[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 27, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 81786-81799]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-32848]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[TX; FRL-6922-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Ozone;
Beaumont/Port Arthur Ozone Nonattainment Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve the Texas 1-hour ozone
attainment demonstration State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the
Beaumont/Port Arthur (BPA) moderate ozone nonattainment area. The
attainment demonstration SIP is addressed in the State of Texas
submittals dated November 12, 1999 and April 25, 2000. The EPA is also
proposing to: extend the ozone attainment date for the BPA ozone
nonattainment area to November 15, 2007 while retaining the area's
current classification as a moderate ozone nonattainment area; approve
the State's enforceable commitment to perform a mid-course review and
submit a SIP revision to the EPA by May 2004; find that the BPA area
meets the Reasonably Available Technology (RACT) requirements for major
sources of volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions; and approve the
motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEB). This proposed rule is based on
the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (the Act) related to
ozone attainment demonstrations.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before January 26, 2001.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to Mr.
Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), at the EPA Region
6 Office listed below. Copies of documents relevant to this action,
including the Technical Support Document (TSD) are available for public
inspection during normal business hours at the following locations.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Office of Air
Quality, 12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753.
Anyone wanting to examine these documents should make an
appointment with the appropriate office at least two working days in
advance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Pratt, Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Telephone Number
(214) 665-2140, e-Mail Address: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' means EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Basis for the State's Attainment Demonstration
B. Components of a Modeled Attainment Demonstration
C. Framework for Proposing Action on the Attainment Demonstration
SIP
D. Criteria for Attainment Date Extensions
II. Technical Review of the Submittals
A. Summary of the State Submittals
1. General Information
2. Modeling Procedures and Input Data
3. Modeling Results
4. Emission Control Strategies
5. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget
[[Page 81787]]
B. Environmental Protection Agency Review of the Submittals
1. Adequacy of the State's Demonstrations of Attainment
2. Adequacy of the Emissions Control Strategies
3. Adequacy of the Request for Extension of the Attainment Date
4. Determination of Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM)
Availability
III. Proposed Action
IV. Administrative Requirements
I. Background
A. Basis for the State's Attainment Demonstration
What are the Relevant Clean Air Act Requirements?
The Act requires the EPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for certain widespread pollutants that cause or
contribute to air pollution that is reasonably anticipated to endanger
public health or welfare. Clean Air Act sections 108 and 109. In 1979,
EPA promulgated the 1-hour ground-level ozone standard of 120 parts per
billion (ppb). 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979).
Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather,
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and Nitrogen Oxides ( NOX),
emitted by a wide variety of sources, react in the presence of sunlight
to form ground-level ozone. NOX and VOC are referred to as
precursors of ozone.
Ozone formation is accelerated or enhanced under certain
meteorological conditions, such as high temperatures and low wind
speeds. Higher ozone concentrations occur downwind of areas with
relatively high VOC and NOX concentrations or in areas
subject to relatively high background ozone and ozone precursor
concentrations (ozone and ozone precursors entering an area as the
result of transport from upwind source areas).
VOC emissions are produced by a wide variety of sources, including
stationary and mobile sources. Significant stationary sources of VOC
include industrial solvent usage, various coating operations,
industrial and utility combustion units, petroleum and oil storage and
marketing operations, chemical manufacturing operations, personal
solvent usage, etc. Significant mobile sources of VOC include on-road
vehicle usage and off-road vehicle and engine usage, such as farm
machinery, aircraft, locomotives, and motorized lawn care and garden
implements.
NOX emissions are produced primarily through combustion
processes, including industrial and utility boiler use, process heaters
and furnaces, and on-road and off-road mobile sources.
An area exceeds the 1-hour ozone standard each time an ambient air
quality monitor records a 1-hour average ozone concentration above 124
ppb in any given day (only the highest 1-hour ozone concentration at
the monitor during any 24 hour day is considered when determining the
number of exceedance days at the monitor). An area violates the ozone
standard if, over a consecutive 3-year period, more than 3 days of
exceedances are expected to occur at any monitor in the area. 40 CFR
Part 50, App.H.
The highest of the fourth-highest daily peak ozone concentrations
over the 3 year period at any monitoring site in the area is called the
ozone design value for the area. The Act, 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 1987 through 1989 period. Clean Air Act section 107(d)(4); 56
FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). The Act further classified these areas,
based on the areas' ozone design values, as marginal, moderate,
serious, severe, or extreme. Marginal areas were suffering the least
significant ozone nonattainment problems, while the areas classified as
severe and extreme had the most significant ozone nonattainment
problems.
The control requirements and date by which attainment is to be
achieved vary with an area's classification. Marginal areas were
subject to the fewest mandated control requirements and had the
earliest attainment date, November 15, 1993. Severe and extreme areas
are subject to more stringent planning requirements but are provided
more time to attain the standard. Serious areas were required to attain
the 1-hour standard by November 15, 1999, and severe areas are required
to attain by November 15, 2005 or November 15, 2007, depending on the
areas' ozone design values for 1987 through 1989. The BPA ozone
nonattainment area was initially classified as serious (56 FR 56694).
Subsequently, EPA determined that the serious classification was made
in error. The area was reclassified to moderate and the attainment date
for a moderate area is November 15, 1996 (61 FR 14496). The BPA ozone
nonattainment area is defined (40 CFR Parts 81.314 and 81.326) to
contain Jefferson, Hardin and Orange Counties in Texas.
The specific requirements of the Act for moderate ozone
nonattainment areas are found in part D, section 182(b). Section 172 in
part D provides the general requirements for nonattainment plans.
Section 172(c)(6) in part D of the Act and section 110 require SIPs to
include enforceable emission limitations, and such other control
measures, means or techniques as well as schedules and timetables for
compliance, as may be necessary to provide for attainment by the
applicable attainment date. Section 172(c)(1) requires the SIP to
provide for implementation of all reasonably available control measures
as expeditiously as practicable and requires the SIP to provide for
attainment of the NAAQS. Section 182(b)(1)(A) requires the State to
submit for the moderate nonattainment area, a 15% Rate of Progress Plan
and also provide for specific annual reductions in emissions of VOC and
NOX ``as necessary to attain'' the ozone NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date. EPA's ``General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990'' (57
FR 13498 dated April 16, 1992) provides the interpretive basis for
EPA's rulemakings under the nonattainment plan provisions of the Act
(General Preamble). In the General Preamble, the EPA provides that this
section 182(b)(1)(A) requirement for attainment may be met by the use
of EPA-approved modeling techniques. As part of today's proposal, EPA
is proposing action on the attainment demonstration SIP revision
submitted by the State of Texas for the BPA moderate ozone
nonattainment area.
In general, an attainment demonstration SIP includes a modeling
analysis showing how an area will achieve the standard by its
attainment date and the emission control measures necessary to achieve
attainment. The attainment demonstration SIPs must include motor
vehicle emissions budgets for transportation conformity purposes.
Transportation conformity is a process required by Section 176(c) of
the Act for ensuring that the effects of emissions from all on-road
sources are consistent with attainment of the standard. Ozone
attainment demonstrations must include the estimates of motor vehicle
VOC and NOX emissions that are consistent with attainment,
which then act as a budget or ceiling for the purposes of determining
whether transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to the
attainment SIP. Refer to Section II.A.5 for more details.
[[Page 81788]]
What is the History and Time Frame for the State Attainment
Demonstration SIP for BPA and How Is It Related to EPA Transport
Policy?
The BPA area is classified as moderate and, therefore, was required
to attain the 1-hour ozone standard of 0.12 parts per million by
November 15, 1996.
Attainment Demonstration SIPs were originally due November 1994.
However, through a series of policy memoranda, the EPA recognized that
States had not submitted these attainment demonstrations and were
constrained to do so until ozone transport had been further analyzed.
One policy memorandum addressing the issue of ozone transport is the
Transport Policy issued by the EPA in July 1998. The Transport Policy
is particularly relevant to BPA, which is downwind of the Houston/
Galveston (HG) area, a severe-17 ozone nonattainment area with an
attainment date of November 15, 2007.
On April 16, 1999, EPA proposed in the Federal Register to
reclassify the BPA area to a serious ozone nonattainment area, and
alternatively, proposed to extend the BPA area's attainment date if the
State submitted a SIP timely and meeting the criteria of the 1998
Transport Policy (64 Federal Register 18864).
The BPA Attainment Demonstration SIP revision was adopted by the
State on October 27, 1999 and submitted to the EPA under a cover letter
from the Governor dated November 12, 1999. This submittal was termed by
the State as ``Phase I'' of their NOX rulemaking activities.
The State submitted a revision to their SIP dated April 25, 2000, as
``Phase II'' NOX rules and controls needed for attainment.
