Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules 37175

1Previously classified Serious, on April 2, 1996,

the EPA corrected the classification of Beaumont/

Port Arthur to moderate (61 FR 14496).

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to private sector, of $100

million or more. Under Section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action proposed does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new Federal requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Oxides of nitrogen, Particulates,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compounds.

Dated: June 27, 1997.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–18252 Filed 7–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[TX80–1–7329; FRL–5856–4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality State Implementation Plans

(SIP); Texas: 1990 Base Year

Emissions Inventories, 15 Percent Rate

of Progress Plans and Contingency

Plans

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed conditional interim

rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing a

conditional interim approval of the 15

Percent Rate of Progress Plans and

associated Motor Vehicle Emissions

Budgets (MVEB) for the Dallas/Fort

Worth, El Paso and Houston ozone

nonattainment areas. In addition, the

EPA is proposing to fully approve

revisions to the 1990 base year

emissions inventory and contingency

plans for these three areas.

On January 29, 1996, the EPA

published a proposed limited approval/

limited disapproval of the 15 Percent

Plans and contingency measures in the

Federal Register. Also, on January 29,

1997, the EPA published a limited

approval of the control measures

contained in the 15 Percent Plans.

Today’s proposed action replaces the

January 29, 1996, proposed limited

approval/limited disapproval of the 15

Percent Plans and contingency

measures. The proposed limited

approval of the control measures is not

affected by this proposal.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before August 11, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to Mr.

Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Air Planning

Section, at the EPA Regional Office

listed below. Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the following

locations. Persons interested in

examining these documents should

make an appointment with the

appropriate office at least 24 hours

before the visiting day.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 6, Air Planning Section (6PD–

L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700,

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733.

Texas Natural Resource Conservation

Commission, 12100 Park 35 Circle,

Austin, Texas 78711–3087.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Guy R. Donaldson, Air Planning Section

(6PD–L), EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733,

telephone (214) 665–7242.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Clean Air Act Requirements

Section 182(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act

(the Act), as amended in 1990, requires

ozone nonattainment areas with

classifications of moderate and above to

develop plans to reduce area-wide

Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)

emissions by 15 percent from a 1990

baseline. The plans were to be

submitted by November 15, 1993, and

the reductions were required to be

achieved by November 15, 1996. The

Clean Air Act also sets limitations on

the creditability of certain types of

reductions. Specifically, States cannot

take credit for reductions achieved by

Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program

measures (new car emissions standards)

promulgated prior to 1990 or for

reductions resulting from requirements

to lower the Reid Vapor Pressure of

gasoline promulgated prior to 1990.

Furthermore, the Act does not allow

credit for corrections to Vehicle

Inspection and Maintenance Programs

(I/M) or corrections to Reasonably

Available Control Technology (RACT)

rules as these programs were required

prior to 1990.

In addition, section 172(c)(9) of the

Clean Air Act requires that contingency

measures be included in the plan

revision to be implemented if

reasonable further progress is not

achieved or if the standard is not

attained.

In Texas, four moderate and above

ozone nonattainment areas are subject to

the 15 Percent Rate of Progress

requirements. These are the Beaumont/

Port Arthur (moderate 1), Dallas/Fort

Worth (moderate), El Paso (serious), and

the Houston/Galveston (severe) areas.

B. Previous 15 Percent Rate of Progress

SIP Revisions

Texas first adopted measures for the

15 Percent Rate of Progress Plans and

the required contingency measures in

two phases. Phase I was submitted to

the EPA on November 13, 1993, and

contained measures achieving the bulk

of the required reductions in each of the

nonattainment areas. Phase II was

submitted May 9, 1994. The Phase II

submittal was to make up the shortfall

in reductions not achieved by the Phase

I measures. The combination of the

Phase I and Phase II measures was ruled

complete by the EPA on May 12, 1994.

The EPA analyzed the November 13,

1993, and May 9, 1994, submittal and

determined that the measures included

in the plan did not achieve the required

amount of reductions. Among other

reasons, there was a shortfall in

reductions because the I/M program

relied on in the plans had been repealed

by the State. On January 29, 1996, the

EPA published a proposed limited

approval/limited disapproval of the 15

Percent Plans included in the November

13, 1993, and May 9, 1994, submittals

(61 FR 2751). The EPA also proposed a

limited approval of the measures that

were included with the plans because

they resulted in a strengthening of the

SIP. For a complete discussion of the

deficiencies in the State’s plans, please

see the January 29, 1996 Federal

Register document.
37176 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules

C. Current 15 Percent SIP Revision

The Governor of Texas submitted in a

letter dated August 9, 1996, revisions to

the 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plans for

Beaumont/Port Arthur, Dallas/Fort

Worth, El Paso and Houston Areas. The

SIP revision also included revisions to

the 1990 Base Year Inventory, El Paso

Section 818 analysis, the Post 96 Rate of

Progress Plan for Houston and the

Employee Commute Options SIP. In this

Federal Register, the EPA is taking

action on only the Emissions

Inventories, 15 Percent Rate of Progress

Plans and Contingency measures for the

Dallas/Fort Worth, El Paso and Houston

areas. The EPA is taking no action on

the other portions of the August 9, 1996,

submittal including the Beaumont/Port

Arthur 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plan.

The other portions of the SIP submittal

will be acted on in separate Federal

Register documents.

II. The EPA’s Analysis of Texas’s

Submittal

A. General

Texas has made the following changes

to address the shortfalls that were

identified in the January 29, 1996,

limited approval/limited disapproval.

