[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 133 (Friday, July 11, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37175-37183]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-18244]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[TX80-1-7329; FRL-5856-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality State Implementation
Plans (SIP); Texas: 1990 Base Year Emissions Inventories, 15 Percent
Rate of Progress Plans and Contingency Plans
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed conditional interim rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing a conditional interim approval of the 15
Percent Rate of Progress Plans and associated Motor Vehicle Emissions
Budgets (MVEB) for the Dallas/Fort Worth, El Paso and Houston ozone
nonattainment areas. In addition, the EPA is proposing to fully approve
revisions to the 1990 base year emissions inventory and contingency
plans for these three areas.
On January 29, 1996, the EPA published a proposed limited approval/
limited disapproval of the 15 Percent Plans and contingency measures in
the Federal Register. Also, on January 29, 1997, the EPA published a
limited approval of the control measures contained in the 15 Percent
Plans. Today's proposed action replaces the January 29, 1996, proposed
limited approval/limited disapproval of the 15 Percent Plans and
contingency measures. The proposed limited approval of the control
measures is not affected by this proposal.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 11, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to Mr.
Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section, at the EPA Regional
Office listed below. Copies of the documents relevant to this action
are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
following locations. Persons interested in examining these documents
should make an appointment with the appropriate office at least 24
hours before the visiting day.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, 12100 Park 35 Circle,
Austin, Texas 78711-3087.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Guy R. Donaldson, Air Planning
Section (6PD-L), EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-
2733, telephone (214) 665-7242.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Clean Air Act Requirements
Section 182(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (the Act), as amended in
1990, requires ozone nonattainment areas with classifications of
moderate and above to develop plans to reduce area-wide Volatile
Organic Compound (VOC) emissions by 15 percent from a 1990 baseline.
The plans were to be submitted by November 15, 1993, and the reductions
were required to be achieved by November 15, 1996. The Clean Air Act
also sets limitations on the creditability of certain types of
reductions. Specifically, States cannot take credit for reductions
achieved by Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program measures (new car
emissions standards) promulgated prior to 1990 or for reductions
resulting from requirements to lower the Reid Vapor Pressure of
gasoline promulgated prior to 1990. Furthermore, the Act does not allow
credit for corrections to Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Programs
(I/M) or corrections to Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
rules as these programs were required prior to 1990.
In addition, section 172(c)(9) of the Clean Air Act requires that
contingency measures be included in the plan revision to be implemented
if reasonable further progress is not achieved or if the standard is
not attained.
In Texas, four moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas are
subject to the 15 Percent Rate of Progress requirements. These are the
Beaumont/Port Arthur (moderate 1), Dallas/Fort Worth
(moderate), El Paso (serious), and the Houston/Galveston (severe)
areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Previously classified Serious, on April 2, 1996, the EPA
corrected the classification of Beaumont/Port Arthur to moderate (61
FR 14496).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Previous 15 Percent Rate of Progress SIP Revisions
Texas first adopted measures for the 15 Percent Rate of Progress
Plans and the required contingency measures in two phases. Phase I was
submitted to the EPA on November 13, 1993, and contained measures
achieving the bulk of the required reductions in each of the
nonattainment areas. Phase II was submitted May 9, 1994. The Phase II
submittal was to make up the shortfall in reductions not achieved by
the Phase I measures. The combination of the Phase I and Phase II
measures was ruled complete by the EPA on May 12, 1994.
The EPA analyzed the November 13, 1993, and May 9, 1994, submittal
and determined that the measures included in the plan did not achieve
the required amount of reductions. Among other reasons, there was a
shortfall in reductions because the I/M program relied on in the plans
had been repealed by the State. On January 29, 1996, the EPA published
a proposed limited approval/limited disapproval of the 15 Percent Plans
included in the November 13, 1993, and May 9, 1994, submittals (61 FR
2751). The EPA also proposed a limited approval of the measures that
were included with the plans because they resulted in a strengthening
of the SIP. For a complete discussion of the deficiencies in the
State's plans, please see the January 29, 1996 Federal Register
document.
[[Page 37176]]
C. Current 15 Percent SIP Revision
The Governor of Texas submitted in a letter dated August 9, 1996,
revisions to the 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plans for Beaumont/Port
Arthur, Dallas/Fort Worth, El Paso and Houston Areas. The SIP revision
also included revisions to the 1990 Base Year Inventory, El Paso
Section 818 analysis, the Post 96 Rate of Progress Plan for Houston and
the Employee Commute Options SIP. In this Federal Register, the EPA is
taking action on only the Emissions Inventories, 15 Percent Rate of
Progress Plans and Contingency measures for the Dallas/Fort Worth, El
Paso and Houston areas. The EPA is taking no action on the other
portions of the August 9, 1996, submittal including the Beaumont/Port
Arthur 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plan. The other portions of the SIP
submittal will be acted on in separate Federal Register documents.
