Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 55029 

relating to, or affecting the disposition 

of firearms from the estate. 

Dated: August 29, 2013. 

Eric H. Holder, Jr., 

Attorney General. 

[FR Doc. 2013–21661 Filed 9–6–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–FY–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2010–0333; FRL–9900–83– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation; Texas; Houston: 

Reasonable Further Progress Plan, 

Contingency Measures, and 

Transportation Conformity Budgets for 

the 1997 8-Hour Severe Ozone 

Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

approve revisions to the Texas State 

Implementation Plan to the emissions 

inventory (EI), the reasonable further 

progress (RFP) plan and contingency 

measures, the vehicle miles traveled 

(VMT) offset analysis, and 

transportation conformity motor vehicle 

emissions budgets associated with the 

reasonable further progress portion of 

these revisions. The EPA is proposing to 

approve these revisions because they 

satisfy the EI, the RFP, the VMT offset, 

and transportation conformity 

requirements for areas classified as 

severe nonattainment for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone national ambient air quality 

standard and demonstrate further 

progress in reducing ozone precursors. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 9, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2010–0333, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• U.S. EPA Region 6 ‘‘Contact Us’’ 

Web site: http://epa.gov/region6/

r6coment.htm. Please click on ‘‘6PD’’ 

(Multimedia) and select ‘‘Air’’ before 

submitting comments. 

• Email: Mr. Guy Donaldson at 

donaldson.guy@epa.gov. Please also 

send a copy by email to the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section below. 

• Fax: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air 

Planning Section (6PD–L), at fax 

number 214–665–7263. 

• Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, 

Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. 

• Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Guy 

Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section 

(6PD–L), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. Such 

deliveries are accepted only between the 

hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. 

weekdays except for legal holidays. 

Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–2010– 

0333. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means the EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, the EPA recommends that 

you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If the EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider 

your comment. Electronic files should 

avoid the use of special characters, any 

form of encryption, and be free of any 

defects or viruses. For additional 

information about the EPA’s public 

docket visit the EPA Docket Center 

homepage at http://www.epa.gov/

epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. The file will be made 

available by appointment for public 

inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review 

Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m. 

and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal 

holidays. Contact the person listed in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

paragraph below to make an 

appointment. If possible, please make 

the appointment at least two working 

days in advance of your visit. There will 

be a fee of 15 cents per page for making 

photocopies of documents. On the day 

of the visit, please check in at the EPA 

Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. 

The State submittal, which is part of 

the EPA record, is also available for 

public inspection at the State Air 

Agency listed below during official 

business hours by appointment: Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality, 

Office of Air Quality, 12124 Park 35 

Circle, Austin, Texas 78753. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Sandra Rennie, Air Planning Section 

(6PD–L), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, 

telephone (214) 665–7367; fax number 

(214) 665–7263; email address 

rennie.sandra@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ means EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

II. What is the background for this action? 

III. What is EPA’s evaluation of the revisions? 

A. Base Year Emissions Inventory 

B. Adjusted Base Year Inventory and 2008 

RFP Target Levels 

C. Projected Inventories and Determination 

of RFP 

D. Control Measures and Emission 

Reductions for RFP 

E. Contingency Measures 

F. Vehicle Miles Traveled Offset Analysis 

G. Transportation Conformity Budgets 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

The EPA is proposing to approve a 

revision to the Texas State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for the 

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) 

ozone nonattainment area submitted by 

the Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality on April 1, 2010, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
55030 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1MOVES is an acronym for MOtor Vehicle 

Emission Simulator. This new emission modeling 

system released September 23, 2011, estimates 

emissions for mobile sources covering a broad range 

of pollutants and allows multiple scale analysis of 

emissions estimates from cars, trucks & 

motorcycles. Use of the MOVES model in SIPs was 

required as of March 2, 2013. 