First, Texas made several revisions to its

emissions estimates. These revisions

were based on more recent information

or source surveys. From these studies,

Texas concluded that, in some

instances, better estimates of emissions

were available based on locally derived

emission factors rather than defaults

based on national data. Second, these

same studies resulted, in some

instances, in lower projections of

emissions in 1996 resulting in less

growth to be offset. Third, by better

segregating the emission points that

were subject to specific rules, Texas

identified additional emission

reductions from measures in the original

15 Percent Plan. Finally, Texas

introduced a new tail pipe I/M program

called Texas Motorist Choice to replace

the previous vehicle I/M Program. The

EPA is proposing that the combination

of the Texas Motorist Choice Program

and the revisions to the Emission

Inventory and Growth Projections

eliminate the shortfall identified in the

January 29, 1996, limited disapproval/

limited approval.

B. Emission Inventory Revisions

The EPA approved the Texas 1990

base year inventory on November 8,

1994 (59 FR 55586). In the August 23,

1996, SIP revision, Texas included

revisions to the approved VOC

inventory. The revisions have been

made based on more recently available

information from source surveys and

other methods. Much of the information

was developed as part of bottom up

surveys of area source categories

performed as part of the 1993 intensive

ozone study in the Houston and

Beaumont areas. This study, called the

Coastal Oxidant Assessment for

Southeast Texas (COAST), included a

study of area source emissions.

Traditional emission inventory

techniques use national or state level

statistics for the level of activity of a

source category. For example, gallons of

gasoline sold statewide might be used to

determine emissions from Gasoline

Stations. These emissions would be

apportioned geographically using a

surrogate such as population. In the

bottom-up approach, surveys of actual

facilities are used to determine emission

levels. In addition to the data collected

from bottom up surveys, other

improvements were made to the 1990

inventory. A brief discussion of the

changes made to the inventory follows.

Other Product Coatings, High

Performance Maintenance and Other

Special Purpose Coatings

These categories are all surface

coating categories that were estimated

for the 1990 inventory using per capita

emission factors provided by the EPA.

The per capita factors were developed

from national level estimates of usage of

a product divided by the 1989

population. The documentation of the

coatings and emissions covered by these

categories was not initially available.

The Texas Natural Resource

Conservation Commission (TNRCC),

with EPA approval, removed these

categories from the 1993 periodic

emissions inventory. After further

study, documentation of the specific

categories and coatings was identified

and the 1990 inventory has been

adjusted appropriately. Once the

categories had been accurately

identified, overlap with the point source

inventory could be accounted for and an

improved area source estimate was

obtained.

Marine Vessel Loading Losses

Area source emissions in this category

were based on estimates of the total

amount of VOCs loaded at Texas ports.

Texas determined that individual point

sources had under reported emissions

from this category. When the revised

point source emissions are considered,

it was determined that all of the

emissions from this category in the

Houston area and the bulk of the

emissions in the Beaumont area were

covered in the point source emission

inventory. Therefore, the area source

estimate could be reduced in both areas.

Surface Cleaning

A contractor performed a bottom up

survey of this category. This survey was

later expanded by TNRCC staff. The

results of the survey indicated that the

national default estimate of emissions

for this category should be revised for

the nonattainment areas in Texas.

Architectural Coatings

Texas revised emissions estimate by

using more recent information from the

National Paint and Coatings Association

combined with data from surveys on

thinner usage.

Automobile Refinishing

Texas used more recent information

from the National Paint and Coatings

Association and source surveys to revise

the emission estimates for this category.

In addition, using data from the

Department of Commerce on paint

shipments, Texas projected a substantial

decrease in emissions between 1990 and

1994.

Sheet, Strip and Coil

This category was estimated for the

1990 emission factor of 1.5 tons/

employee. The number of employees

related to this industry was obtained

from the County Business Patterns for

Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)

3479. This SIC code includes many

businesses not engaged in coil coating

operations. A list of companies involved

in coil coating operations was obtained

from the national coil coaters

association. It was determined that all of

the companies involved in these

operations were outside the

nonattainment areas or were reporting

their emissions in the point source

inventory. Therefore, including their

emissions in the area source emissions

would be double counting. Therefore,

the area source emissions were removed

from the inventory.

Vessels With Outboards

A telephone survey of pleasure craft

owners in the Houston Galveston and

Beaumont Port Arthur areas was

conducted. The survey showed that 62

percent of boat usage occurs on

weekends rather than on weekdays.

Previous emission estimates had

allocated pleasure craft emissions

equally to each day of the week. It is

important to know when emissions

occur in developing control strategies.

In this case, according to the EPA

guidance, emissions are to be reduced

from their 1990 summer time weekday

levels. Therefore, Texas reduced the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules 37177

expected weekday emissions based on

the results of the survey.

Correspondingly, the weekend

emissions were increased. A similar

adjustment had previously been made to

the Dallas/Fort Worth inventory.

Commercial Vessels

This category of emission results from

fuel combustion by ocean going vessels,

harbor vessels and the fishing fleet.

Emissions were originally estimated by

using information from the Army Corps

of Engineers on freight traffic at harbors

and allocating national fuel usage to

Texas. These emissions were revised

based on a more recent study performed

by an EPA funded contractor in 1992.

The revised emission levels are based

on estimates of activity levels for

specific categories of vessels.

Generators <50 Horsepower

As part of the COAST project, local

area-specific construction and

recreational area information, and more

current information about horsepower

distributions and equipment/

populations, were utilized to obtain a

more refined estimate of emissions in

this category.