II. The EPA's Analysis of Texas's Submittal
A. General
Texas has made the following changes to address the shortfalls that
were identified in the January 29, 1996, limited approval/limited
disapproval. First, Texas made several revisions to its emissions
estimates. These revisions were based on more recent information or
source surveys. From these studies, Texas concluded that, in some
instances, better estimates of emissions were available based on
locally derived emission factors rather than defaults based on national
data. Second, these same studies resulted, in some instances, in lower
projections of emissions in 1996 resulting in less growth to be offset.
Third, by better segregating the emission points that were subject to
specific rules, Texas identified additional emission reductions from
measures in the original 15 Percent Plan. Finally, Texas introduced a
new tail pipe I/M program called Texas Motorist Choice to replace the
previous vehicle I/M Program. The EPA is proposing that the combination
of the Texas Motorist Choice Program and the revisions to the Emission
Inventory and Growth Projections eliminate the shortfall identified in
the January 29, 1996, limited disapproval/limited approval.
B. Emission Inventory Revisions
The EPA approved the Texas 1990 base year inventory on November 8,
1994 (59 FR 55586). In the August 23, 1996, SIP revision, Texas
included revisions to the approved VOC inventory. The revisions have
been made based on more recently available information from source
surveys and other methods. Much of the information was developed as
part of bottom up surveys of area source categories performed as part
of the 1993 intensive ozone study in the Houston and Beaumont areas.
This study, called the Coastal Oxidant Assessment for Southeast Texas
(COAST), included a study of area source emissions. Traditional
emission inventory techniques use national or state level statistics
for the level of activity of a source category. For example, gallons of
gasoline sold statewide might be used to determine emissions from
Gasoline Stations. These emissions would be apportioned geographically
using a surrogate such as population. In the bottom-up approach,
surveys of actual facilities are used to determine emission levels. In
addition to the data collected from bottom up surveys, other
improvements were made to the 1990 inventory. A brief discussion of the
changes made to the inventory follows.
Other Product Coatings, High Performance Maintenance and Other Special
Purpose Coatings
These categories are all surface coating categories that were
estimated for the 1990 inventory using per capita emission factors
provided by the EPA. The per capita factors were developed from
national level estimates of usage of a product divided by the 1989
population. The documentation of the coatings and emissions covered by
these categories was not initially available. The Texas Natural
Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC), with EPA approval, removed
these categories from the 1993 periodic emissions inventory. After
further study, documentation of the specific categories and coatings
was identified and the 1990 inventory has been adjusted appropriately.
Once the categories had been accurately identified, overlap with the
point source inventory could be accounted for and an improved area
source estimate was obtained.
Marine Vessel Loading Losses
Area source emissions in this category were based on estimates of
the total amount of VOCs loaded at Texas ports. Texas determined that
individual point sources had under reported emissions from this
category. When the revised point source emissions are considered, it
was determined that all of the emissions from this category in the
Houston area and the bulk of the emissions in the Beaumont area were
covered in the point source emission inventory. Therefore, the area
source estimate could be reduced in both areas.
Surface Cleaning
A contractor performed a bottom up survey of this category. This
survey was later expanded by TNRCC staff. The results of the survey
indicated that the national default estimate of emissions for this
category should be revised for the nonattainment areas in Texas.
Architectural Coatings
Texas revised emissions estimate by using more recent information
from the National Paint and Coatings Association combined with data
from surveys on thinner usage.
Automobile Refinishing
Texas used more recent information from the National Paint and
Coatings Association and source surveys to revise the emission
estimates for this category. In addition, using data from the
Department of Commerce on paint shipments, Texas projected a
substantial decrease in emissions between 1990 and 1994.
Sheet, Strip and Coil
This category was estimated for the 1990 emission factor of 1.5
tons/employee. The number of employees related to this industry was
obtained from the County Business Patterns for Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) 3479. This SIC code includes many businesses not
engaged in coil coating operations. A list of companies involved in
coil coating operations was obtained from the national coil coaters
association. It was determined that all of the companies involved in
these operations were outside the nonattainment areas or were reporting
their emissions in the point source inventory. Therefore, including
their emissions in the area source emissions would be double counting.
Therefore, the area source emissions were removed from the inventory.
Vessels With Outboards
A telephone survey of pleasure craft owners in the Houston
Galveston and Beaumont Port Arthur areas was conducted. The survey
showed that 62 percent of boat usage occurs on weekends rather than on
weekdays. Previous emission estimates had allocated pleasure craft
emissions equally to each day of the week. It is important to know when
emissions occur in developing control strategies. In this case,
according to the EPA guidance, emissions are to be reduced from their
1990 summer time weekday levels. Therefore, Texas reduced the
[[Page 37177]]
expected weekday emissions based on the results of the survey.
Correspondingly, the weekend emissions were increased. A similar
adjustment had previously been made to the Dallas/Fort Worth inventory.
Commercial Vessels
This category of emission results from fuel combustion by ocean
going vessels, harbor vessels and the fishing fleet. Emissions were
originally estimated by using information from the Army Corps of
Engineers on freight traffic at harbors and allocating national fuel
usage to Texas. These emissions were revised based on a more recent
study performed by an EPA funded contractor in 1992. The revised
emission levels are based on estimates of activity levels for specific
categories of vessels.