In the BPA ozone attainment demonstration SIP reviewed here, the
State does rely, in part, on regional and statewide NOX
emission reductions for Texas, including the upwind HG Area, the
eastern half of the State of Texas, and States upwind of Texas (most
importantly, Louisiana). In developing the attainment demonstration for
BPA, the State makes the case that the 1998 Transport Policy is
particularly relevant to BPA, which is downwind of the HG area, and
that the BPA area is affected by transport from HG. If we approve of
such a determination for BPA, the area would have until no later than
November 15, 2007, the attainment date for HG, to attain the 1-hour
ozone standard.
What is the Time Frame for Taking Action on the Attainment
Demonstration SIP?
The State submitted the attainment demonstration SIP revisions and
supporting documentation between November 1999 and April 2000. In
today's Federal Register, EPA is proposing to approve the attainment
demonstration SIP for the BPA area. The anticipated schedule includes a
30-day public comment period. The EPA cannot finalize the proposed
action upon the attainment demonstration SIP unless and until we have
fully approved all of the control measures relied upon in the State's
attainment demonstration SIP for the BPA area and the control measures
required by the Act for a moderate area such as the BPA area. The EPA
intends to complete final rulemaking on all of those required control
measures by early spring 2001. We are acting upon those measures in
separate Federal Register rulemaking notices. The EPA intends to have
the Regional Administrator sign a final rulemaking on the attainment
demonstration SIP and the attainment date extension for the BPA Area in
late April, 2001. The final rule would be published in the Federal
Register following Regional Administrator signature. The Texas Natural
Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) submitted an enforceable
commitment in the April 2000 SIP submittal to perform a mid-course
review (including evaluation of all modeling, inventory data, and other
tools and assumptions used to develop this attainment demonstration).
The TNRCC committed that it will submit a mid-course review SIP
revision, with recommended mid-course corrective actions, to the EPA by
May 1, 2004.
B. Components of a Modeled Attainment Demonstration
The EPA provides guidance (Guidance on the Use of Modeled Results
to Demonstrate Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS, EPA-454/B-95-007, June
1996) that States may rely on a modeled attainment demonstration
supplemented with additional evidence to demonstrate attainment. To
have a complete modeling demonstration submission, States should have
submitted the required modeling analyses and identified any additional
evidence that EPA should consider in evaluating whether the area will
attain the standard. Additional components are discussed below.
What EPA Guidelines Apply to the Attainment Demonstration Submittals?
The following documents, among others, contain EPA's guidelines
affecting the content and review of ozone attainment demonstration
submittals:
1. 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. Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile
Sources (Revised) (1992);
3. Guidance on Urban Airshed Model (UAM) Reporting Requirements for
Attainment Demonstrations, EPA-454/R-93-056, March 1994. Web site:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/ (file name: ``UAMRPTRQ'').
4. User's Guide to MOBILE5 (Mobile Source Emission Factor Model),
May 1994;
5. Memorandum, ``Ozone Attainment Dates for Areas Affected by
Overwhelming Transport,'' from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency, September 1994;
6. Memorandum, ``Ozone Attainment Demonstrations,'' from Mary D.
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, March 2, 1995.
Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html.
7. Guidance on the Use of Modeled Results to Demonstrate Attainment
of the Ozone NAAQS, EPA-454/B-95-007, June 1996. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/ (file name: ``O3TEST'').
8. Memorandum, ``Guidance for Implementing the 1-Hour Ozone and
Pre-Existing PM10 NAAQS,'' from Richard Wilson, Office of Air and
Radiation, December 29, 1997. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html.
9. Memorandum, ``Extension of Attainment Dates for Downwind
Transport Areas,'' from Richard D. Wilson, Acting Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, July 16, 1998.
10. Memorandum, ``Use of Models and Other Analyses in Attainment
Demonstrations for the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (Draft)'', 1998.
11. Memorandum, ``Guidance on Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in
One-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstrations,'' from Merrylin Zaw-Mon,
Acting Director of the Regional and State Programs Division, November
3, 1999. Webb site: www.epa.gov/oms/transp/conform/nov3guid.pdf.
12. Memorandum, ``Guidance on the Reasonably Available Control
Measures
[[Page 81789]]
(RACM) Requirement and Attainment Demonstration Submissions for Ozone
Nonattainment Areas,'' from John S. Seitz, Director of Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, November 30, 1999.
13. Draft Memorandum, ``1-Hour Ozone NAAQS--Mid-Course Review
Guidance,'' from John Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards.
What are the Modeling Requirements for the Attainment Demonstration?
For purposes of demonstrating attainment under section 182(b), the
General Preamble provides that a State may rely upon EPA's modeling
guidance. EPA's modeling guidance provides for the use of photochemical
grid modeling and additional information. The photochemical grid model
is set up using meteorological conditions conducive to the formation of
ozone in the nonattainment area and its modeling domain, as defined
below. Emissions for a base year are used to evaluate the model's
ability to reproduce actual monitored air quality values. Following
validation of the modeling system for a base year, emissions are
projected to an attainment year 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 ozone concentrations inside the
modeling domain are at or below the ozone standard or an acceptable
upper limit above the standard under certain conditions provided in
EPA's 1996 guidance. When the predicted concentrations are above the
standard or an upper limit using the 1996 guidance criteria, EPA's 1996
guidance provides for the use of an optional weight-of-evidence
determination which incorporates other analyses, such as air quality
and emissions trends, to address uncertainty inherent in the
application of photochemical grid models. This latter approach may be
used under certain circumstances to support a demonstration of
attainment.
EPA guidance identifies the features of a modeling analysis that
are essential to obtain credible results. First, the State develops and
implements 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). Second, for purposes of developing the
information to put into the model, air pollution days, i.e., days in
the past with high ozone concentrations exceeding the standard, are
considered by EPA to be representative of the ozone pollution problem
for the nonattainment area. Third, identification of the appropriate
dimensions of the area to be modeled, i.e., the modeling domain size,
is an important criterion. A domain larger than the designated
nonattainment area reduces uncertainty in the boundary conditions as
does including any 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.
Alternatively, a much larger modeling domain may be established,
addressing the impacts of both local and regional emission control
measures on a number of ozone nonattainment areas. In both cases, the
attainment determination is based on the review of ozone predictions
within the local area where control measures are most beneficial to
bring the area into attainment (referred to as the local modeling
domain). Fourth, determination of the grid resolution is an important
criterion. The horizontal and vertical grid resolutions in the model
can affect significantly the modeled results of 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, meteorological and emissions data
that describe atmospheric conditions and emissions inputs reflective of
the selected high ozone days are generated. Finally, verification that
the modeling system is properly simulating the chemistry and
atmospheric conditions through diagnostic analyses and model
performance tests (generally referred to as model validation) provides
confidence in the performance. 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 ozone concentrations in all grid cells for the attainment year
to the level of the ozone standard. A predicted peak ozone
concentration above 124 ppb indicates that the area is expected to
exceed the standard in the attainment year. This type of test is often
referred to as an exceedance test. The EPA's June 1996 guidance
recommends that States use either of two exceedance tests for the 1-
hour ozone standard: A deterministic test or a statistical test.
Under the deterministic test the State compares predicted 1-hour
daily maximum ozone concentrations for each modeled day (the initial,
``ramp-up'' days for each episode are excluded from this determination)
to the attainment level of 124 ppb. If none of the predictions exceed
124 ppb, the test is passed.
The statistical test takes into account the fact that the form of
the 1-hour ozone standard allows exceedances. If, over a 3 year period,
the area has an average of 1 or fewer ozone standard exceedances per
year at any monitoring site, the area is not violating the standard.
Thus, if the State models a severe day (considering meteorological
conditions that are very conducive to high ozone levels and that should
lead to fewer than 1 exceedance per year at any location in the
nonattainment area and in the modeling domain over a 3 year period),
the statistical test provides that a prediction above 124 ppb up to a
certain upper limit may be consistent with attainment of the standard.
(The form of the 1-hour ozone 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 124 ppb is determined by examining
the size of exceedances at monitoring sites which meet or attain the 1-
hour standard. For example, a monitoring site for which the 4 highest
1-hour average concentrations over a 3 year period are 136 ppb, 130
ppb, 128 ppb, and 122 ppb is attaining the standard since there are no
more than 3 exceedences at any one monitor over a 3-year period. 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 level
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 3 year period. Therefore, if the maximum
ozone concentration predicted by the model is below the acceptable
upper limit, in this case 136 ppb, then EPA might conclude that the
modeled attainment test is passed. Generally, exceedances well above
124 ppb are very unusual at monitoring sites meeting the standard.