Residential Lawnmowers

Similar to the survey performed of

recreational boat users, a survey of

homeowners was performed to

determine when they actually cut their

lawns. Of those survey respondents

whose lawns are cut by the resident,

friend or neighbor, fifty-nine percent of

the surveyed respondents reported that

they cut their lawns on the weekends.

Texas reallocated the emissions based

on the results of the survey. No

adjustment was made to the emissions

from commercial lawncare services.

Military Aircraft

This change reflects a change in the

1990 base year inventory for the Dallas/

Fort Worth area based on a 1992

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

for Carswell Air Force Base. This EIS

more accurately reflected the actual

aircraft used at the base when compared

to the original emission estimate. This

change resulted in a substantial increase

in the 1990 emissions estimate. The

base has undergone a substantial

realignment since 1990 resulting in a

significant decrease in emissions

projected for 1996.

1994 Quality Assurance Efforts

During 1994, the TNRCC completed a

thorough evaluation of the 1990 point

source inventory and discovered that

emissions from facilities in several SIC

codes were misplaced under the wrong

emissions category. This effort resulted

in significant changes to some emissions

categories. The realignment of emissions

did not affect the total emissions. The

realignment of emissions did have the

effect of increasing the amount of

reductions that were expected for

certain control measures and decreasing

the amount of emission reductions

expected from other control measures.

The EPA is proposing to approve

these revisions to the 1990 Base Year

VOC inventory. The originally approved

biogenic emissions are unchanged. A

summary of the Revised 1990 emissions

inventory for the three areas is included

in Table 1.

TABLE 1.—1990 BASE YEAR EMISSIONS INVENTORY

Point Area On-road Non-road Total

Dallas/Fort Worth ...................................................................................... 65.27 174.02 306.60 105.19 651.08

El Paso ..................................................................................................... 9.45 24.94 38.27 10.99 83.65

Houston ..................................................................................................... 481.95 200.07 251.72 129.98 1063.72

C. Calculation of the 1996 Target Level

of Emissions

Texas subtracted the noncreditable

reductions from the FMVCP and Reid

Vapor Pressure program from the 1990

emissions inventory. This subtraction

results in the 1990 adjusted inventory.

The total required emission reduction

required to meet the 15 Percent Plan

requirement equals the sum of 15

percent of the adjusted inventory, plus

reductions to offset any growth that

takes place between 1990 and 1996,

plus any reductions that result from

corrections to the I/M or VOC RACT

rules. Table 2 summarizes the

calculations for the Dallas/Fort Worth,

El Paso and Houston areas.

TABLE 2.—CALCULATION OF REQUIRED REDUCTIONS (TONS/DAY)

Dallas/Fort

Worth El Paso Houston/Galveston

1990 Emission Inventory .......................................................................................................................... 651.08 83.65 1063.72

1990 Adjusted .......................................................................................................................................... 548.83 69.40 975.39

15% of adjusted ....................................................................................................................................... 82.32 10.41 146.31

RACT and I/M Corr .................................................................................................................................. .99 1.57 16.31

1996 Target .............................................................................................................................................. 465.52 57.42 812.77

1996 1 Projection ...................................................................................................................................... 583.07 73.61 1026.27

Required Reduction .................................................................................................................................. 117.55 16.19 213.27

1 1996 forecasted emissions with growth and pre-1990 controls.

D. Projections of Growth

As can be seen from the calculations

in Table 2, an important component of

calculating the required emission

reductions is to project the amount of

growth in emissions that is expected

between 1990 and 1996. Since the 1996

emissions are related to the 1990

emissions, the changes in the 1990

emission inventory resulted in changes

to the 1996 projections. In addition, as

discussed previously, Texas has

projected reductions in the emissions

from surface cleaning, auto refinishing

and military aircraft emissions from

1990 levels.

E. Deficiencies Identified in the January

29, 1996, Federal Register

In the January 29, 1996, Federal

Register, the EPA identified several

areas where it was believed that Texas

had projected too much emission

reduction for particular control

measures. The EPA has reviewed the
37178 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules

State’s August 9, 1996, SIP revision and

believes that it addresses the EPA’s

previously identified concerns. A brief

discussion of the previously identified

concerns and how they have been

addressed follows:

El Paso Stage II

In the previous submittal, the EPA

believed that for the El Paso area, too

much emission benefit was projected for

this control measure. Texas, in the

August 23, 1996, SIP revision, corrects

this problem by adjusting the projected

control efficiency from 98 percent to 95

percent.

Architectural and Industrial

Maintenance Rules

Texas projected emission reductions

for this category based on past EPA

guidance. The guidance, however, was

changed in a memorandum dated March

22, 1995, (Credit for the 15 Percent Rateof-Progress Plans for Reductions from

the Architectural and Industrial

Maintenance (AIM) Coating Rule). In the

August 9, 1996, SIP revision, the

emission reduction estimate is revised

based on the more recent guidance.

Emission reductions from the AIM

rule are based on the rule proposed by

the EPA on June 25, 1995, which

expected compliance by April 1997.

Subsequently, the issuance of the rule

has been delayed. The EPA has

negotiated a compliance date of no

earlier than January 1, 1998. The

previous guidance allowed States to

take emission reduction credit for the

AIM rule even though the reductions

were not expected to occur until April

1997. The EPA believes that even

though the compliance date has been

pushed back to January 1, 1998, the

emission reduction from the national

AIM rule is creditable in State 15

Percent Plans.