Generators <50 horsepower="" as="" part="" of="" the="" coast="" project,="" local="" area-specific="" construction="" and="" recreational="" area="" information,="" and="" more="" current="" information="" about="" horsepower="" distributions="" and="" equipment/populations,="" were="" utilized="" to="" obtain="" a="" more="" refined="" estimate="" of="" emissions="" in="" this="" category.="" residential="" lawnmowers="" similar="" to="" the="" survey="" performed="" of="" recreational="" boat="" users,="" a="" survey="" of="" homeowners="" was="" performed="" to="" determine="" when="" they="" actually="" cut="" their="" lawns.="" of="" those="" survey="" respondents="" whose="" lawns="" are="" cut="" by="" the="" resident,="" friend="" or="" neighbor,="" fifty-nine="" percent="" of="" the="" surveyed="" respondents="" reported="" that="" they="" cut="" their="" lawns="" on="" the="" weekends.="" texas="" reallocated="" the="" emissions="" based="" on="" the="" results="" of="" the="" survey.="" no="" adjustment="" was="" made="" to="" the="" emissions="" from="" commercial="" lawncare="" services.="" military="" aircraft="" this="" change="" reflects="" a="" change="" in="" the="" 1990="" base="" year="" inventory="" for="" the="" dallas/fort="" worth="" area="" based="" on="" a="" 1992="" environmental="" impact="" statement="" (eis)="" for="" carswell="" air="" force="" base.="" this="" eis="" more="" accurately="" reflected="" the="" actual="" aircraft="" used="" at="" the="" base="" when="" compared="" to="" the="" original="" emission="" estimate.="" this="" change="" resulted="" in="" a="" substantial="" increase="" in="" the="" 1990="" emissions="" estimate.="" the="" base="" has="" undergone="" a="" substantial="" realignment="" since="" 1990="" resulting="" in="" a="" significant="" decrease="" in="" emissions="" projected="" for="" 1996.="" 1994="" quality="" assurance="" efforts="" during="" 1994,="" the="" tnrcc="" completed="" a="" thorough="" evaluation="" of="" the="" 1990="" point="" source="" inventory="" and="" discovered="" that="" emissions="" from="" facilities="" in="" several="" sic="" codes="" were="" misplaced="" under="" the="" wrong="" emissions="" category.="" this="" effort="" resulted="" in="" significant="" changes="" to="" some="" emissions="" categories.="" the="" realignment="" of="" emissions="" did="" not="" affect="" the="" total="" emissions.="" the="" realignment="" of="" emissions="" did="" have="" the="" effect="" of="" increasing="" the="" amount="" of="" reductions="" that="" were="" expected="" for="" certain="" control="" measures="" and="" decreasing="" the="" amount="" of="" emission="" reductions="" expected="" from="" other="" control="" measures.="" the="" epa="" is="" proposing="" to="" approve="" these="" revisions="" to="" the="" 1990="" base="" year="" voc="" inventory.="" the="" originally="" approved="" biogenic="" emissions="" are="" unchanged.="" a="" summary="" of="" the="" revised="" 1990="" emissions="" inventory="" for="" the="" three="" areas="" is="" included="" in="" table="" 1.="" table="" 1.--1990="" base="" year="" emissions="" inventory="" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" point="" area="" on-road="" non-road="" total="" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" dallas/fort="" worth..............................="" 65.27="" 174.02="" 306.60="" 105.19="" 651.08="" el="" paso........................................="" 9.45="" 24.94="" 38.27="" 10.99="" 83.65="" houston........................................="" 481.95="" 200.07="" 251.72="" 129.98="" 1063.72="" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" c.="" calculation="" of="" the="" 1996="" target="" level="" of="" emissions="" texas="" subtracted="" the="" noncreditable="" reductions="" from="" the="" fmvcp="" and="" reid="" vapor="" pressure="" program="" from="" the="" 1990="" emissions="" inventory.="" this="" subtraction="" results="" in="" the="" 1990="" adjusted="" inventory.="" the="" total="" required="" emission="" reduction="" required="" to="" meet="" the="" 15="" percent="" plan="" requirement="" equals="" the="" sum="" of="" 15="" percent="" of="" the="" adjusted="" inventory,="" plus="" reductions="" to="" offset="" any="" growth="" that="" takes="" place="" between="" 1990="" and="" 1996,="" plus="" any="" reductions="" that="" result="" from="" corrections="" to="" the="" i/m="" or="" voc="" ract="" rules.="" table="" 2="" summarizes="" the="" calculations="" for="" the="" dallas/fort="" worth,="" el="" paso="" and="" houston="" areas.="" table="" 2.--calculation="" of="" required="" reductions="" (tons/day)="" ------------------------------------------------------------------------="" dallas/fort="" houston/="" worth="" el="" paso="" galveston="" ------------------------------------------------------------------------="" 1990="" emission="" inventory..........="" 651.08="" 83.65="" 1063.72="" 1990="" adjusted....................="" 548.83="" 69.40="" 975.39="" 15%="" of="" adjusted..................="" 82.32="" 10.41="" 146.31="" ract="" and="" i/m="" corr................="" .99="" 1.57="" 16.31="" 1996="" target......................="" 465.52="" 57.42="" 812.77="" 1996="">1 Projection................ 583.07 73.61 1026.27
Required Reduction............... 117.55 16.19 213.27
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 1996 forecasted emissions with growth and pre-1990 controls.
