1998, SIP revision.
        We acknowledge that Texas attempted to address the elements due 
    under the December 1997, policy. Texas, however, still needed to 
    provide a specific control strategy that has been modeled and shown to 
    achieve the NAAQS for ozone to fully address all of the requirements 
    due April 1998, under the policy. Further, Texas needed to provide an 
    adequate motor vehicle emissions budget based on that modeled control 
    strategy. Texas submitted a specific modeled control strategy and an 
    associated motor vehicle emissions budget in the November 15, 1999 
    submission.
    Why Is EPA Alternatively Proposing Disapproval?
        We are taking comment on this alternative because the Attainment 
    Demonstration SIP for HGA should be disapproved if there is not an 
    adequate motor vehicle emissions budget.
    Under What Circumstances Would EPA Expect To Finalize the Disapproval?
        In addition to proposing conditional approval, we are also 
    proposing as an alternative disapproval of the May 19, 1998, attainment 
    SIP submission, as supplemented by the SIP on November 15, 1999. We 
    propose to finalize the disapproval if the motor vehicle emissions 
    budget in the November 15, 1999 submission is inadequate. As discussed 
    previously, we cannot find the budget adequate unless Texas provides 
    the following: a list of additional measures that can be used to 
    achieve the needed additional reductions, a commitment to revise the 
    motor vehicle emissions budget if later measures affect the motor 
    vehicle emissions inventory, a commitment to submit a revised motor 
    vehicle emissions budget 1 year after MOBILE 6 is released, and a 
    commitment to perform a mid-course review.
    What Are the Consequences if the Plan Is Disapproved?
        If the plan is disapproved, either by converting the final 
    conditional approval to a disapproval or by finalizing the proposed 
    disapproval in this notice, there are certain consequences.
        A disapproval can lead to the imposition of sanctions under section 
    179 of the Act. Also, a disapproval can lead to the promulgation under 
    section 110(c) of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to address the 
    Houston air quality problem. Furthermore, upon disapproval, only 
    projects in the first three years of the currently conforming plan and 
    TIP can be approved. No new transportation plan or transportation 
    improvement program (TIP) may be found to conform until another 
    attainment demonstration with an explicit motor vehicle emissions 
    budget is submitted and the motor vehicle emissions budget is 
    determined adequate.
    
    [[Page 70560]]
    
        If Texas does not submit an approvable plan that meets the 
    conditions within 18 months of the disapproval action, then the 
    emission offset requirement for new and modifying sources in the 
    Houston/Galveston nonattainment area would be increased. Six months 
    later, if an approvable plan still has not been received, highway 
    funding limitations would go into place and conformity would lapse. We 
    are also required to promulgate a FIP no later than 2 years following 
    disapproval of a SIP, if the State has not submitted and EPA has not 
    approved a new submission in the interim.
    What Does the Modeling in the May 19, 1998 SIP Submission Show?
        The modeling shows that NOX emissions must be reduced in 
    the Houston area by 65-85 percent. Texas has also shown that emissions 
    of VOC should be reduced by an additional 15 percent. These percentage 
    reductions are based on an estimate of projected total emissions for 
    the eight county nonattainment area in the year 2007. The Texas Natural 
    Resource Conservation Commission also performed a large number of model 
    runs to evaluate the sensitivity of the model to emission reductions in 
    different locations and its sensitivity to controls on point, mobile or 
    area sources. The State concluded from its analysis that controlling 
    just point sources would not be sufficient to achieve attainment. 
    Further, controlling just mobile sources would not achieve attainment. 
    Emission reductions will have to be achieved in all source categories 
    to achieve the goal of attainment.
    What Does Preliminary Examination of the Modeling in the November 15, 
    1999 Modeling and Control Strategy Show?
        Texas has modeled control strategies of increasing stringency. The 
    scenario that gets closest to attaining the one hour standard still has 
    peak values of in the range of 0.140-0.152 ppm, still well above the 
    standard of 0.124 ppm, the modeling attainment test cut-off. This 
    strategy includes:
    