Industrial Wastewater

In the January 29, 1996, Federal

Register, the EPA proposed that Texas

had projected too high a control

efficiency for this control measure. The

EPA continues to believe that the

control efficiency projected by Texas for

this measure is too high. Texas,

however, believes that the rule

effectiveness originally used for this

control measure was too low. The EPA

agrees that this is likely the case. The

combination of rule effectiveness and

control efficiency determine the overall

reductions. Therefore, the EPA believes

that the overall reductions should be

accurate. Texas has committed to study

emissions from this category to

determine actual control efficiency and

rule effectiveness for the category. In

light of the above, the EPA believes that

it is appropriate to propose approval of

these projected emission reductions.

The EPA will work with Texas to

further study the emissions from this

source category as part of determining

whether RACT has been instituted for

this category of emissions.

Employee Commute Options (ECO)

In the Houston area, Texas previously

relied on this program to provide

emission reductions. The EPA approved

the State ECO program on March 7,

1995 (60 FR 12442). Public Law 104–70,

which was passed by Congress in

December 1995, gave flexibility to the

states in meeting the requirements of the

ECO program. Specifically, the

legislation allowed states, that prior to

its enactment were required to

implement ECO programs, to ‘‘remove

such provisions from the State

Implementation Plan, or withdraw its

submission, if the state notifies the

Administrator, in writing, that the state

has undertaken, or will undertake, one

or more alternative methods that will

achieve emission reductions equivalent

to those to be achieved by the removed

or withdrawn provisions.’’ The State of

Texas has removed the ECO emissions

reduction credit from the Houston 15

Percent Plan and does not rely on the

emission reduction of 1.81 ton/day

which was projected under the ECO

program. In addition, the Governor of

Texas has notified EPA and requested

removal of the Texas ECO rule from the

SIP. For the purposes of the 15 Percent

SIP, the State has satisfied the

provisions of the 1995 legislation. The

EPA will act on the Governor’s request

under a separate Federal Register action

to address the specific requirements of

the ECO program and its removal from

the SIP.

Marine Vessel Loading

In the January 29, 1996 Federal

Register, the EPA noted that Texas had

projected reductions from their Marine

Vessel Loading Rule for area sources

(sources with less than 25 tons/year

emissions) in this category. The rule,

however, only covered facilities with

emissions greater than 100 tons/year.

Therefore, the emission reductions for

area sources could not be credited. As

discussed previously, in subsequent

studies, Texas has learned that there are

no area source emissions in this

category in the Houston area. Therefore,

Texas has revised its emission reduction

estimates to remove the area source

emission reductions.

Acetone Substitution

Texas had projected emission

reductions for the rules to regulate the

cultured (synthetic) marble and fiber

reinforced plastic operations. The EPA,

however, has added acetone to the list

of non-reactive substances. Texas, in the

August 9, 1996, submittal, has removed

emission reduction credit for these

rules.

Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/

M)

The January 29, 1996 proposed

limited approval/limited disapproval

did not agree with the emission

reductions projected for Vehicle I/M

because Texas had discontinued the

program after submittal of the 15

Percent Plan. On June 27, 1996, the

Region received the State’s revised I/M

plan. The plan contained provisions for

the implementation of a decentralized

two-speed idle testing program. Testing

is required annually in the counties of

Harris, Dallas, Tarrant, and El Paso. The

plan was submitted under the

provisions of the National Highway

Systems Designations Act of 1995

(NHSDA). The plan also allows for, but

does not require, loaded mode testing in

which case the test would be biennial.

There are no loaded mode testing

commitments or credits contained in the

I/M or 15% plan SIPs.

In the Houston area, this is largely a

new program. In the El Paso and Dallas/

Fort Worth areas the existing program is

strengthened by provisions for remote

sensing, a real time data link of test

stations, auditing and enforcement,

repair effectiveness support,

performance monitoring and evaluation

and gas cap pressure testing. The plan

start dates were July 1, 1996, for Dallas/

Fort Worth and January 1, 1997, for

Houston and El Paso.

On October 3, 1996, the Region

proposed conditional interim approval

of the revised I/M plan (61 FR 51651).

The proposal was conditional because

the State needed additional legal

authority to implement portions of its

plan including, test on resale

provisions, enforcement of remote

sensing, and authority for re-registration

denial. The approval was interim

because under the provisions of the

NHDSA the State’s estimates regarding

network type were to be based on good

faith estimates with the credits to be

evaluated at the end of an 18 month

interim approval period.

The EPA has reviewed the modeling

of the projected emission reductions for

the revised I/M program provided by

Texas. With the exception of the gas cap

check, Texas has projected emissions
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules 37179

reductions that are consistent with EPA

guidance.

However, it is the EPA’s position that

Texas projected more emission

reductions than the EPA feels is

appropriate for their gas cap check. The

EPA has performed modeling to assess

the amount of over estimation. For the

Houston, Dallas/Fort Worth and El Paso

areas, the amount of over estimation is

estimated to be 0.5 tons/day, 0.8 tons/

day, and 0.2 tons/day respectively. In

each of these areas there are excess

emission reductions that are sufficient

to cover this over estimation.

The I/M Program was challenged in

state court. The Court recently ruled

that the two Senate Bills (19 and 178)

challenged were an unconstitutional

‘‘taking’’ and an unconstitutional

interference with contract, Texas

Testing Technologies I, et al. v. The

State of Texas, No. 95–1462 (126th Dist.