D. Projections of Growth
As can be seen from the calculations in Table 2, an important
component of calculating the required emission reductions is to project
the amount of growth in emissions that is expected between 1990 and
1996. Since the 1996 emissions are related to the 1990 emissions, the
changes in the 1990 emission inventory resulted in changes to the 1996
projections. In addition, as discussed previously, Texas has projected
reductions in the emissions from surface cleaning, auto refinishing and
military aircraft emissions from 1990 levels.
E. Deficiencies Identified in the January 29, 1996, Federal Register
In the January 29, 1996, Federal Register, the EPA identified
several areas where it was believed that Texas had projected too much
emission reduction for particular control measures. The EPA has
reviewed the
[[Page 37178]]
State's August 9, 1996, SIP revision and believes that it addresses the
EPA's previously identified concerns. A brief discussion of the
previously identified concerns and how they have been addressed
follows:
El Paso Stage II
In the previous submittal, the EPA believed that for the El Paso
area, too much emission benefit was projected for this control measure.
Texas, in the August 23, 1996, SIP revision, corrects this problem by
adjusting the projected control efficiency from 98 percent to 95
percent.
Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Rules
Texas projected emission reductions for this category based on past
EPA guidance. The guidance, however, was changed in a memorandum dated
March 22, 1995, (Credit for the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans for
Reductions from the Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM)
Coating Rule). In the August 9, 1996, SIP revision, the emission
reduction estimate is revised based on the more recent guidance.
Emission reductions from the AIM rule are based on the rule
proposed by the EPA on June 25, 1995, which expected compliance by
April 1997. Subsequently, the issuance of the rule has been delayed.
The EPA has negotiated a compliance date of no earlier than January 1,
1998. The previous guidance allowed States to take emission reduction
credit for the AIM rule even though the reductions were not expected to
occur until April 1997. The EPA believes that even though the
compliance date has been pushed back to January 1, 1998, the emission
reduction from the national AIM rule is creditable in State 15 Percent
Plans.
Industrial Wastewater
In the January 29, 1996, Federal Register, the EPA proposed that
Texas had projected too high a control efficiency for this control
measure. The EPA continues to believe that the control efficiency
projected by Texas for this measure is too high. Texas, however,
believes that the rule effectiveness originally used for this control
measure was too low. The EPA agrees that this is likely the case. The
combination of rule effectiveness and control efficiency determine the
overall reductions. Therefore, the EPA believes that the overall
reductions should be accurate. Texas has committed to study emissions
from this category to determine actual control efficiency and rule
effectiveness for the category. In light of the above, the EPA believes
that it is appropriate to propose approval of these projected emission
reductions. The EPA will work with Texas to further study the emissions
from this source category as part of determining whether RACT has been
instituted for this category of emissions.
Employee Commute Options (ECO)
In the Houston area, Texas previously relied on this program to
provide emission reductions. The EPA approved the State ECO program on
March 7, 1995 (60 FR 12442). Public Law 104-70, which was passed by
Congress in December 1995, gave flexibility to the states in meeting
the requirements of the ECO program. Specifically, the legislation
allowed states, that prior to its enactment were required to implement
ECO programs, to ``remove such provisions from the State Implementation
Plan, or withdraw its submission, if the state notifies the
Administrator, in writing, that the state has undertaken, or will
undertake, one or more alternative methods that will achieve emission
reductions equivalent to those to be achieved by the removed or
withdrawn provisions.'' The State of Texas has removed the ECO
emissions reduction credit from the Houston 15 Percent Plan and does
not rely on the emission reduction of 1.81 ton/day which was projected
under the ECO program. In addition, the Governor of Texas has notified
EPA and requested removal of the Texas ECO rule from the SIP. For the
purposes of the 15 Percent SIP, the State has satisfied the provisions
of the 1995 legislation. The EPA will act on the Governor's request
under a separate Federal Register action to address the specific
requirements of the ECO program and its removal from the SIP.
Marine Vessel Loading
In the January 29, 1996 Federal Register, the EPA noted that Texas
had projected reductions from their Marine Vessel Loading Rule for area
sources (sources with less than 25 tons/year emissions) in this
category. The rule, however, only covered facilities with emissions
greater than 100 tons/year. Therefore, the emission reductions for area
sources could not be credited. As discussed previously, in subsequent
studies, Texas has learned that there are no area source emissions in
this category in the Houston area. Therefore, Texas has revised its
emission reduction estimates to remove the area source emission
reductions.
