Jump to main content or area navigation.

Contact Us

Technology Transfer Network / NAAQS
Ozone Implementation

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

Information provided for informational purposes onlyNote: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

Federal Register Document





[Federal Register: December 16, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 241)]

[Proposed Rules]               

[Page 70548-70562]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[DOCID:fr16de99-36]                         



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



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

    \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 PM10 NAAQS,'' issued December 29, 1997. A copy of this 

memorandum may be found on EPA's web site at https://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 https://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 https://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.

    o 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.

    o NOX reductions affecting boundary conditions.

    o A motor vehicle emissions budget which can be determined 

by EPA to be adequate for conformity purposes.

    o 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.

    o 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.

    o 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 

https://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 https://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 https://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 

https://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. 

    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: https://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: https://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. 

    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. 

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: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/ (file name: ``O3TEST'').

    3. Memorandum, ``Ozone Attainment Demonstrations,'' from Mary D. 

Nichols, issued March 2, 1995.

    4. Memorandum, ``Extension of Attainment Dates for Downwind 

Transport Areas,'' issued July 16, 1998. 

    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.''



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 (https://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







Jump to main content.