Court, Travis County, Texas) (April 21,

1997). The suit is essentially a contract

dispute with the State and is hence

irrelevant to today’s proposal to accept

the State’s projected emission

reductions in the 15% SIP. The State

has adequate legal authority without the

two Senate Bills’ language to implement

and enforce an I/M program (except for

the condititons noted in the October

1996 Federal Register proposal).

Therefore, EPA is proposing to accept

the State’s projected emissions

reductions with the exception of the

projected emissions from the gas cap

check.

F. Impact of Vehicle I/M Start Dates

Section 182(b)(1) of the Act requires

that States containing ozone

nonattainment areas classified as

Moderate or above prepare SIPs that

provide for a 15 percent VOC emissions

reduction by November 15, 1996. Most

of the 15 percent SIPs originally

submitted to the EPA contained

enhanced I/M programs because this

program achieves more VOC emission

reductions than most, if not all other,

control strategies. However, because

most States experienced substantial

difficulties with these enhanced I/M

programs, only a few States are

currently actually testing cars using

their original enhanced I/M protocols.

In September, 1995, EPA finalized

revisions to its enhanced I/M rule

allowing states significant flexibility in

designing I/M programs appropriate for

their needs (60 FR 48029).

Subsequently, Congress enacted the

NHSDA, which provides States with

more flexibility in determining the

design of enhanced I/M programs. The

substantial amount of time needed by

States to re-design enhanced I/M

programs in accordance with the

guidance contained within the NHSDA,

secure state legislative approval when

necessary, and set up the infrastructure

to perform the testing program

precluded States that revise their I/M

programs from obtaining emission

reductions from such revised programs

by November 15, 1996.

Given the heavy reliance by many

States upon enhanced I/M programs to

help achieve the 15 Percent VOC

emissions reduction required under

section 182(b)(1) of the Act, and the

recent NHSDA and regulatory changes

regarding enhanced I/M programs, the

EPA recognized that it was no longer

possible for many states to achieve the

portion of the 15 percent reductions that

is attributed to I/M by November 15,

1996. Under these circumstances,

disapproval of the 15 percent SIPs

would serve no purpose. Consequently,

under certain circumstances, the EPA

will propose to allow States that pursue

redesign of enhanced I/M programs to

receive emission reduction credit from

these programs within their 15 Percent

Plans, even though the emissions

reductions from the I/M program will

occur after November 15, 1996.

Specifically, the EPA will propose

approval of 15 percent SIPs if the

emissions reductions from the revised,

enhanced I/M programs, as well as from

the other 15 Percent Plan measures, will

achieve the 15 Percent target level as

soon after November 15, 1996, as

practicable. To make this ‘‘as soon as

practicable’’ determination, the EPA

must determine that the 15 Percent SIP

contains all VOC control strategies that

are practicable for the nonattainment

area in question and that meaningfully

accelerate the date by which the 15%

level is achieved. EPA does not believe

that measures meaningfully accelerate

the 15 Percent date if they provide only

an insignificant amount of reductions.

G. Acceptability of Texas 15 Percent

Plans

In the case of the Dallas/Fort Worth,

El Paso and Houston areas, Texas has

submitted 15 Percent SIP revisions that

demonstrate they achieve the necessary

15 Percent reductions from I/M by the

end of 1997. The Texas I/M program is

an annual program which began in

Dallas/Fort Worth on July 1, 1996, and

in El Paso and Houston on January 1,

1997. Texas submitted 15 Percent SIPs

for Dallas/Fort Worth, El Paso, and

Houston that included creditable

control measures. Emission reductions

resulting from the implementation of

the state adopted control measures in

the 15 Percent Plans have already

occurred. Texas has relied on reductions

from the AIM rule. The AIM reductions

are expected to occur by January 1,

1998. Therefore, the EPA believes that

these plans will achieve the required

reductions by January 1, 1998. The EPA

believes that these SIPs contain

measures, including I/M, that achieve

the required reductions as soon as

practicable for these nonattainment

areas.

The EPA has examined other

potentially available SIP measures to

determine if they are practicable for the

Dallas/Fort Worth, El Paso and Houston

Areas and if they would meaningfully

accelerate the date by which these areas

reach the 15 Percent level of reductions.

EPA proposes to determine that the SIPs

for the Dallas/Fort Worth, El Paso and

Houston Areas contain the appropriate

measures. For the Dallas/Fort Worth, El

Paso and Houston area no additional

measures were identified that could be

implemented to meaningfully accelerate

the date by which the 15 Percent target

level could be attained. For a complete

discussion of the control measures

considered, please see the Technical

Support Document for this action.

Tables 3 through 5 summarize the

control measures and the associated

emission reductions used to achieve the

15 Percent targets.

TABLE 3.—SUMMARY OF EMISSION REDUCTIONS: DALLAS/FORT WORTH (TONS/DAY)

Required Reduction ................................................................................................................................................................................. 117.55

Creditable Reductions:

RACT Catch-up ................................................................................................................................................................................ 4.03

Stage II ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 18.19

Aircraft Stage III ................................................................................................................................................................................ 0.60

Other VOC storage, transport .......................................................................................................................................................... 0.05

I/M, FMVCP Tier I, Reformulated Gas ............................................................................................................................................. 69.46

Bakeries ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 0.12

Municipal Landfills ............................................................................................................................................................................ 3.49
37180 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 3.—SUMMARY OF EMISSION REDUCTIONS: DALLAS/FORT WORTH (TONS/DAY)—Continued

Carswell Fire Training Pit Closure .................................................................................................................................................... 1.20

RE Improvements ............................................................................................................................................................................. 4.86

Gas Utility Engines ........................................................................................................................................................................... 7.76