Acetone Substitution
Texas had projected emission reductions for the rules to regulate
the cultured (synthetic) marble and fiber reinforced plastic
operations. The EPA, however, has added acetone to the list of non-
reactive substances. Texas, in the August 9, 1996, submittal, has
removed emission reduction credit for these rules.
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M)
The January 29, 1996 proposed limited approval/limited disapproval
did not agree with the emission reductions projected for Vehicle I/M
because Texas had discontinued the program after submittal of the 15
Percent Plan. On June 27, 1996, the Region received the State's revised
I/M plan. The plan contained provisions for the implementation of a
decentralized two-speed idle testing program. Testing is required
annually in the counties of Harris, Dallas, Tarrant, and El Paso. The
plan was submitted under the provisions of the National Highway Systems
Designations Act of 1995 (NHSDA). The plan also allows for, but does
not require, loaded mode testing in which case the test would be
biennial. There are no loaded mode testing commitments or credits
contained in the I/M or 15% plan SIPs.
In the Houston area, this is largely a new program. In the El Paso
and Dallas/Fort Worth areas the existing program is strengthened by
provisions for remote sensing, a real time data link of test stations,
auditing and enforcement, repair effectiveness support, performance
monitoring and evaluation and gas cap pressure testing. The plan start
dates were July 1, 1996, for Dallas/Fort Worth and January 1, 1997, for
Houston and El Paso.
On October 3, 1996, the Region proposed conditional interim
approval of the revised I/M plan (61 FR 51651). The proposal was
conditional because the State needed additional legal authority to
implement portions of its plan including, test on resale provisions,
enforcement of remote sensing, and authority for re-registration
denial. The approval was interim because under the provisions of the
NHDSA the State's estimates regarding network type were to be based on
good faith estimates with the credits to be evaluated at the end of an
18 month interim approval period.
The EPA has reviewed the modeling of the projected emission
reductions for the revised I/M program provided by Texas. With the
exception of the gas cap check, Texas has projected emissions
[[Page 37179]]
reductions that are consistent with EPA guidance.
However, it is the EPA's position that Texas projected more
emission reductions than the EPA feels is appropriate for their gas cap
check. The EPA has performed modeling to assess the amount of over
estimation. For the Houston, Dallas/Fort Worth and El Paso areas, the
amount of over estimation is estimated to be 0.5 tons/day, 0.8 tons/
day, and 0.2 tons/day respectively. In each of these areas there are
excess emission reductions that are sufficient to cover this over
estimation.
The I/M Program was challenged in state court. The Court recently
ruled that the two Senate Bills (19 and 178) challenged were an
unconstitutional ``taking'' and an unconstitutional interference with
contract, Texas Testing Technologies I, et al. v. The State of Texas,
No. 95-1462 (126th Dist. Court, Travis County, Texas) (April 21, 1997).
The suit is essentially a contract dispute with the State and is hence
irrelevant to today's proposal to accept the State's projected emission
reductions in the 15% SIP. The State has adequate legal authority
without the two Senate Bills' language to implement and enforce an I/M
program (except for the condititons noted in the October 1996 Federal
Register proposal). Therefore, EPA is proposing to accept the State's
projected emissions reductions with the exception of the projected
emissions from the gas cap check.
F. Impact of Vehicle I/M Start Dates
Section 182(b)(1) of the Act requires that States containing ozone
nonattainment areas classified as Moderate or above prepare SIPs that
provide for a 15 percent VOC emissions reduction by November 15, 1996.
Most of the 15 percent SIPs originally submitted to the EPA contained
enhanced I/M programs because this program achieves more VOC emission
reductions than most, if not all other, control strategies. However,
because most States experienced substantial difficulties with these
enhanced I/M programs, only a few States are currently actually testing
cars using their original enhanced I/M protocols.
In September, 1995, EPA finalized revisions to its enhanced I/M
rule allowing states significant flexibility in designing I/M programs
appropriate for their needs (60 FR 48029). Subsequently, Congress
enacted the NHSDA, which provides States with more flexibility in
determining the design of enhanced I/M programs. The substantial amount
of time needed by States to re-design enhanced I/M programs in
accordance with the guidance contained within the NHSDA, secure state
legislative approval when necessary, and set up the infrastructure to
perform the testing program precluded States that revise their I/M
programs from obtaining emission reductions from such revised programs
by November 15, 1996.
Given the heavy reliance by many States upon enhanced I/M programs
to help achieve the 15 Percent VOC emissions reduction required under
section 182(b)(1) of the Act, and the recent NHSDA and regulatory
changes regarding enhanced I/M programs, the EPA recognized that it was
no longer possible for many states to achieve the portion of the 15
percent reductions that is attributed to I/M by November 15, 1996.