Thus, these upper
[[Page 81790]]
limits are rarely substantially higher than the attainment level of 124
ppb.
What are the Additional Analyses That May Be Considered When the
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 1996 guidance recognizes these limitations
and provides a means for considering other evidence to help assess
whether attainment of the standard is likely. The process by which this
is done is called a weight-of-evidence determination.
Under a weight-of-evidence determination, the State can rely on and
EPA will consider factors such as: Model performance and results,
episode selection, other modeled attainment tests, e.g., relative
reduction factor 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 exhaustive list of factors that may be considered
and these factors could vary from case to case. The EPA's 1996 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 a
sufficiently compelling case for attainment. However, the further a
modeled attainment test is from being passed, the more compelling the
weight-of-evidence needs to be.
The EPA's 1996 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 weight of
evidence should contain provisions for periodic review of monitoring,
emissions, and modeling data to assess the extent to which refinements
to emission control measures are needed.
C. Framework for Proposing Action on the Attainment Demonstration SIP
Besides the Modeled Attainment Demonstration, What Other Issues Must be
Addressed in the Attainment Demonstration SIP?
In addition to the modeling analysis and weight-of-evidence
determination demonstrating attainment, the EPA has identified the
following key elements which must be present in order for EPA to
approve the 1-hour attainment demonstration SIP under the criteria of
the 1998 Transport Policy.
1. Clean Air Act measures and other measures relied on in the
modeled attainment demonstration State Implementation Plan. To receive
final approval of the BPA attainment demonstration SIP under the 1998
Transport Policy, the State must have adopted the emission control
measures required under the Act for the area's classification or must
have established negative source declarations for the source categories
for which the area has no sources that are subject to the Clean Air Act
area's classification requirements for such sources. All required
emission controls must be implemented as expeditiously as practicable
but no later than prior to the beginning of the ozone season (year
round in the BPA area, 40 CFR Part 58--Texas Air Quality Control Region
10) in the area's attainment year to assure attainment of the ozone
standard in the attainment year.
The attainment demonstration must incorporate the emission impacts
of, and the SIP submittal must address the rule development for, any
additional emission control measures needed to achieve attainment. The
rules for these emission controls relied upon in the attainment
demonstration must also have been adopted by the State and approved by
EPA before the EPA can finally approve the attainment demonstration
SIP. The emission controls for these sources must be implemented as
expeditiously as practicable.
Table 1 presents a summary of the Clean Air Act requirements that
need to be met for a moderate ozone nonattainment area for the 1-hour
ozone standard. These requirements are specified in sections 182(b) and
182(f) of the Act. Information on additional measures that Texas has
adopted and relied on in the attainment demonstration SIP for the BPA
area is not shown in this table, but is addressed later in this
proposed rule.
Table 1.--CAA Requirements For Moderate Nonattainment Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Source Review
(NSR) regulations for VOC
and NOX, including an
offset ratio of 1.15:1 and
a major VOC and NOX source
size cutoff of 100 tons per
year (TPY).
Reasonably
Available Control
Technology (RACT) for VOC
and NOX.
15 percent Rate-Of-
Progress (ROP) plan for VOC
through 1996.
1990 baseline
emissions inventory for VOC
and NOX.
Periodic emissions
inventory and source
emission statement
regulations.
Vehicle inspection
and maintenance (I/M)
program.\a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ A vehicle I/M program would normally be listed as a requirement for
a moderate ozone nonattainment area. However, the Federal I/M
Flexibility Amendments of 1995 determined that urbanized areas with
populations less than 200,000 for 1990 (such as Beaumont/Port Arthur)
are not mandated to participate in the I/M program (60 FR 48033,
September 18, 1995).
2. Motor vehicle emissions budgets. An attainment demonstration SIP
must establish the motor vehicle emissions budget that is the maximum
level of on-road emissions that can be produced in the attainment year.
The attainment demonstration SIP must also demonstrate that this
emissions level, when considered with emissions from all other sources,
is consistent with attainment. The motor vehicle emissions budgets must
meet certain criteria which are listed in the Transportation Conformity
Rule (40 CFR Part 93 Subpart A Section 93.118) and all pertinent SIP
requirements before the budgets can be approved as part of the
attainment demonstration SIP.
D. Criteria for Attainment Date Extensions
What is EPA's Policy With Regard to an Ozone Attainment Date Extension?
The EPA's policy regarding an extension of the ozone attainment
date for the BPA area is fully addressed in EPA's initial notice of
proposed rulemaking dated April 16, 1999 (64 FR 18864). In the April
16, 1999, notice, the EPA proposed to reclassify the BPA area to a
serious ozone nonattainment area, but also provided notice of the
area's potential eligibility for an attainment date extension based on
a July 16, 1998, EPA guidance memorandum. The specifics of the
attainment date policy are repeated below for clarity.
On July 16, 1998, a guidance memorandum entitled ``Extension of
[[Page 81791]]
Attainment Dates for Downwind Transport Areas'' was issued by the EPA.
That memorandum included EPA's interpretation of the Act regarding the
extension of attainment dates for ozone nonattainment areas that have
been classified as moderate or serious for the 1-hour ozone standard
and which are downwind of areas that have interfered with their ability
to demonstrate attainment of the ozone standard by dates prescribed in
the Act. That memorandum stated that the EPA will consider extending
the attainment date for an area or a State that:
(1) Has been identified as a downwind area affected by transport
from either an upwind area in the same State with a later attainment
date or an upwind area in another State that significantly contributes
to downwind ozone nonattainment;
(2) Has submitted an approvable attainment demonstration with any
necessary, adopted local measures and with an attainment date that
shows it will attain the 1-hour standard no later than the date that
the reductions are expected from upwind areas under the final
NOX SIP call (63 FR 57356, October 27, 1998; compliance
dates revised by Court order August 30, 2000) and/or the statutory
attainment date for upwind nonattainment areas, (i.e., assuming the
boundary conditions reflecting those upwind emission reductions);
(3) Has adopted all applicable local measures required under the
area's current classification and any additional measures necessary to
demonstrate attainment, assuming the reductions occur as required in
the upwind areas;
(4) Has provided that it will implement all adopted measures as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the date by which the
upwind reductions needed for attainment will be achieved.
Once an area receives an extension of its attainment date based on
ozone/precursor transport impacts, the area is no longer subject to
reclassification to a higher ozone nonattainment classification for
failure to attain the ozone standard by the original attainment
deadline. If the BPA area is granted an attainment date extension, it
would no longer be subject to a reclassification to serious
nonattainment for ozone and no longer subject to the additional
emission control requirements that would result from the
reclassification to serious nonattainment, for failure to attain by the
original November 15, 1996, deadline.
Texas has requested an extension of the attainment date for the BPA
nonattainment area in conjunction with the ozone attainment
demonstration submittals. The ozone attainment demonstration SIP uses
November 15, 2007 as the ozone attainment date. The chosen 2007
attainment date reflects the statutory attainment date for the HG area,
as the BPA is downwind of the HG area.
II. Technical Review of the Submittals
A. Summary of the State Submittals
1. General Information
When were the ozone attainment demonstration State Implementation
Plan revisions submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency? The
TNRCC made two submittals to us, which in whole or in part concern the
ozone attainment demonstration, and an extension of the attainment date
for the BPA ozone nonattainment area:
(a) A November 12, 1999, submission from the Governor of Texas,
which included the following:
A. Regulations and associated documentation for the control of VOC
emissions from batch process operations and industrial wastewater
treatment processes, intended to fulfill the remaining VOC RACT
requirements of section 182(b)(2) of the Act for the BPA moderate
nonattainment area;
B. A regulation and associated documentation for the control of
NOX emissions from lean burn engines, intended to meet the
remaining NOX RACT requirements of section 182(b)(2) of the
Act for the BPA moderate nonattainment area;
C. A Photochemical Modeling demonstration and its accompanying
control strategy to bring the BPA area into attainment of the one-hour
ozone standard as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 2007;
D. A 2007 motor vehicle emissions budget for transportation
conformity;
E. Emissions growth estimates and an emissions inventory; and,
F. An enforceable commitment to submit additional rules to us in
accordance with its modeled control strategy.
(b) An April 25, 2000, submission from the Governor of Texas, which
included the following:
A. NOX emissions specifications in the BPA area for
electric utility boilers, industrial, commercial or institutional
boilers, and certain process heaters, relied upon for attainment in the
BPA area;
B. Additional regional rules and orders relied upon for
demonstrating attainment in the BPA area;
C. A Revised Photochemical Modeling demonstration and emissions
growth estimates; and,
D. An enforceable commitment to perform a mid-course review with
submittal to the EPA by May 1, 2004.