Reform Off Road .............................................................................................................................................................................. 4.23

TCMs ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 6.94

Consumer/Commercial Products ...................................................................................................................................................... 4.09

Gasoline Terminals ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2.17

Fugitives ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.07

Wood Furniture ................................................................................................................................................................................. 1.35

AIM ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4.77

Traffic Markings ................................................................................................................................................................................ 0.56

High Performance Maintenance ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.96

Other Special Purpose Coatings ...................................................................................................................................................... 1.18

Total ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 136.07

TABLE 4.—SUMMARY EMISSION REDUCTIONS: EL PASO (TONS/DAY)

Required Reduction ................................................................................................................................................................................. 16.19

Creditable Reductions:

RACT Catch-up ................................................................................................................................................................................ 0.71

Stage II ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 1.87

Aircraft Stage III ................................................................................................................................................................................ 0.02

FMVCP Tier I, I/M, Low RVP ........................................................................................................................................................... 7.37

Offset Printing ................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.56

Vessel Loading ................................................................................................................................................................................. 0.32

Fugitives ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 1.13

RE Improvements ............................................................................................................................................................................. 1.63

Gas Utility Engines ........................................................................................................................................................................... 0.88

TCMs ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 0.35

Architectural Coatings ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.80

Consumer/Commercial Products ...................................................................................................................................................... 0.70

Municipal Landfills ............................................................................................................................................................................ 0.21

Industrial Wastewater ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.27

Bulk Gasoline Terminals ................................................................................................................................................................... 0.77

Outdoor Burning ............................................................................................................................................................................... 0.40

Wood Furniture ................................................................................................................................................................................. 0.04

RVP (off-road) ................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.09

Traffic Markings ................................................................................................................................................................................ 0.09

High Performance Maintenance ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.12

Total ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 18.32

TABLE 5.—SUMMARY EMISSION REDUCTIONS: HOUSTON/GALVESTON (TONS/DAY)

Required Reduction ............................................................................................................................................................................... 213.27

Creditable Reductions:

RACT Catch-up .............................................................................................................................................................................. 27.81

TSDF ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 13.48

Stage II ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 16.89

General Vent Gas ........................................................................................................................................................................... 13.97

Reform Gas, I/M, Tier I FMVCP ..................................................................................................................................................... 40.41

Reform (Off Road) .......................................................................................................................................................................... 5.30

Vessel Cleaning/Degassing ............................................................................................................................................................ 3.01

Stage I ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 6.26

SOCMI Rct. & Dist. ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1.68

Fugitive Controls ............................................................................................................................................................................. 46.03

RE Improvements ........................................................................................................................................................................... 12.82

Gas Utility Engines ......................................................................................................................................................................... 8.47

TCMs .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 0.36

Consumer/Commercial Products .................................................................................................................................................... 4.44

Marine Vessel loading .................................................................................................................................................................... 15.73

Gasoline Terminals ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3.36

Wood Coating ................................................................................................................................................................................. 0.37

Bakeries .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.22

Architectural Coatings ..................................................................................................................................................................... 5.03

Industrial Wastewater ..................................................................................................................................................................... 8.56

Traffic Markings .............................................................................................................................................................................. 0.56

Other Special Purpose ................................................................................................................................................................... 1.24

High Performance Maintenance ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.99
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules 37181

TABLE 5.—SUMMARY EMISSION REDUCTIONS: HOUSTON/GALVESTON (TONS/DAY)—Continued

Total ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 237

III. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

The Clean Air Act, section 176(c), and

the transportation conformity rule

require the states to establish motor

vehicle emissions budgets (MVEB) in

any control strategy SIP that is

submitted for attainment and

maintenance of the National Ambient

Air Quality Standards. These budgets

will be used to determine if future

transportation plans conform with State

air quality plans. The budget for each

area has been calculated by projecting

the 1996 Motor Vehicle emissions and

subtracting the emission reductions

from planned emission control

programs. The State of Texas has

established a MVEB for VOC for Dallas/

Fort Worth, El Paso, and Houston. The

EPA is proposing to give conditional

interim approval of the following

MVEB:

TABLE 6.—1996 VOC MOTOR

VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS

Area

VOC

(Tons per

Day)

Dallas/Fort Worth .......................... 165.49

El Paso ......................................... 21.63

Houston ......................................... 152.12

IV. Contingency Measures

Ozone areas classified as moderate or

above must include in their submittals,

under section 172(c)(9) of the Act,

contingency measures to be

implemented if Reasonable Further

Progress (RFP) is not achieved or if the

standard is not attained by the

applicable date. The General Preamble

to Title I, (57 FR 13498) states that the

contingency measures should, at a

minimum, ensure that an appropriate

level of emissions reduction progress

continues to be made if attainment or

RFP is not achieved and additional

planning by the State is needed.

Therefore, the EPA interprets the Act to

require States with moderate and above

ozone nonattainment areas to include

sufficient contingency measures in the

November 1993 submittal, so that upon

implementation of such measures,

additional emissions reductions of up to

three percent of the adjusted base year

inventory (or a lesser percentage that

will make up the identified shortfall)

would be achieved in the year after the

failure has been identified. States must

show that their contingency measures

can be implemented with minimal

further action on their part and with no

additional rulemaking actions such as

public hearings or legislative review .

Analysis of Specific Contingency

Measures

The following is a discussion of each

of the contingency measures that have

been included in the SIP submittals and

an analysis of their acceptableness.