Under these circumstances, disapproval of the 15 percent SIPs would
serve no purpose. Consequently, under certain circumstances, the EPA
will propose to allow States that pursue redesign of enhanced I/M
programs to receive emission reduction credit from these programs
within their 15 Percent Plans, even though the emissions reductions
from the I/M program will occur after November 15, 1996.
Specifically, the EPA will propose approval of 15 percent SIPs if
the emissions reductions from the revised, enhanced I/M programs, as
well as from the other 15 Percent Plan measures, will achieve the 15
Percent target level as soon after November 15, 1996, as practicable.
To make this ``as soon as practicable'' determination, the EPA must
determine that the 15 Percent SIP contains all VOC control strategies
that are practicable for the nonattainment area in question and that
meaningfully accelerate the date by which the 15% level is achieved.
EPA does not believe that measures meaningfully accelerate the 15
Percent date if they provide only an insignificant amount of
reductions.
G. Acceptability of Texas 15 Percent Plans
In the case of the Dallas/Fort Worth, El Paso and Houston areas,
Texas has submitted 15 Percent SIP revisions that demonstrate they
achieve the necessary 15 Percent reductions from I/M by the end of
1997. The Texas I/M program is an annual program which began in Dallas/
Fort Worth on July 1, 1996, and in El Paso and Houston on January 1,
1997. Texas submitted 15 Percent SIPs for Dallas/Fort Worth, El Paso,
and Houston that included creditable control measures. Emission
reductions resulting from the implementation of the state adopted
control measures in the 15 Percent Plans have already occurred. Texas
has relied on reductions from the AIM rule. The AIM reductions are
expected to occur by January 1, 1998. Therefore, the EPA believes that
these plans will achieve the required reductions by January 1, 1998.
The EPA believes that these SIPs contain measures, including I/M, that
achieve the required reductions as soon as practicable for these
nonattainment areas.
The EPA has examined other potentially available SIP measures to
determine if they are practicable for the Dallas/Fort Worth, El Paso
and Houston Areas and if they would meaningfully accelerate the date by
which these areas reach the 15 Percent level of reductions. EPA
proposes to determine that the SIPs for the Dallas/Fort Worth, El Paso
and Houston Areas contain the appropriate measures. For the Dallas/Fort
Worth, El Paso and Houston area no additional measures were identified
that could be implemented to meaningfully accelerate the date by which
the 15 Percent target level could be attained. For a complete
discussion of the control measures considered, please see the Technical
Support Document for this action.
Tables 3 through 5 summarize the control measures and the
associated emission reductions used to achieve the 15 Percent targets.
Table 3.--Summary of Emission Reductions: Dallas/Fort Worth (Tons/Day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Required Reduction......................................... 117.55
Creditable Reductions:
RACT Catch-up.......................................... 4.03
Stage II............................................... 18.19
Aircraft Stage III..................................... 0.60
Other VOC storage, transport........................... 0.05
I/M, FMVCP Tier I, Reformulated Gas.................... 69.46
Bakeries............................................... 0.12
Municipal Landfills.................................... 3.49
[[Page 37180]]
Carswell Fire Training Pit Closure..................... 1.20
RE Improvements........................................ 4.86
Gas Utility Engines.................................... 7.76
Reform Off Road........................................ 4.23
TCMs................................................... 6.94
Consumer/Commercial Products........................... 4.09
Gasoline Terminals..................................... 2.17
Fugitives.............................................. 0.07
Wood Furniture......................................... 1.35
AIM.................................................... 4.77
Traffic Markings....................................... 0.56
High Performance Maintenance........................... 0.96
Other Special Purpose Coatings......................... 1.18
------------
Total.............................................. 136.07
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.--Summary Emission Reductions: El Paso (Tons/Day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Required Reduction......................................... 16.19
Creditable Reductions:
RACT Catch-up.......................................... 0.71
Stage II............................................... 1.87
Aircraft Stage III..................................... 0.02
FMVCP Tier I, I/M, Low RVP............................. 7.37
Offset Printing........................................ 0.56
Vessel Loading......................................... 0.32
Fugitives.............................................. 1.13
RE Improvements........................................ 1.63
Gas Utility Engines.................................... 0.88
TCMs................................................... 0.35
Architectural Coatings................................. 0.80
Consumer/Commercial Products........................... 0.70
Municipal Landfills.................................... 0.21
Industrial Wastewater.................................. 0.27
Bulk Gasoline Terminals................................ 0.77
Outdoor Burning........................................ 0.40
Wood Furniture......................................... 0.04
RVP (off-road)......................................... 0.09
Traffic Markings....................................... 0.09
High Performance Maintenance........................... 0.12
------------
Total.............................................. 18.32
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5.--Summary Emission Reductions: Houston/Galveston (Tons/Day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Required Reduction........................................ 213.27
Creditable Reductions:
RACT Catch-up......................................... 27.81
TSDF.................................................. 13.48
Stage II.............................................. 16.89
General Vent Gas...................................... 13.97
Reform Gas, I/M, Tier I FMVCP......................... 40.41
Reform (Off Road)..................................... 5.30
Vessel Cleaning/Degassing............................. 3.01