For the purposes of this action, we are reviewing only the
modeling, weight-of-evidence support, the transport analysis, MVEB,
emissions inventory, the approved VOC 1990 baseline emission inventory
regarding major VOC sources in the BPA area, and the mid-course
enforceable commitment.
When were the submittals addressed in public hearings, and when
were the submittals formally adopted by the States? The TNRCC held a
public hearing on the November submittal on August 9, 1999. This
submittal was formally adopted by the TNRCC on October 27, 1999. The
TNRCC held ten public hearings on the April submittal; a public hearing
was held in the BPA area on January 31, 2000. The TNRCC formally
adopted the April 25, 2000, submittal on April 19, 2000.
2. Modeling Procedures and Input Data
What modeling approach was used in the analyses? The State of Texas
conducted the modeling analyses and other analyses, including weight-
of-evidence analyses, used to support the attainment demonstration. The
modeling approach is documented in both Texas' November 12, 1999, ozone
attainment demonstration (Phase I) and the April 25, 2000, supplemental
ozone attainment demonstration (Phase II) submittals.
The TNRCC used the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions
(CAMx) photochemical grid model (which is based on well-established
treatments of advection, diffusion, deposition, and chemistry similar
to the UAM photochemical grid model) to conduct the SIP attainment
demonstration modeling.
TNRCC used a relatively large modeling domain to capture the
influence of inter-urban transport between Lake Charles, Louisiana
(LC), the BPA area, and the HG area. The modeling domain covers most
counties in central and east Texas, including the ozone nonattainment
counties of Harris, Jefferson, Orange, Chambers, Hardin, Liberty,
Montgomery, Waller, Brazoria, Galveston, and Fort Bend counties, and
parts of three parishes in Louisiana.
How were high ozone episodes evaluated for modeling selection? In
selecting the episodes to be modeled, the State followed the guidance
provided by the EPA. The July 1991 ozone modeling guidance, ``Guideline
for Regulatory Application of the Urban
[[Page 81792]]
Airshed Model'', recommends that episodes for modeling be selected to
represent different meteorological regimes observed to correspond with
ozone exceeding the standard. The policy represents EPA's view that
both stagnation and transport conditions should be examined, and a
minimum of 3 primary episode days should be modeled. Primary episode
days are those days for which ozone concentrations exceeding the
standard were monitored in the area. For a more complete description of
episode selection criteria see the TSD for this document.
What high ozone periods were modeled? TNRCC selected two episodes
for BPA's attainment demonstration modeling purposes. They were the
August 31-September 2, 1993, and September 6-11, 1993, episodes.
Details of the rationale for inclusion of these two episodes can be
found in the State's BPA attainment demonstration SIP submittal and the
TSD for this document.
The August 31 to September 2, 1993, episode, in EPA's view,
features representative wind patterns and high monitored ambient ozone
concentration levels. This particular meteorological regime is highly
correlated with rather severe monitored ozone exceedances. Transport
between HG and BPA is indicated during this episode. The highest
monitored reading in the BPA area for this period was 139 ppb on
September 2, 1993.
The September 6-11, 1993, episode is characterized by having high
to moderately high daily monitored peak ozone concentrations over the
entire large domain. The highest monitored reading in the BPA area for
this period was 141 ppb on September 10, 1993. As noted, the high ozone
episodes TNRCC selected and modeled cover more than 3 primary episode
days and cover the types of meteorology observed along with high ozone
in the BPA area. For a more complete description of episode selection
see the TSD for this document.
What input data systems and analyses were used as part of the
combined modeling system? The following input data systems and analyses
were used by the State:
Emissions: TNRCC developed two major types of modeling emission
inventories, one type representing the actual emissions that occurred
during the two chosen specific episode periods, and another type
representing the projected emissions expected to occur at the
attainment date for the HG area (i.e., 2007). The episode-specific
modeling emissions, termed the ``base case,'' were used to evaluate the
model's reliability in replicating the ozone exceedances that occurred
during the two chosen episodes. The 2007 projected modeling emissions,
termed the ``future case,'' were used to estimate the overall level of
reductions in VOC and NOX needed to achieve attainment. For
a more complete description of how these base case and future case
inventories were developed, see the TSD for this document.
Meteorology: TNRCC developed the meteorological inputs to CAMx
using the System Application International Mesoscale Model (SAIMM),
which is a prognostic mesoscale meteorological model with four
dimensional data assimilation (4DDA). EPA is proposing to accept
TNRCC's use of SAIMM upon the technical justification that it
adequately replicates the land-sea breeze and inter-urban area
transport features which appear to be typical of conditions associated
with ozone exceedances along the Texas Gulf coast.
Chemistry: Atmospheric chemistry within the modeling grid system
was simulated using the Carbon Bond-Version IV model developed by the
EPA.
Boundary and Initial Conditions: EPA's modeling Guidelines
recommend the use of the ROM photochemical model on a regional basis
for developing boundary conditions. TNRCC in collaboration with ENVIRON
conducted a regional modeling application to determine boundary and
initial conditions for the COAST modeling domain. This regional
modeling domain covered a rather large area of the southeastern United
States, extending from San Angelo, Texas on the west to the Georgia-
Alabama border on the east, and from south of Brownsville on the south
to the Oklahoma-Kansas border on the north. EPA considers this modeling
framework used by TNRCC for the development of boundary and initial
conditions to be superior to ROM, since it encompasses many
improvements in model formulation over ROM. Using the OTAG model
performance criteria as a gauge for the technical acceptability of this
Texas regional modeling, EPA proposes to accept the TNRCC/ENVIRON
regional modeling application as producing acceptable results upon
which to derive initial and boundary conditions for the two COAST
modeling episodes.
What procedures and sources of projection data were used to project
the emissions to future years? In general the projected 2007 modeling
emissions inventory (future case) was derived from the base case
modeling emissions inventory (base case) by applying growth and control
factors to the various source categories.
For the growth of stationary point sources, TNRCC used survey data
of point source startups and shutdowns that occurred from 1990 to 1996
to account for banking emissions, startups and shutdowns. As
recommended, TNRCC used procedures developed by EPA, which take into
account the survey data and the required offsets for nonattainment New
Source Review purposes, to develop growth rates for the modeling
domain.
For the growth of the area and off-road mobile source emissions,
TNRCC used a combination of growth factors derived from a model
developed specifically for Texas by Regional Economic Modeling Inc.
(REMI). The Texas model is an adaptation of the Emissions Growth
Analysis System (EGAS), which is the standard EPA method of developing
growth factors. The EPA is proposing to find the Texas model acceptable
for projecting the growth of the area and off-road mobile source
emissions in the BPA area modeling.
TNRCC developed the projected 2007 on-road mobile source emissions
using much of the same procedures as used for the base case on-road
mobile source emissions, for most of the counties. For these counties,
the projections were based upon the results of the Travel Demand Model
(TDM)(a Texas Department of Transportation--TxDOT--travel demand model)
and additional special survey data (local travel counts, etc.), which
provided estimates of the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) mix and hourly
VMT fractions. The TDM modeling used a projected 2007 roadway network.
The results of this TDM modeling were coupled with the results of
MOBILE5a, the EPA-approved mobile sources model. However, some counties
in the COAST modeling domain were not covered by the TDM. For this
smaller group of counties, TNRCC did not develop the projected 2007 on-
road mobile source emissions in the same manner as discussed above. In
these cases, TNRCC used regional adjustment factors based upon: (1) the
difference between MOBILE5a runs for model years 1993 and 2007 that
were calculated above for those counties in the COAST modeling domain
that were covered by the TDM, and (2) the difference between 1993 and
2007 VMT for those same TDM covered counties from the Highway
Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) estimates provided by TxDOT. The
adjustment factors were calculated by averaging county-specific ratios.
Then, similar to how MOBILE5a was run for the TDM
[[Page 81793]]
covered counties, MOBILE5a was run for the non-TDM covered counties
with the same input setup used for the 1993 episodic on-road mobile
source emissions, only changing the model year to 2007. EPA is
proposing to accept this approach for projecting the future 2007 on-
road mobile source emissions in the domain.
TNRCC used the same biogenic emissions developed for the 1993
episodic inventory (i.e., BIOME generated) for the future case. TNRCC
assumed biogenic emissions would remain approximately constant between
the years 1993 and 2007, and the EPA proposes to accept this
assumption.
The above emission projection procedures are acceptable to the EPA.
The emission projection procedures are explained in greater detail in
the TSD.