Degassing or Cleaning of Vessels

This measure was adopted as part of

the 15 Percent Plans for the Houston

area. It was also adopted as a

contingency measure in the El Paso and

Dallas/Fort Worth areas. The EPA

believes the reductions that have been

projected if this measure is needed as a

contingency measure are appropriate.

Dry Cleaning Naphtha

This measure adopted at 30 TAC

115.552 as a contingency measure

would call for control of dry cleaners

that use petroleum naphtha. This rule

was adopted as a contingency measure

in the Dallas/Fort Worth, El Paso, and

Houston areas. The EPA has evaluated

this measure and believes that it will

achieve the projected reductions in the

event it must be implemented.

Offset Printing

Regulation of emissions from offset

printing was adopted as a 15 Percent

Plan measure in the El Paso area. It was

also adopted as a contingency measure

in the Houston and Dallas/Fort Worth

areas. The EPA believes that the

emission reductions that have been

projected if it is necessary to implement

these rules are appropriate.

Commercial Bakeries

Texas adopted control measures for

major source bakeries in Dallas/Fort

Worth and Houston as part of the 15

Percent Plans. Texas also adopted for

Dallas and El Paso, a contingency

measure for minor source bakeries to be

controlled in the event a milestone

demonstration or attainment date is

missed. The EPA believes the

reductions that are projected if these

rules are implemented are appropriate.

Transportation Control Measures (TCM)

In Dallas/Fort Worth and El Paso,

Texas has projected that additional

emission reductions will come from

transportation control measures that

will be implemented in the 1997 time

frame. TCMs are measures such as High

Occupancy Vehicle lanes that reduce

emissions by modifying the

transportation system. The EPA believes

the projected emission reductions have

been quantified appropriately.

Gas Utility Engines

In all three areas, Texas has projected

emission reductions that will occur

from the small engine rule in the year

following the required milestone

demonstration or 1997. The EPA

believes that these reductions have been

quantified appropriately.

Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance

and Tier I

All of the contingency plans rely to

some extent on reductions from the

inspection and maintenance program.

As discussed previously, the planned I/

M reductions are not expected to occur

until the end of 1997. Additional

reductions from I/M cannot be expected

to occur in the time frame envisioned

for contingency measures. Therefore,

these reductions cannot be credited

toward the contingency measures.

However, reductions in excess of the

15 percent plans and requirements

achieved from measures enumerated

above are sufficient to ensure that the

contingency measure target of three

percent is met. If Texas has to

implement these measures for

contingency purposes or for future plans

then the State will have one year to

backfill the contingency plan.

TABLE 7.—SUMMARY OF ACCEPTABLE CONTINGENCY MEASURES: DALLAS/FORT WORTH (TONS/DAY)

Required Contingency ............................................................................................................................................................................. 16.46

Creditable Contingency Reductions:

Vessel Cleaning ................................................................................................................................................................................ 0.18

Dry Cleaning Naphtha ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2.22

Offset Printing ................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.85

Commercial Bakeries ........................................................................................................................................................................ 0.15
37182 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 7.—SUMMARY OF ACCEPTABLE CONTINGENCY MEASURES: DALLAS/FORT WORTH (TONS/DAY)—Continued

TCMs ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 2.03

Gas Utility Engines 1997 .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.73

Excess reductions from 15 Percent measures ................................................................................................................................ 18.52

Total ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 24.68

TABLE 8.—SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY MEASURE REDUCTIONS: EL PASO (TONS/DAY)

Required Contingency ............................................................................................................................................................................. 2.08

Creditable Contingency Reductions:

Vessel Cleaning ................................................................................................................................................................................ 0.09

Dry Cleaning Naphtha ...................................................................................................................................................................... 0.30

Commercial Bakeries ........................................................................................................................................................................ 0.05

TCMs ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 0.53

Gas Utility Engines 1997 .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.08

Excess reductions from 15 percent measures ................................................................................................................................. 2.13

Total ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 1.74

TABLE 9.—SUMMARY OF CONTINGENCY MEASURE REDUCTIONS: HOUSTON/GALVESTON (TONS/DAY)

Required Contingency ............................................................................................................................................................................. 29.26

Creditable Contingency Reductions:

Municipal Landfills ............................................................................................................................................................................ 3.99

Dry Cleaning-Naphtha ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1.88

Offset Printing ................................................................................................................................................................................... 2.20

Gas Utility Engines 1997 .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.76

Excess Reductions from 15% measures ......................................................................................................................................... 23.73

Total ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 32.56

V. Rulemaking Action

The EPA has evaluated the Emissions

Inventory, 15 Percent Plans and

contingency measures submitted as part

of the August 23, 1996 SIP revision for

Texas. The EPA has also reviewed the

MVEB associated with these 15% plans.

The EPA proposes to give full approval

of the revisions to the 1990 base year

inventory for Dallas/Fort Worth, El Paso

and Houston/Galveston Areas. The EPA

proposes to give Conditional Interim

approval of the 15 Percent Plans and

associated MVEB for the three areas.

Finally, the EPA proposes to give full

approval of the contingency plans for

these three areas.

The 15 Percent Plans for the three

areas can only receive a conditional

interim approval because the plans all

rely in part on emission reductions from

the revised I/M program. The EPA

proposed conditional interim approval

of the I/M program for the three areas on

October 3, 1996. Therefore, the 15

Percent Plans can only receive

conditional interim approval.