Stage I............................................... 6.26
SOCMI Rct. & Dist..................................... 1.68
Fugitive Controls..................................... 46.03
RE Improvements....................................... 12.82
Gas Utility Engines................................... 8.47
TCMs.................................................. 0.36
Consumer/Commercial Products.......................... 4.44
Marine Vessel loading................................. 15.73
Gasoline Terminals.................................... 3.36
Wood Coating.......................................... 0.37
Bakeries.............................................. 0.22
Architectural Coatings................................ 5.03
Industrial Wastewater................................. 8.56
Traffic Markings...................................... 0.56
Other Special Purpose................................. 1.24
High Performance Maintenance.......................... 0.99
-------------
[[Page 37181]]
Total............................................. 237
------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
The Clean Air Act, section 176(c), and the transportation
conformity rule require the states to establish motor vehicle emissions
budgets (MVEB) in any control strategy SIP that is submitted for
attainment and maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. These budgets will be used to determine if future
transportation plans conform with State air quality plans. The budget
for each area has been calculated by projecting the 1996 Motor Vehicle
emissions and subtracting the emission reductions from planned emission
control programs. The State of Texas has established a MVEB for VOC for
Dallas/Fort Worth, El Paso, and Houston. The EPA is proposing to give
conditional interim approval of the following MVEB:
Table 6.--1996 VOC Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC (Tons
Area per Day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dallas/Fort Worth............................................ 165.49
El Paso...................................................... 21.63
Houston...................................................... 152.12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Contingency Measures
Ozone areas classified as moderate or above must include in their
submittals, under section 172(c)(9) of the Act, contingency measures to
be implemented if Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) is not achieved or
if the standard is not attained by the applicable date. The General
Preamble to Title I, (57 FR 13498) states that the contingency measures
should, at a minimum, ensure that an appropriate level of emissions
reduction progress continues to be made if attainment or RFP is not
achieved and additional planning by the State is needed. Therefore, the
EPA interprets the Act to require States with moderate and above ozone
nonattainment areas to include sufficient contingency measures in the
November 1993 submittal, so that upon implementation of such measures,
additional emissions reductions of up to three percent of the adjusted
base year inventory (or a lesser percentage that will make up the
identified shortfall) would be achieved in the year after the failure
has been identified. States must show that their contingency measures
can be implemented with minimal further action on their part and with
no additional rulemaking actions such as public hearings or legislative
review .
Analysis of Specific Contingency Measures
The following is a discussion of each of the contingency measures
that have been included in the SIP submittals and an analysis of their
acceptableness.
Degassing or Cleaning of Vessels
This measure was adopted as part of the 15 Percent Plans for the
Houston area. It was also adopted as a contingency measure in the El
Paso and Dallas/Fort Worth areas. The EPA believes the reductions that
have been projected if this measure is needed as a contingency measure
are appropriate.
Dry Cleaning Naphtha
This measure adopted at 30 TAC 115.552 as a contingency measure
would call for control of dry cleaners that use petroleum naphtha. This
rule was adopted as a contingency measure in the Dallas/Fort Worth, El
Paso, and Houston areas. The EPA has evaluated this measure and
believes that it will achieve the projected reductions in the event it
must be implemented.
Offset Printing
Regulation of emissions from offset printing was adopted as a 15
Percent Plan measure in the El Paso area. It was also adopted as a
contingency measure in the Houston and Dallas/Fort Worth areas. The EPA
believes that the emission reductions that have been projected if it is
necessary to implement these rules are appropriate.
Commercial Bakeries
Texas adopted control measures for major source bakeries in Dallas/
Fort Worth and Houston as part of the 15 Percent Plans. Texas also
adopted for Dallas and El Paso, a contingency measure for minor source
bakeries to be controlled in the event a milestone demonstration or
attainment date is missed. The EPA believes the reductions that are
projected if these rules are implemented are appropriate.
Transportation Control Measures (TCM)
In Dallas/Fort Worth and El Paso, Texas has projected that
additional emission reductions will come from transportation control
measures that will be implemented in the 1997 time frame. TCMs are
measures such as High Occupancy Vehicle lanes that reduce emissions by
modifying the transportation system. The EPA believes the projected
emission reductions have been quantified appropriately.
Gas Utility Engines
In all three areas, Texas has projected emission reductions that
will occur from the small engine rule in the year following the
required milestone demonstration or 1997. The EPA believes that these
reductions have been quantified appropriately.
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance and Tier I
All of the contingency plans rely to some extent on reductions from
the inspection and maintenance program. As discussed previously, the
planned I/M reductions are not expected to occur until the end of 1997.
Additional reductions from I/M cannot be expected to occur in the time
frame envisioned for contingency measures. Therefore, these reductions
cannot be credited toward the contingency measures.
However, reductions in excess of the 15 percent plans and
requirements achieved from measures enumerated above are sufficient to
ensure that the contingency measure target of three percent is met. If
Texas has to implement these measures for contingency purposes or for
future plans then the State will have one year to backfill the
contingency plan.