2November 18, 2002 EPA memorandum ‘‘2002 

Base Year Emission Inventory SIP Planning: 8-Hour 

Ozone, PM2.5 and Regional Haze Programs, 

available at http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/

2002baseinven_102502new.pdf. 

and an updated revision using the 

MOVES2010a 1 mobile model submitted 

on May 6, 2013. We are proposing to 

approve the following SIP elements: The 

revised emission inventory (EI); the 

reasonable further progress plan (RFP) 

and contingency measures; the vehicle 

miles traveled (VMT) offset analysis; 

and the associated motor vehicle 

emission budget (MVEB) for 

transportation conformity. The SIP 

revision satisfies the EI, RFP, VMT 

offset, and MVEB requirements for areas 

classified as severe nonattainment for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient 

air quality standard (NAAQS) and 

demonstrates reasonable further 

progress in reducing ozone precursors. 

We are proposing to take this action 

pursuant to section 110 and part D of 

the Clean Air Act (Act or CAA) and 

EPA’s regulations. 

II. What is the background for this 

action? 

In 1997 (62 FR 38856), the EPA 

revised the health-based NAAQS for 

ozone, setting it at 0.08 parts per million 

(ppm) averaged over an 8-hour time 

frame. The EPA set the 8-hour ozone 

standard based on scientific evidence 

demonstrating that ozone causes 

adverse health effects at lower ozone 

concentrations and over a longer period 

of time than was understood when the 

pre-existing 1-hour ozone standard was 

set. The EPA determined that the 8-hour 

standard would be more protective of 

human health, especially children and 

adults who are active outdoors, and 

individuals with a pre-existing 

respiratory disease, such as asthma. 

On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858), the 

EPA finalized its attainment/

nonattainment designations for areas 

across the country with respect to the 8- 

hour ozone standard. These actions 

became effective on June 15, 2004. 

Among those areas designated as 

nonattainment is HGB. 

This designation triggered the CAA’s 

section 110(a)(1) requirement that states 

must submit attainment demonstrations 

for their nonattainment areas to the EPA 

by no later than three years after the 

promulgation of the NAAQS. 

Accordingly, EPA’s phase I 8-hour 

ozone implementation rule (Phase I 

Rule), published on April 30, 2004 (69 

FR 23951), specified that states must 

submit attainment demonstrations for 

their nonattainment areas to the EPA by 

no later than three years from the 

effective date of designation, that is, by 

June 15, 2007. 

Pursuant to the Phase 1 rule, an area 

was classified under subpart 2 of the 

CAA based on its 8-hour design value if 

that area had a 1-hour design value at 

or above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour 

design value in Table 1 of subpart 2). 

Based on this criterion, the HGB 

nonattainment area was classified as a 

moderate nonattainment area. 

On November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612), 

and as revised on June 8, 2007 (72 FR 

31727), EPA published the final Phase 

2 Rule for implementation of the 8-hour 

standard (Phase 2 rule). The Phase 2 

rule addressed the RFP control and 

planning obligations as they apply to 

areas designated nonattainment for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Among other things, the Phase 1 and 

Phase 2 rules outline the SIP 

requirements and deadlines for various 

requirements in areas designated as 

moderate and above nonattainment. The 

rule further requires that modeling and 

attainment demonstrations, RFP plans, 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM), projection year emission 

inventories, MVEB, and contingency 

measures were all due by June 15, 2007 

(See 40 CFR 51.908(a), (c)). 

Section 182(b)(1) of the CAA and 

EPA’s 1997 8-hour ozone 

implementation rule (40 CFR 51.910) 

require each 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area designated moderate 

and above to submit an EI and RFP plan, 

for review and approval into its SIP, that 

describe how the area will achieve 

actual emissions reductions of VOC and 

NOX from a baseline emissions 

inventory. 

On June 15, 2007, the EPA received a 

request from Texas Governor Perry 

seeking voluntary reclassification of the 

HGB nonattainment area from moderate 

to severe nonattainment under the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard. The EPA 

reclassified the eight-county HGB area 

from a moderate to a severe 

nonattainment area for the 1997 eighthour ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS) effective on 

October 31, 2008. (73 FR 56983). 