    Federal Measures:
        Heavy Duty Diesel Standards
        Phase II Reformulated Gasoline
        National Low emitting vehicle
        Tier II motor vehicle standards
        Heavy Duty diesel equipment standard
        Locomotive standards
        Spark ignition standards for off-road equipment
        Commercial marine vessel standards
        Recreational marine standards
    State Measures:
        Tier III point source controls (approx. 90% reduction)
        Reductions in East Texas: Utilities 50%, grandfathered 30%
        Cleaner burning gasoline in East Texas
        California Reformulated Gasoline
        California Reformulated Diesel
        Acceleration Simulation Mode equivalent I/M program 8 counties
    How Does Texas Compare to the Framework for Proposing Action Discussed 
    in Section I.C.?
        As previously discussed, Texas submitted a SIP on May 19, 1998, and 
    then submitted a SIP to correct the deficiencies on November 15, 1999. 
    EPA must determine if the November 15, 1999 SIP submittal is complete. 
    If EPA determines the November 15, 1999 SIP submittal is complete, we 
    will publish a notice of proposed action on the approvability of that 
    SIP. As discussed in section I.C., the EPA has identified the key 
    elements, in addition to the modeling and WOE support, which must be 
    present for EPA to approve or conditionally approve the attainment 
    demonstration SIP. A preliminary comparison of the November 15, 1999 
    SIP submission to these key elements follows. Regional NOX 
    reductions consistent with the modeling demonstration: This element 
    does not strictly apply to the Houston area because Texas was outside 
    of the area covered by the NOX SIP call. It is worth noting 
    that Regional NOX reductions at power plants in the eastern 
    portion of Texas have been included in the modeling submitted November 
    15, 1999. Texas will have to adopt and submit rules by December 2000 
    that achieve these reductions to continue to rely on these reductions.
        Clean Air Act Measures: This refers to adopted and submitted rules 
    for all previously required CAA mandated measures for a Severe area. 
    Texas has provided SIP revisions to address all of the measures and 
    regulations required for a severe-17 ozone nonattainment area by 
    subpart 2 of the Act. We are reviewing SIP revisions for the 9% ROP 
    plan, the Vehicle Miles Traveled Offset SIP, Industrial Wastewater 
    RACT, and Batch Processing RACT. We will take action to address these 
    submissions in separate Federal Register notices.
        Adequate Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget: The May 19, 1998 
    submission did not contain an attainment motor vehicle emissions 
    budget. Texas has submitted a motor vehicle emissions budget in its 
    November 15, 1999 submission. As discussed above, we will be reviewing 
    this budget for adequacy and posting notice of availability of the SIP 
    for comment on the adequacy of the motor vehicle emissions budget on 
    our website.
        Tier 2/Sulfur Program Benefits: Texas has estimated the benefits of 
    the Tier 2/Sulfur program in their modeling submitted November 15, 
    1999. We will have to review their estimates of emission reductions and 
    propose in our action on the 1999 Attainment Demonstration SIP 
    submittal whether those estimates are acceptable or not.16
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \16\ If EPA ultimately concludes that Texas has not properly 
    estimated the Tier II emission reductions, Texas will have to 
    resubmit their Tier II estimates, attainment demonstration and their 
    motor vehicle emissions budget before we can take a final approval 
    action.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Additional Measures to further reduce emissions to support the 
    attainment test: The modeling in the November 1999 submission does not 
    appear to have sufficient emission reductions to demonstrate 
    attainment. As discussed previously, Texas already has an enforceable 
    commitment to adopt measures necessary for attainment by December 31, 
    2000. They will need to provide a list of measures that can be used to 
    achieve the needed additional reduction. This list of measures will 
    need to receive public notice and comment. Further, if Texas determines 
    that they need additional time to adopt some or all of these additional 
    measures, they will need to revise their previous commitment contained 
    in the May 19, 1998 SIP revision. In any case, the rules must be 
    adopted as expeditiously as practicable and Texas should show a 
    compelling reason why additional time is necessary.
        Mid-course Review: Texas will need to provide an enforceable 
    commitment to perform a mid-course review.
    What Is EPA's Preliminary Analysis of the Amount of Additional 
    Reductions Needed To Demonstrate Attainment Beyond Those in the 
    November Submission?
        We have performed a preliminary analysis of the November 15, 1999 
    submission. We believe that an additional 11% NOX emission 
    reduction beyond the reductions that have already been identified is 
    necessary for the area to attain. To develop our estimate of the 
    shortfall, we extrapolated the relationship between NOX 
    emissions and peak ozone using three of Texas's modeling scenarios. 
    Because this relationship is not linear, we used a polynomial curve 
    fitting technique to extrapolate what level of NOX 
    reductions would correspond to 0.124 ppm. A more detailed discussion of 
    our analysis is contained in the TSD for this proposal. We will be 
    working with the
    
    [[Page 70561]]
    
    Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission to further refine this 
    analysis. We also recognize that further modeling refinements could 
    increase or decrease this estimate.
    What Are the CAA's FIP Provisions if a State Fails To Submit a Plan?
        In addition to sanctions, if EPA finds that a State failed to 
    submit the required SIP revision or disapproves the required SIP 
    revision EPA must promulgate a FIP no later than 2 years from the date 
    of the finding if the deficiency has not been corrected. The attainment 
    demonstration SIPs on which EPA is taking action today were originally 
    due in November 1994. However, through a series of policy memoranda, 
    EPA recognized that States had not submitted attainment demonstrations 
    and were constrained to do so until ozone transport had been further 
    analyzed. As provided in the Background, above, EPA provided for States 
    to submit the attainment demonstration SIPs in two phases. In June 
    1996, EPA made findings that ten States and the District of Columbia 
    had failed to submit the phase I SIPs for nine nonattainment areas. 61 
    FR 36292 (July 10, 1996). In addition on May 19, 1997, EPA made a 
    similar finding for Pennsylvania for the Philadelphia area. 62 FR 
    27201. None of these findings included the Houston/Galveston area.
        In July 1998, several environmental groups filed a notice of 
    citizen suit, alleging that EPA had outstanding sanctions and FIP 
    obligations for the serious and severe nonattainment areas on which EPA 
    is proposing action today. These groups filed a lawsuit in the Federal 
    District Court for the District of Columbia on November 8, 1999.
    