Table 7.--Summary of Acceptable Contingency Measures: Dallas/Fort Worth
(Tons/Day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Required Contingency....................................... 16.46
Creditable Contingency Reductions:
Vessel Cleaning........................................ 0.18
Dry Cleaning Naphtha................................... 2.22
Offset Printing........................................ 0.85
Commercial Bakeries.................................... 0.15
[[Page 37182]]
TCMs................................................... 2.03
Gas Utility Engines 1997............................... 0.73
Excess reductions from 15 Percent measures............. 18.52
------------
Total.............................................. 24.68
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 8.--Summary of Contingency Measure Reductions: El Paso (tons/day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Required Contingency....................................... 2.08
Creditable Contingency Reductions:
Vessel Cleaning........................................ 0.09
Dry Cleaning Naphtha................................... 0.30
Commercial Bakeries.................................... 0.05
TCMs................................................... 0.53
Gas Utility Engines 1997............................... 0.08
Excess reductions from 15 percent measures............. 2.13
------------
Total.............................................. 1.74
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 9.--Summary of Contingency Measure Reductions: Houston/Galveston
(tons/day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Required Contingency....................................... 29.26
Creditable Contingency Reductions:
Municipal Landfills.................................... 3.99
Dry Cleaning-Naphtha................................... 1.88
Offset Printing........................................ 2.20
Gas Utility Engines 1997............................... 0.76
Excess Reductions from 15% measures.................... 23.73
------------
Total.............................................. 32.56
------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Rulemaking Action
The EPA has evaluated the Emissions Inventory, 15 Percent Plans and
contingency measures submitted as part of the August 23, 1996 SIP
revision for Texas. The EPA has also reviewed the MVEB associated with
these 15% plans. The EPA proposes to give full approval of the
revisions to the 1990 base year inventory for Dallas/Fort Worth, El
Paso and Houston/Galveston Areas. The EPA proposes to give Conditional
Interim approval of the 15 Percent Plans and associated MVEB for the
three areas. Finally, the EPA proposes to give full approval of the
contingency plans for these three areas.
The 15 Percent Plans for the three areas can only receive a
conditional interim approval because the plans all rely in part on
emission reductions from the revised I/M program. The EPA proposed
conditional interim approval of the I/M program for the three areas on
October 3, 1996. Therefore, the 15 Percent Plans can only receive
conditional interim approval.
Interim Approval
The NHSDA allows States to make a ``good faith'' estimate of the
reductions that will be achieved by the I/M program. The I/M program
can be given interim approval during an 18 month period during which
the program is evaluated to validate the ``good faith'' estimate. At
the end of the 18-month interim period, the interim approval status for
the I/M program will automatically lapse pursuant to the NHSDA. It is
expected that the State will, at that time, be able to make a
demonstration of the program's effectiveness using an appropriate
evaluation criteria. If the State fails to provide a demonstration of
the program's effectiveness to EPA within 18 months of the final
interim I/M rulemaking, the interim approval will lapse, and EPA will
be forced to disapprove the State's permanent I/M SIP revision. An I/M
disapproval will result in a 15 Percent Plan disapproval unless
substitute emission reductions are submitted. Information from the I/M
program evaluation showing the program achieves a lesser amount of
reductions than originally projected will be used in the final action
on the 15 Percent Plans. Further discussion of the requirements for
final approval of the
I/M program are discussed in the October 3, 1996, Federal Register (61
FR 51651).
Conditional Approval
The EPA is proposing a conditional approval of the 15 Percent Plans
contingent upon the State meeting the conditions outlined in the
proposed I/M conditional approval. These include the State obtaining
the appropriate legislative authority as needed to implement the
program outlined in the Governor's Executive Order. The EPA proposes
that if the State fails to obtain the needed additional legal authority
within 12 months of final conditional interim approval of the 15
Percent Plans, the 15 Percent Plan approval will convert to a
disapproval after a letter is sent notifying the State of the
conversion to disapproval.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to
the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator
for Air and
[[Page 37183]]
Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this
regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. See 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
Conditional approvals of SIP submittals under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the 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 impose any new
requirements, I certify that it does not have a significant impact on
any small entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the
Federal-State relationship under the Act, preparation of a flexibility
analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of State action. The Act forbids EPA to base its actions
concerning SIPs on such grounds. See 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
its State-enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal
does not impose a new Federal requirement. Therefore, EPA certifies
that this disapproval action does not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities because it does not remove
existing requirements nor does it substitute a new Federal requirement.
C. Unfunded Mandates
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995,
signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact
statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or
tribal governments in 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.
The EPA has determined that the conditional approval action
proposed does not include a Federal mandate that may result in
estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or
tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This
Federal action approves preexisting requirements under State or local
law, and imposes no new Federal requirements. Accordingly, no
additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the
private sector, result from this action.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: July 1, 1997.
Jerry Clifford,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-18244 Filed 7-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