3. Modeling Results
How did the State validate the photochemical modeling results? The
State conducted a number of statistical analyses to compare the
modeling system's ozone predictions to observed peak ozone
concentrations for the base period. Using the preliminary base period
emissions and meteorological inputs, the State derived statistics
covering: unpaired peak accuracy; normalized bias; and, gross error of
data pairs for each of the modeled high ozone episode days. These
results were compared to acceptable accuracy ranges in the EPA
guidance. With a few exceptions, the modeling results for the selected
two episodes are in agreement with EPA-specified criteria.
Table 2 presents a summary of the model performance statistics for
the BPA ozone nonattainment area. The days August 31, September 6 and
7, in EPA's view as expressed in the guidance, can be excluded for use
in the analyses as these were ramp-up days for the modeling (the ramp-
up days are expected to exhibit poor model performance and are
generally dropped from further consideration). These data were taken
from Appendix K of the State's submittal.
Table 2.--Model Ozone Performance Statistics BPA Nonattainment Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aug 31-Sept 2 1993 September 1993 Episode
Episode ---------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
9/1 9/2 9/8 9/9 9/10 9/11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measured Peak (ppb)............... 105 139 113 110 141 116
Modeled Base Yr Peak(ppb)......... 96 113 165 139 155 162
Normalized Bias (%)............... 4.1 10.4 27.4 13.3 10.1 11.8
Gross Error (%)................... 14.1 16.9 30.8 16.1 18.2 17.9
Unpaired Peak Accuracy (%)........ 8.7 18.5 24.3 16.1 1.0 24.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The model performance statistics can be compared to EPA's
recommended (July 1991, Guideline for Regulatory Application of the
Urban Airshed Model) acceptable model performance statistics:
Normalized Bias: 5 to 15 percent
Gross Error: 30 to 35 percent
Unpaired Peak Accuracy: 15 to 20 percent.
It can be seen from Table 2 above that the modeling system
adequately performs within acceptable performance ranges for the
majority of the performance criteria. The model does under predict the
peak ozone levels on the days of September 1 and 2, 1993. The model
over predicts ozone peaks on the other days, particularly on September
8, 9, and 11, 1993. The model over predicts an ozone peak but it is
fairly close to that measured on the September 10, 1993, day. EPA is
proposing that the modeling system is performing adequately and in an
acceptable manner to support emission control strategy considerations.
The State used the September 6-11 ozone episode for its attainment
demonstration. The model performance is in reasonable agreement with
EPA performance specifications in the BPA area for three of the four
days of this episode, with the exception being September 8, 1993.
However, since this date had no monitored exceedances in the BPA area,
it is EPA's proposed technical position that the September 8, 1993, day
of the selected episode is not required for attainment demonstration
control strategy evaluation for the BPA SIP.
A number of other tests and considerations were also given to the
overall model performance evaluation. The performance evaluation
considered various items of statistical and graphical information,
diagnostic and sensitivity analyses, and graphical performance
measures. It is EPA's technical position that these tests and
considerations show acceptable performance of the modeling system for
the chosen base period, and that September 10, 1993 shows good
agreement between modeled and monitored data.
For a more detailed description of the validation of the
photochemical modeling results, and the procedures to determine the
controlling episode and day, see the TSD for this document.
How was potential transport from the HG area addressed? TNRCC
demonstrated the impact of ozone and ozone precursor transport from the
upwind HG nonattainment area upon the BPA nonattainment area through
the August 31 to September 2nd, 1993 episode. TNRCC applied the CAMx
model using the same set of air quality and meteorological inputs
previously used in the base case simulation, but with an emissions data
set in which anthropogenic (man-made) emissions from the 8-county HG
nonattainment area were eliminated. As a result, the modeled base peak
ozone is reduced by as much as 10-30 ppb on most modeled days in the
BPA area. Jefferson and Hardin counties are influenced more strongly by
HG transport than Orange County, which in EPA's opinion, makes sense
given their greater proximity to the HG nonattainment area. However, on
some days, the modeled peak ozone level is not greatly diminished by
the exclusion of the HG contribution. This does not mean, in EPA's
opinion, that the BPA area is not affected by transport from the HG
area. It is EPA's proposed technical position that for some days, the
BPA area is affected by transport from the HG area. On other days, the
BPA area is affected by ozone emissions generated within the BPA area
itself.
In addition, TNRCC hired Dr. Thomas W. Sager of the University of
Texas (UT) to conduct an analysis of back trajectories of air parcels
coming into the BPA area and evaluate the effect of HG-only strategies'
impact in BPA. He conducted a statistical study that evaluated back
trajectories that terminated in BPA. He evaluated back trajectories on
both high ozone concentration and low ozone concentration days for the
BPA area. Dr. Sager used the HYSPLIT (HYbrid
[[Page 81794]]
Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory) model for these
studies. The HYSPLIT model is the newest version of a complete system
for computing simple air parcel trajectories to complex dispersion and
deposition simulations.
Based on the results of the study, Dr. Sager showed that back
trajectories from the BPA area that pass near the HG area result in
higher average ozone concentration levels in BPA, and that the closer
the trajectory came to HG, the higher the ozone concentration levels in
BPA. However, he did not show that transport from HG was the sole cause
of high ozone concentrations in the BPA area. It is EPA's position that
his study supports the above modeling results, that transport is a
reason for higher ozone concentration levels in the BPA area on some
days. On other days, the high ozone concentration levels in the BPA
area are not due to transport, but due to locally-generated ozone or
ozone precursor emissions.
In conclusion, we are proposing that Texas has demonstrated that
during some BPA exceedances, ozone levels are affected by emissions
from the HG area, and that the HG area emissions affect BPA's ability
to meet attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard.
What were the ozone modeling results for the base period and for
the future attainment period? The ozone modeling system was run to
simulate ozone concentrations on selected high ozone days in the 1993
episodes using emissions for those days, and a future year (2007). The
resulting BPA area ozone peaks for 1993 and 2007 are given in Table 3.
These modeled ozone peaks reflect the 2007 emissions and modeling
results for the September 6-11 episode as documented by Texas in its
April 25, 2000 submittal (September 6, 7, and 8 omitted as detailed in
previous discussions), taking into consideration the emission control
strategies discussed later.
Table 3.--Peak Observed and Modeled Ozone Concentrations (ppb)in the BPA
Ozone Nonattainment Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Period September 9-11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date 9/9 9/10 9/11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993 Peak Observed............... 110 141 116
1993 Base Modeled................ 139 155 162
2007 Future Base Case Modeled.... 126 142 147
2007 Post-Control Modeled........ 115 132 140
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do the modeling results demonstrate attainment of the ozone
standard? As noted in Table 3, the 1-hour maximum predicted ozone
concentration on the controlling day (September 10--the day during the
selected episode with the maximum observed ozone concentration for the
BPA area) over the BPA area is 132 ppb.
The modeling by itself does not conclusively demonstrate attainment
of the standard, but its results are close enough to attainment to
warrant the consideration of weight of evidence arguments that support
the demonstration of attainment. The TNRCC conducted several weight of
evidence analyses (please see next sections for further details) to add
additional evidence that the demonstration shows that BPA will attain
the standard by 2007 with the planned emission controls.
What weight-of-evidence analyses and determinations are used to
support the modeled attainment demonstration? A weight-of-evidence
determination includes an assessment of the confidence one has in the
modeled results. The more extensive and credible the corroborative
information, the greater the influence it has in how to view deviations
from the modeled attainment demonstration. As discussed in the June
1996 EPA guidance, Guidance on Use of Modeled Results to Demonstrate
Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS, the weight-of-evidence given to model
results depends on the following factors: (1) Model performance; (2)
confidence in the underlying data bases; (3) length of the projection
period; and (4) how close the results come to demonstrating attainment
for all receptor sites and times modeled (see Table S.1. of the June
1996 guidance for a complete list of factors affecting weight-of-
evidence determinations and acceptance of model results nearly passing
the attainment tests).
EPA's draft guidance document entitled ``Use of Models and Other
Analyses in Attainment Demonstrations for the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS''
(Draft) (1998), addresses additional weight-of-evidence approaches, one
of which considers methods relating modeled ozone concentrations to
monitored design values for a particular area. TNRCC relied on this
concept (called the future design value) as well as the criteria from
the 1996 guidance. All predicted future design values for the
attainment year, in EPA's view, should be less than 125 ppb to support
the attainment demonstration.
Texas relied on the future design value calculations, Design Value
trends, modeling metrics evaluating spatial and temporal changes in
ozone extent, and results of alternative modeling scenarios including
30% point source NOX emissions reductions from grandfathered
non-electric generating facilities (EGFs) to develop weight of evidence
for the BPA 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP.
The State analyzed, and the EPA considered, the following factors
and data in aggregate in assessing whether the State has provided
sufficient evidence that corroborates further the attainment
demonstration. The following is a summary of the analyses. Reference
the BPA SIP and the TSD for this document for details of the analyses.