Interim Approval

The NHSDA allows States to make a

‘‘good faith’’ estimate of the reductions

that will be achieved by the I/M

program. The I/M program can be given

interim approval during an 18 month

period during which the program is

evaluated to validate the ‘‘good faith’’

estimate. At the end of the 18-month

interim period, the interim approval

status for the I/M program will

automatically lapse pursuant to the

NHSDA. It is expected that the State

will, at that time, be able to make a

demonstration of the program’s

effectiveness using an appropriate

evaluation criteria. If the State fails to

provide a demonstration of the

program’s effectiveness to EPA within

18 months of the final interim I/M

rulemaking, the interim approval will

lapse, and EPA will be forced to

disapprove the State’s permanent I/M

SIP revision. An I/M disapproval will

result in a 15 Percent Plan disapproval

unless substitute emission reductions

are submitted. Information from the I/M

program evaluation showing the

program achieves a lesser amount of

reductions than originally projected will

be used in the final action on the 15

Percent Plans. Further discussion of the

requirements for final approval of the

I/M program are discussed in the

October 3, 1996, Federal Register (61 FR

51651).

Conditional Approval

The EPA is proposing a conditional

approval of the 15 Percent Plans

contingent upon the State meeting the

conditions outlined in the proposed I/M

conditional approval. These include the

State obtaining the appropriate

legislative authority as needed to

implement the program outlined in the

Governor’s Executive Order. The EPA

proposes that if the State fails to obtain

the needed additional legal authority

within 12 months of final conditional

interim approval of the 15 Percent

Plans, the 15 Percent Plan approval will

convert to a disapproval after a letter is

sent notifying the State of the

conversion to disapproval.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any state

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the state implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by a July 10,

1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 1997 / Proposed Rules 37183

Radiation. The Office of Management

and Budget has exempted this

regulatory action from E.O. 12866

review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. See 5 U.S.C.

603 and 604. Alternatively, EPA may

certify that the rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.

Conditional approvals of SIP

submittals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Act do not

create any new requirements but simply

approve requirements that the State is

already imposing. Therefore, because

the Federal SIP approval does not

impose any new requirements, I certify

that it does not have a significant impact

on any small entities affected. Moreover,

due to the nature of the Federal-State

relationship under the Act, preparation

of a flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of State action. The Act

forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds. See

Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S.

246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

If the conditional approval is

converted to a disapproval under

section 110(k), based on the State’s

failure to meet the commitment, it will

not affect any existing State

requirements applicable to small

entities. Federal disapproval of the State

submittal does not affect its Stateenforceability. Moreover, EPA’s

disapproval of the submittal does not

impose a new Federal requirement.

Therefore, EPA certifies that this

disapproval action does not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities because it does

not remove existing requirements nor

does it substitute a new Federal

requirement.

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995, signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to private sector, of $100

million or more. Under Section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

The EPA has determined that the

conditional approval action proposed

does not include a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs of $100

million or more to either State, local, or

tribal governments in the aggregate, or

to the private sector. This Federal action

approves preexisting requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new Federal requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: July 1, 1997.

Jerry Clifford,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–18244 Filed 7–10–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 260, 261, and 273

[SWH–FRL–5856–6]

Hazardous Waste Management

System; Modification of the Hazardous

Waste Program; Mercury-Containing

Lamps

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of data availability.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is making available to the

public a study containing information

relating to its Proposed Rule addressing

the management of mercury-containing

lamps under the Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act Subtitle C hazardous

waste management system published in

the Federal Register on July 27, 1994,

59 FR 39288. The study consists of an

electronic model and report that

provides an assessment of mercury

emissions from the management of

mercury-containing lamps under

different approaches, including two that

were discussed in the Proposed Rule: A

conditional exclusion from hazardous

waste regulations and adding lamps to

Universal Waste regulations (May 11,

1995, 60 FR 25542). Readers should

note that only comments about the

study discussed in this Notice of Data

Availability will be considered by the

Agency during this comment period.

The Agency is not reopening the

comment period for the July 27, 1994

proposed rule through this Notice of

Data Availability.

DATES: Comments on the study will be

accepted through August 25, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Commenters must send an

original and two copies of their

comments referencing docket number

F–97–FLEA–FFFFF to: RCRA Docket

Information Center, Office of Solid

Waste (5305G), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency Headquarters (EPA,

HQ), 401 M Street, SW., Washington,

DC 20460. Hand deliveries of comments

should be made to the Arlington, VA,

address listed below. Comments may

also be submitted electronically by

sending electronic mail through the

Internet to: rcradocket@epamail.epa.gov. Comments in

electronic format should also be

identified by the docket number F–97–

FLEA–FFFFF. All electronic comments

must be submitted as an ASCII file

avoiding the use of special characters

and any form of encryption. If

comments are not submitted

electronically, EPA is asking

prospective commenters to voluntarily

submit one additional copy of their

comments on labeled personal computer

diskettes in ASCII (TEXT) format or a

common word processing format that

can be converted to ASCII (TEXT). It is

essential to specify on the disk label the

word processing software and version/

edition as well as the commenter’s

name. This will allow EPA to convert

the comments into one of the word

processing formats utilized by the

Agency. Please use mailing envelopes

designed to physically protect the

submitted diskettes. EPA emphasizes

that submission of comments on

diskettes is not mandatory, nor will it

result in any advantage or disadvantage

to any commenter.

Commenters should not submit

electronically any confidential business

information (CBI). An original and two

copies of CBI must be submitted under

separate cover to: RCRA CBI Document

Control Officer, Office of Solid Waste

(5305W), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

Public comments and supporting

materials are available for viewing in

the RCRA Information Center (RIC),

located at Crystal Gateway I, First Floor,