    III. Administrative Requirements
    
    A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
    
        The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these 
    proposed regulatory actions from review under E.O. 12866, entitled 
    ``Regulatory Planning and Review.''
    
    B. Executive Order 13045
    
        Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from 
    Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
    1997), applies to any rule that the EPA determines (1) is 
    ``economically significant,'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, 
    and (2) the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule 
    has a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action 
    meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health 
    or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the 
    planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
    reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
        These proposed actions are not subject to E.O. 13045 because they 
    do not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health and 
    safety risks.
    
    C. Executive Order 13084
    
        Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
    required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the 
    communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
    direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
    government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
    costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded, 
    EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
    separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
    description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
    representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
    of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
    regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
    an effective process permitting elected and other representatives of 
    Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in 
    the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or 
    uniquely affect their communities.'' Today's proposed actions do not 
    significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal 
    governments. These proposed actions do not involve or impose any new 
    requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the requirements 
    of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to these proposed actions.
    
    D. Executive Order 13132
    
        Executive Order 13132, Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), 
    revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 
    (Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 
    requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
    and timely input by State and local officials in the development of 
    regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies 
    that have federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order 
    to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the 
    States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
    States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
    various levels of government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may 
    not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes 
    substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by 
    statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to 
    pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local 
    governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in 
    the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not 
    issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts 
    State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials 
    early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
        These proposed rules will not have substantial direct effects on 
    the States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
    States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
    various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 
    FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because the proposed conditional approval 
    merely approves a State rule implementing a federal standard, and does 
    not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
    responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. The proposed 
    disapproval would not impose requirements directly upon the State, and 
    does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
    responsibilities established in the Act. Thus, the requirements of 
    section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to these proposed rules.
    
    E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., 
    generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility 
    analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking 
    requirements unless the agency certifies 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 small governmental jurisdictions. This proposed rule 
    will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
    entities because conditional SIP approvals under section 110 and 
    subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new 
    requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already 
    imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create 
    any new requirements, I certify that this proposed action will not have 
    a significant economic impact on
    
    [[Page 70562]]
    
    a substantial number of small entities. Moreover, due to the nature of 
    the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of 
    a flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the 
    economic reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA 
    to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. 
    v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
        If the conditional approval is converted to a disapproval under 
    section 110(k), based on the State's failure to meet the commitment, it 
    will not affect any existing State requirements applicable to small 
    entities. Federal disapproval of the State submittal does not affect 
    State-enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal does 
    not impose any new requirements. Therefore, I certify that such a 
    proposed disapproval action will not have a significant economic impact 
    on a substantial number of small entities because it would not remove 
    existing requirements nor would it substitute a new Federal 
    requirement.
        The EPA's alternative proposed disapproval of the State request 
    under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Act would not affect 
    any existing requirements applicable to small entities. Any pre-
    existing Federal requirements would remain in place after this 
    disapproval. Federal disapproval of the State submittal does not affect 
    State-enforceability. Moreover EPA's disapproval of the submittal would 
    not impose any new Federal requirements. Therefore, I certify that the 
    proposed disapproval would not have a significant impact on a 
    substantial number of small entities.
    
    F. Unfunded Mandates
    
        Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
    (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), 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 
    annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; 
    or to 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.
        EPA has determined that the proposed conditional approval action 
    does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual 
    costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal 
    governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This proposed 
    Federal action approves pre-existing requirements under State or local 
    law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs 
    to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, 
    result from this proposed action.
        Sections 202 and 205 do not apply to the proposed disapproval 
    because the proposed disapproval of the SIP submittal would not, in and 
    of itself, constitute a Federal mandate because it would not impose an 
    enforceable duty on any entity. In addition, the Act does not permit 
    EPA to consider the types of analyses described in section 202 in 
    determining whether a SIP submittal meets the CAA. Finally, section 203 
    does not apply to the proposed disapproval because it would affect only 
    the State of Texas, which is not a small government.
    
    G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    
        Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
    (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing 
    technical standards when developing new regulations. To comply with 
    NTTAA, the EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' 
    (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies 
    unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
    impractical.
        EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to these proposed actions. 
    Today's proposed actions does not require the public to perform 
    activities conducive to the use of VCS.
    
    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
    
        Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
    Intergovernmental regulations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and 
    record keeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
    
        Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
    
        Dated: November 30, 1999.
    David W. Gray,
    Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
    [FR Doc. 99-31723 Filed 12-15-99; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Published:
12/16/1999
Department:
Environmental Protection Agency
Entry Type:
Proposed Rule
Action:
Proposed rule.
Document Number:
99-31723
Dates:
Comments must be received on or before February 14, 2000.
Pages:
70548-70562 (15 pages)
Docket Numbers:
TX101-2-7421, FRL-6503-4
PDF File:
99-31723.pdf
CFR: (1)
40 CFR 107(d)(4)