A historical account of exceedance days is provided in the TSD to this
proposed rulemaking.
Future Design Value Calculations: The TNRCC performed future design
value calculations. Since episodes chosen for the BPA attainment
demonstration occurred during 1993, TNRCC used monitoring data
collected from 1992 to 1994 in the BPA nonattainment area, as discussed
in the 1998 EPA draft guidance, using monitoring data from the 3 year
time frame around the modeled episodes. They used reading from both
Southeast Texas Regional Planning Commission (SETRPC) and TNRCC
monitors in the BPA area from that time period.
To calculate the future design values, TNRCC developed a ratio of
the predicted future case model results (including the control
scenarios) to that of the original base case modeling results, and then
multiplied these ratios by the 1992-1994 design value (DVC)
to obtain a future design value (DVF). This technique
demonstrates in EPA's opinion, that although the modeled maximum
concentration in the BPA area for the 2007 Control Scenario is 132
[[Page 81795]]
ppb on September 10th, the calculated future design value is 115.4 ppb,
which is less than the 1-hour standard of 125 ppb. This provides in
EPA's view, additional support that the BPA area will attain the
standard in 2007.
Design Values Trends: As a part of weight-of-evidence, TNRCC also
analyzed the historic air quality in the BPA ozone nonattainment area
for the period of 1975 to 1999. The analyses demonstrate that the
area's ozone design value exhibits a general decrease since 1995 (this
can be seen on Figure 6.3-2 of the April 25, 2000 BPA SIP submission).
This downward trend is almost as great for the period 1991-1999 as for
the earlier period. TNRCC believes, and EPA proposes, that this long-
term downward trend is likely to continue. In addition, TNRCC expects,
and the EPA is proposing, that the air quality will keep improving due
to substantial reductions in precursor emissions in both HG and BPA,
due to both state and federal emission control requirements. This
includes the impacts of the implementation of the NOX RACT
and beyond-RACT NOX rules for the BPA area.
Spatial and Temporal Modeling Metrics: Another of the weight-of-
evidence analyses that TNRCC included in the BPA SIP attainment
demonstration is an analysis of metrics to assess the relative
effectiveness of modeled strategies. This is in addition to comparing
maximum concentrations between two or more modeled scenarios (i.e.,
1993 base case, 2007 future case, etc.) These metrics include changes
in the modeled area exceeding the standard and changes in the number of
grid cell-hours exceeding the standard. For this analysis, TNRCC made a
comparison between the initial September 6-11, 1993, base case and the
2007 future base case (with banked and shutdown emissions added back)
and the final chosen rules control scenario. The results of this
analysis show that even though the chosen control strategy does not
drive each and every grid cell below 125 ppb, it does substantially
change area and temporal extent of predicted ozone concentrations
greater than 124 ppb. In particular, the changes in temporal/area
extent for September 10th show that the number of grid cells greater
than 124 ppb drops by 28 percent from the original 1993 base case to
the 2007 base case. The 2007 post-control case then drops the values
from the 2007 base case by a additional 82 percent. This represents an
overall 87 percent improvement in ozone exceedence days for the 2007
post-control case as compared to the 1993 base case. This analysis, in
EPA's technical opinion, indicates the State's NOX control
strategy demonstrates a dramatic improvement in predicted air quality
over the original and future base case scenarios.
Alternative Modeling Scenarios: TNRCC also conducted alternative
scenarios to include in their weight-of-evidence analyses. In the first
scenario, shutdown and banked emissions were taken out of the future
base case inventory. The results indicated that the future base case
concentration declined from 146 ppb to 142 ppb. This would indicate an
improvement in air quality if all banked emissions are not used. In
another scenario, in-line with expectations from Senate Bill 766, as
enacted in 1997 (which encourages non-EGF sources in attainment areas
of Texas to acquire permits for their grandfathered units) TNRCC
estimated that SB 766 would result in approximately a 30 percent
decrease in emissions of NOX from grandfathered non-EGF
sources across Texas. TNRCC believes that these reductions will aid BPA
in reaching attainment by reducing background concentrations of ozone
and its precursors, which will in turn aid in lowering ozone
concentrations in the nonattainment area. Details of the above
alternative modeling scenarios are provided in the TSD to this
document.
In addition to the above scenarios, an EPA proposed rule entitled
``Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Proposed Heavy-Duty
Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control
Requirements'', 65 FR 35430 (Friday, June 2, 2000) will reduce
NOX emissions from heavy-duty diesel engines. This rule,
which was not included by the State in the control strategy modeling
portion of the SIP, is to be phased in beginning in model year 2007.
The rule will reduce NOX to 98% of the uncontrolled level
for these engines, adding to the weight-of-evidence analyses for
attainment.
The EPA is proposing that the State's analyses of air quality and
emission trends do provide additional support for the State's
attainment demonstration. Progress in air quality improvement through
recent periods is demonstrated and future progress in air quality
improvement is shown. In addition, these analyses lend support to a
regional NOX reduction as a reasonable approach to achieving
attainment of the ozone standard. EPA is proposing that based on the
weight-of-evidence and the modeling, the control strategy should
provide for attainment by November 15, 2007. EPA's proposed approval is
based on a composite of the information, not on a single element of the
``weight-of-evidence.''
4. Emission Control Strategies
What emission control strategies were included in the attainment
demonstration? The BPA Attainment Demonstration SIP relies on a
combination of Federal measures, CAA statutory requirements, Regional
measures, local controls in the BPA area, and projections of the level
of control in the HG area based on enforceable commitments in the
November 1999 SIP for the HG area.
Federal Measures: The TNRCC included the following federal measures
in their Future Year Base Case.
(1) On-road mobile sources:
Heavy-duty diesel standards.
Federal motor vehicle control program.
National low emission vehicles standards.
Federal low sulfur gasoline.
Tier II vehicle emission standards.
EPA believes that the projected growth rates and emissions
reductions from the sources subject to the above federal measures were
calculated correctly by the TNRCC.
(2) Off-road mobile sources:
Heavy duty diesel standards.
Locomotive standards.
Compression ignition standards for vehicles and equipment.
Spark ignition standards for vehicles and equipment.
Commercial marine vessel standards.
Recreational marine standards.
The EPA believes that the State correctly projected the growth
rates and emissions reductions from sources subject to these federal
measures.
CAA Statutory Requirements: The TNRCC included the following CAA
Statutory Requirements in their Future Year Base Case.
Phase II reformulated gasoline in H-G eight county
nonattainment area
Texas motorists' choice inspection and maintenance (I/M)
program in Harris county
The EPA believes that the State correctly projected the growth
rates and emissions reductions from sources subject to these CAA
Statutory Requirements.
State/Regional Measures: The TNRCC included the following State
Measures as state-wide or regional controls in their Future Year Base
Case.
Agreed orders with Alcoa, Inc. (formerly Aluminum Company
of America) for their Milam facility, and the Eastman Chemical Company,
Texas operations, for their facility near Longview, Texas.
50% Reductions at EGFs in Central and Eastern Texas.
[[Page 81796]]
Low Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) Gasoline in Eastern and
Central Texas.
Stage I vapor recovery at gas stations in Eastern and
Central Texas.
Water Heaters Rule in all of the State.
The EPA has already published actions on the above control measures
in the Federal Register. EPA believes that the TNRCC correctly
projected the growth rates for and the emissions reductions from these
affected sources.
Local Measures: The TNRCC included the following additional State
Measures as local (BPA) area controls in their Future Year Post-Control
Case.
Rich-Burn Internal Combustion Engines.
Lean-Burn Internal Combustion Engines.
Industrial/Utility Boilers.
Process Heaters.
Gas Turbines.
Electric Utility Boilers (five electric utility power
boilers in BPA).
For the above local measures, emission limits were assigned to
categories of combustion units of the categories and sizes as listed in
Table 4. Table 4, also, shows corresponding reductions in the
NOX emissions inventory from each control strategy. This
strategy applies to major stationary sources of NOX in BPA.
EPA believes that the State correctly projected the growth rates for
and the emissions reductions from these affected sources.
Table 4.--Modeled NOX Reductions From Selected Source Categories
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
change from
Category Maximum design heat input NOX emission limit 2007 future
base
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric utility boilers....... All units....................... 0.10 lb/MM Btu.................. -45
Industrial boilers \a\......... >= 40 MM Btu/hr................. 0.10 lb/MM Btu.................. -58
Industrial process heaters..... >= 40 MM Btu/hr................. 0.08 lb/MM Btu.................. -32
Gas turbines................... > 10 MW......................... 42 ppm.......................... -27
Rich-burn engines \b\.......... 300 hp.......................... 2 g/hp-hr....................... -82
Lean-burn engines \b\.......... 300 hp.......................... 3 g/hp-hr....................... -73
Overall........................ ................................ ................................ -44%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This reduction was not applied to boiler industrial furnace (BIF) units out of technical and economic
considerations, based on special design and operational requirements for destruction of hazardous air
pollutants by BIFs.
\b\ The engine percent reductions represent reductions from engines required to reduce emissions, not the entire
category.
The adopted NOX emission limit of 0.10 lb
NOX/MMBtu applies to all five electric utility power boilers
in BPA and represents approximately a 45% reduction in emissions from
this source category. The adopted NOX emission limit of 0.10
lb NOX/MMBtu for industrial boilers and 0.08 lb
NOX/MMBtu for process heaters requires four refineries and
15 chemical plants which are major sources of NOX in BPA to
reduce their associated NOX emissions by approximately 58%
and 32%, respectively. Overall, the control case modeling reflects a
point source NOX reductions for BPA area sources of roughly
44%.
Table 5 provides the projected NOX reductions for the
2007 attainment year afforded by the Federal and State rules.
Table 5.--NOX Reduction Estimates (Phase I and Phase II rules)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007
EPA-Issued Rules projected Reduction
(tpd) (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMVCP, Tier I, NLEV, on-road HDD............ 35.61 6.4
Locomotive engines.......................... 5.24 1.89
Non-road HDD................................ 28.42 7.73
Small engines............................... 0.49 -0.48
Recreational marine engines................. 0.13 -0.10
---------------------------
EPA--Issued Rules Total................. 68.69 15.44
---------------------------
TNRCC--Issued Rules Total............... 170.51 75.09
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The intent of the State's rules is to reduce NOX
emissions from major stationary sources in the BPA ozone nonattainment
area. The adopted rules established an emission limitation for lean
burn stationary combustion engines greater than 300 hp. Other adopted
rules limit emissions of NOX from power plants, industrial
boilers, and process heaters. The rules will also lower the
applicability threshold for boilers and process heaters to a rated
input heat capacity of 40 MMBtu/Hr and above.
Lowering of the trigger limits and restricting emission
specifications from combustion sources in the BPA area contributes
significantly to ozone attainment. For a detailed analysis, section by
section, of the TNRCC's adopted rules, see EPA's Federal Register
notices with accompanying Technical Support Documents, and the SIP and
its appendices.
Houston Measures: TNRCC committed to substantial emission
reductions in the HG area in their November 1999 SIP submission.
These reductions included expanded I/M program, 90% point source
reductions, and fuels measures. TNRCC has proposed these measures for
adoption and enforceably committed to submitting the necessary adopted
measures by the end of December, 2000.
Has the State adopted the selected emission control strategies and
has the State adopted the emission control regulations needed to
implement the emission control strategies? The State has adopted and
submitted the emission control strategies and all associated
[[Page 81797]]
emission control regulations required for a moderate ozone
nonattainment area and relied upon in the attainment demonstration
modeling, but for the HG measures. See the previous Section, including
Tables 4 and 5, for a listing of applicable State measures. Many, but
not, all of these measures have been approved. EPA is proposing
approval of the attainment demonstration SIP contingent upon SIP
approval of all CAA required measures for a moderate area and other
attainment measures (but for the HG measures) before final action on
the BPA attainment demonstration SIP and request for an extension of
the attainment date.
5. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget
What is a motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) and why is it
important? The MVEB is the level of total allowable on-road emissions
established by a control strategy implementation plan or maintenance
plan. In this case, the MVEB establishes the maximum level of on-road
emissions that can be produced in the attainment year of 2007, when
considered with emissions from all other sources, that meets the
requirements of the SIP to demonstrate attainment. It is important
because the MVEB is used to determine the conformity of transportation
plans and programs to the SIP, as described by section 176(c)(2)(A) of
the Act.
Did the State Establish Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets? Texas has
submitted motor vehicle emissions budgets for the 2007 attainment year
for the BPA ozone nonattainment area. The emission budgets are shown in
Table 6.
Table 6.--2007 Attainment Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 tons/
Pollutant day
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC.......................................................... 17.22
NOX.......................................................... 29.94
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA is proposing to approve the MVEBs listed in Table 6.
B. Environmental Protection Agency Review of the Submittals
1. Adequacy of the State's Demonstrations of Attainment
Did the State adequately document the techniques and data used to
derive the modeling input data and modeling results? The submittals
from the State thoroughly documented the techniques and data used to
derive the modeling input data. The submittals adequately summarized
the modeling outputs and the conclusions drawn from these model
outputs. The submittals adequately documented the State's weight-of-
evidence determinations and the bases for concluding that these
determinations support the attainment demonstration.
Did the modeling procedures and input data used comply with the
Environmental Protection Agency guidelines and Clean Air Act
requirements? Yes, the modeling procedures and input data (including
evaluation of the emissions inventory input and procedures) meet the
requirements of the Act and are consistent with the EPA's July 1991 and
June 1996 ozone modeling guidelines.
Do the weight-of-evidence determinations support the attainment
demonstration? The TNRCC incorporated the following weight-of-evidence
elements for the BPA attainment demonstration:
Design Value trends;
Modeling metrics evaluating spatial and temporal changes
in ozone extent;
Results of alternative modeling scenarios including 30%
point source NOX reductions in adjacent, non-SIP call
states; and,
DVf/RRF calculations using modeled concentrations from an
array of cells about each monitor.
The above weight-of-evidence, when viewed in aggregate with the
modeling, shows attainment of the standard and thus EPA is proposing
approval.
2. Adequacy of the Emissions Control Strategies
Do the emission control strategies meet the requirements of the
Clean Air Act? The selected emission control strategy, based upon
modeling and the weight-of-evidence techniques, plus additional
information regarding the effect of HG upon BPA, demonstrates
attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard in BPA.
Do emission control shortfalls exist with regard to probable
attainment of the ozone standard? We do not believe there exist any
emission control shortfalls with regard to the attainment of the 1-hour
ozone standard in BPA by the 2007 attainment year, provided the HG area
meets its enforceable commitment to submit all adopted rules needed for
attainment by the end of December 2000. On December 6, 2000, the TNRCC
adopted a major SIP revision for the HG area. In this revision, the
commission adopted all of the measures relied upon in the BPA
attainment demonstration. EPA will be evaluating the HG SIP measures
after they are received (expected by December 31, 2000).
Has the State established an acceptable MVEB? The State has
submitted an MVEB. The MVEB budget submitted by the TNRCC for the BPA
nonattainment area has been found to meet the adequacy criteria and
upon further review of the SIP for approvability continues to be
consistent with attainment; therefore, it is proposed for approval.
Does the BPA Area Meet the RACT Requirements for Major Source VOC
Emissions?
On March 7, 1995, as part of our action approving VOC requirements,
we found that TNRCC had implemented RACT on all major sources in the
BPA area except those that were to be covered by post-enactment Control
Technique Guidelines (CTG's). 44 FR 12438 (March 7, 1995). Since that
time, many expected CTGs were issued as Alternative Control Technique
documents (ACTs). Of the expected CTGs and ACT's, BPA has major sources
in the following categories: batch processing; reactors and
distillation; industrial wastewater; and Volatile Organic Liquid
Storage. EPA has approved measures as meeting RACT for the reactors and
distillation and the Volatile Organic Liquid Storage categories for the
BPA area. 64 FR 3841 (January 26, 1999), and 61 FR 55894 (October 30,
1996), respectively. EPA has published a direct final rulemaking action
wherein we find that the State is imposing RACT on the batch processing
and industrial wastewater categories in the BPA area (signed November
2, 2000). While CTGs and ACTs were issued for other categories such as
wood furniture coating or aerospace coating, there are no major sources
in those categories in the BPA area. It is EPA's position that RACT is
being implemented on all major VOC sources in BPA. (see item 8 under
Section IV Proposed Action).
3. Adequacy of the Request for Extension of the Attainment Date
The policy for the extension of an ozone attainment date is
discussed earlier. The State's compliance with these requirements is
discussed here.
a. Identification of the area as a downwind area affected by ozone
transport.
We have reviewed the CAMx demonstrations, and are proposing to
agree with the TNRCC that this episode adequately demonstrates
transport of pollutants from the Houston Galveston ozone nonattainment
area. We are proposing that this transported pollution affects BPA's
ability to attain by the current attainment date. Thus, for BPA to
attain, controls both in BPA and HG are necessary. We therefore propose
to find that the State's demonstration of
[[Page 81798]]
ozone transport meets the criteria in EPA's attainment date extension
policy.
b. Submittal of an approvable attainment demonstration.
EPA's review of the attainment demonstration shows that it should
be approved. The State has modeled and adopted an acceptable control
strategy that demonstrates attainment. We propose to approve the
attainment demonstration and agree that it meets the criteria in the
July 1998 transport policy and all other EPA guidance, and the
regulatory and statutory requirements.
c. Adoption of all applicable local measures required under the
area's current ozone classification.
Texas has adopted all VOC and NOX related emission
control requirements required under the Clean Air Act (CAA) for a
moderate ozone nonattainment area. A listing of applicable CAA moderate
classification-related VOC and NOX related regulations and
their effective dates as approved by the EPA as part of the Texas SIP
for the BPA area, is provided in the TSD to this rulemaking.
It is EPA's position that the State of Texas has met the 1998
Transport Policy's criteria for adoption and submittal to EPA for
approval of all measures required under the Act for an area classified
as moderate.
d. Implementation of all adopted measures by the time upwind
controls are expected.
All of the NOX rules will be implemented as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 2005, two years before
the Houston attainment date of November 15, 2007. We are proposing to
find that this transport policy criteria has been met by the State.
The State is proposing a phase-in approach to the NOX
controls which will provide compliance earlier than the attainment
date. The State's compliance schedule is provided in Table 7.
Table 7.--Texas NOX Rules Compliance Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Type Compliance date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RACT...................................... No later than November 15,
1999.
Lean Burn Engines......................... No later than November 15,
2001.
\2/3\ NOX Emissions Reductions............ No later than May 1, 2003.
All NOX Reductions........................ No later than May 1, 2005.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are of the opinion that the above listed compliance dates in
Table 7 are as expeditious as practicable compared with the compliance
dates of similar sources in moderate ozone nonattainment areas of the
country.
4. Determination of Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM)
Availability.
Section 172(c)(1) of the Act requires SIPs to provide for the
implementation of all reasonably available control measures (RACM) as
expeditiously as practicable and for attainment of the standard. EPA
has previously provided guidance interpreting the RACM requirements of
172(c)(1) in the General Preamble. See 57 FR 13498, 13560. In the
General Preamble, EPA indicated its interpretation of section
172(c)(1), under the 1990 Amendments, as imposing a duty on States to
consider all available control measures and to adopt and implement such
measures as are reasonably available for implementation in the
particular nonattainment area. EPA also retained its pre-1990
interpretation of the RACM provisions that where measures that might in
fact be available for implementation in the nonattainment area could
not be implemented on a schedule that would advance the date for
attainment in the area, EPA would not consider it reasonable to require
implementation of such measures. EPA indicated that a State could
reject certain measures as not reasonably available for various reasons
related to local conditions. A State could include area-specific
reasons for rejecting a measure as RACM such as the rejected measure
would not advance the attainment date, or technological and economic
feasibility in the area.
The EPA also issued a recent memorandum reaffirming its position on
this topic, ``Guidance on the 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, dated November 30, 1999. A copy can be obtained
from www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html. In this memoranda, EPA states
that in order to determine whether a state has adopted all RACM
necessary for attainment and as expeditiously as practicable, the state
will need to provide a justification as to why measures within the
arena of potential reasonable measures have not been adopted. The
justification would need to support that a measure was not reasonably
available for that area and could be based on technological or economic
grounds.
EPA has reviewed the SIP submittal for the BPA area and believes
that the State did not include sufficient documentation concerning the
rejection of certain available measures as RACM for the specific BPA
area. Therefore, EPA has itself reviewed potential available measures,
as documented in the RACM available analysis section of the TSD for
this proposed rulemaking. Based on this analysis, EPA proposes to
conclude that this additional set of evaluated measures are not
reasonably available for the specific BPA area, because (a) some would
require an intensive and costly effort for numerous small area sources,
(b) due to the small percentage of mobile source emissions in the over-
all inventory, some are not cost-beneficial, and (c) since the BPA area
relies in part on reductions from the upwind HG area which are
substantial, and the reductions projected to be achieved by the
evaluated additional set of measures are relatively small, they would
not produce emission reductions sufficient to advance the attainment
date in the BPA area and, therefore, should not be considered RACM.
Although EPA encourages areas to implement available RACM measures
as potentially cost-effective methods to achieve emissions reductions
in the short term, EPA does not believe that section 172(c)(1) requires
implementation of potential RACM measures that either require costly
implementation efforts or produce relatively small emissions reductions
that will not be sufficient to allow the BPA area to achieve attainment
in advance of full implementation of all other required measures.
III. Proposed Action
The EPA believes that the transport demonstration and attainment
demonstration SIP developed for the BPA ozone nonattainment area meet
the Clean Air Act. The EPA is proposing that the State has adequately
followed the EPA's 1998 Transport Guidance for demonstrating transport.
In the State's transport demonstration, EPA believes that the analyses
conducted by TNRCC indicate there are impacts of ozone and ozone
precursor transports from the upwind HG area affecting the BPA area. In
addition, EPA is proposing to approve the State's demonstration that
BPA will attain the ozone NAAQS. The modeling, the provided weight-of-
evidence analyses, and the analysis of transport of ozone and ozone
precursor compounds from the HG area, demonstrate that the control
strategy chosen by TNRCC will provide for attainment of the ozone
standard. For BPA, it is the EPA's technical opinion that the control
strategy will provide for
[[Page 81799]]
attainment of the ozone NAAQS by November 15, 2007.
The EPA proposes to: approve the attainment demonstration SIP for
the BPA ozone nonattainment area; approve the State's request to extend
the ozone attainment date for the BPA ozone nonattainment area to
November 15, 2007 while retaining the area's current classification as
a moderate ozone nonattainment area; approve the on-road motor vehicle
emissions budgets; find that the BPA area meets all remaining
outstanding VOC RACT requirements for major sources; and approve the
State's enforceable commitment to conduct a mid-course review
(including evaluation of all modeling, inventory data, and other tools
and assumptions used to develop this attainment demonstration) and to
submit a mid-course review SIP revision, with recommended mid-course
corrective actions, to the EPA by May 1, 2004. If the subsequent
analyses conducted by the State as part of the mid-course review
indicate additional reductions are needed for BPA to attain the ozone
standard, EPA will require the State to implement additional controls
as soon as possible until attainment is demonstrated through
photochemical grid modeling.
EPA cannot finalize the above proposed actions unless and until the
EPA approves all of the following:
1. The NOX rules for Electric Generating Facilities in
East and Central Texas (30 TAC sections 117.131, 117.133, 117.134,
117.135, 117.138, 117.141, 117.143, 117.145, 117.147, 117.149,
117.512);
2. The State-wide NOX rules for Water Heaters, Small
Boilers, and Process Heaters (30 TAC sections 117.460, 117.461,
117.463, 117.465, 117.467, 117.469);
3. The revised emission specifications in the BPA area for Electric
Utility Boilers, Industrial, Commercial or Institutional Boilers and
certain Process Heaters (30 TAC sections 117.104, 117.106, 117.108,
117.116, 117.206 as they relate to the BPA area, and the repeal of
sections 117.109 and 117.601 as they relate to the BPA area);
4. The administrative revisions to the existing Texas
NOX SIP (30 TAC sections 117.101-117.121, 117.201-117.223,
117.510, 117.520, and 117.570);
5. The two Agreed Orders entered into by TNRCC and Alcoa, Inc. and
TNRCC and Texas Eastman;
6. Lower RVP Program in East and Central Texas (30 TAC sections
114.1, 114.301, 114.302, and 114.304-114.309);
7. Stage I vapor recovery Program in East and Central Texas (30 TAC
sections 115.222-114.229); and,
8. VOC rules as RACT for batch processing (30 TAC sections 115.160-
115.169) and wastewater (30 TAC sections 115.140-115.149).
If the EPA cannot fully approve all of the above actions (one
through eight), EPA will take final action on the proposed
reclassification as described in the April 16, 1999 Federal Register.
To the extent that comments received on the April 1999 proposed action
are applicable to this proposed rulemaking, EPA will respond to those
comments in its final rulemaking action.
IV. Administrative Requirements
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. This proposed action merely approves state law as meeting
federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies
that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under state law and does not impose any
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (Public Law 104-4). For the same reason, this proposed rule also
does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of tribal
governments, as specified by Executive Order 13084 (63 FR 27655, May
10, 1998). This proposed rule 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 it 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. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. The proposed rule does
not involve special consideration of environmental justice related
issues as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994). As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729,
February 7, 1996), in issuing this proposed rule, EPA has taken the
necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize
potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected
conduct. The EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859,
March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in
accordance with the ``Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for
the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings' issued
under the executive order. This proposed rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: December 18, 2000.
Gregg A. Cooke,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 00-32848 Filed 12-26-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P