Reclassification of the HGB area to 

severe required Texas to develop and 

submit a revised RFP SIP and a VMT 

offset analysis. 

III. What is EPA’s evaluation of the 

revisions? 

The EPA’s analysis and findings are 

discussed in this proposed rulemaking. 

A more detailed discussion is contained 

in the Technical Support Document 

(TSD) for this Proposal, which is 

available on line at http://

www.regulations.gov, Docket number 

EPA–R06–OAR–2010–0333. 

On April 1, 2010, Texas submitted an 

updated emission inventory, a plan 

demonstrating 18 percent RFP for the 

period 2002–2008, contingency 

measures for RFP, and on-road VOC and 

NOX MVEBs. In addition, the RFP 

demonstrated 9% reductions from 2009 

through 2011; 9% reductions from 2012 

through 2014; 9% reductions from 2015 

through 2017; 3% reductions in 2018; 

and 3% reductions in 2019 for 

contingency purposes. These 

accompanied an attainment 

demonstration which is the subject of a 

separate rulemaking. These SIP 

revisions were subject to notice and 

comment by the public, and the State of 

Texas addressed the comments received 

on the proposed SIP revisions. The State 

revised the EI and the RFP in a 

submittal dated May 6, 2013, using 

EPA’s MOVES2010a mobile model in 

place of MOBILE6 that was used in the 

2010 submittal. 

A. Base Year Emissions Inventory 

An emissions inventory is a 

comprehensive, accurate, current 

inventory of actual emissions from all 

sources of the relevant pollutant or 

pollutants in an area and is required by 

section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. For ozone 

nonattainment areas, the emissions 

inventory needs to contain VOC and 

NOX emissions because these pollutants 

are precursors to ozone formation. In the 

Phase 2 implementation rule, the EPA 

recommended 2002 as the base year 

emissions inventory,2 and is therefore 

the starting point for calculating RFP. 

Texas submitted the 2002 base year 

inventories for all state nonattainment 

areas on May 13, 2005. The EPA 

approved the HGB emission inventory 

on April 22, 2009 (74 FR 18298). The 

April 2010 and May 2013 submittals 

provide an updated base year inventory 

using MOVES2010a. 

EPA is proposing to approve revisions 

to the 2002 Base Year Emissions 

Inventory. Table 1 provides the 2002 

emissions inventory as previously 

submitted in 2005 and approved in 2009 

with the updated 2010 inventory 

revised and adopted by Texas in 2013 

for approval into the SIP. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 55031 

TABLE 1—REVISIONS TO THE 2002 RFP BASE YEAR EMISSIONS INVENTORY

[Tons/day] 

Source type NOX VOC 

Submittal date 2005 2010 2005 2010 

Point ................................................................................................................. 339.48 339.29 297.12 316.62 

Area ................................................................................................................. 40.15 89.11 219.51 407.61 

On-road Mobile ................................................................................................ 283.20 371.89 114.30 124.47 

Non-road Mobile .............................................................................................. 167.74 156.98 112.37 84.32 

Total .......................................................................................................... 830.57 957.27 743.30 933.02 

A summary of the updated 2002 base 

year inventory submitted May 6, 2013 is 

shown in Table 2 below. 

TABLE 2—RFP 2002 BASELINE EMISSIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY

Source type 

Uncontrolled Controlled 

NOX VOC NOX VOC 

Point ................................................................................................................. 339.29 316.62 339.29 316.62 

Area ................................................................................................................. 89.11 407.61 89.11 407.61 

On-road Mobile ................................................................................................ 552.30 205.76 371.89 124.47 

Non-road Mobile .............................................................................................. 166.98 100.15 156.98 84.32 

Total .......................................................................................................... 1147.68 1030.14 957.27 933.02 

B. Adjusted Base Year Inventory and 

2008 RFP Target Levels 

The process for determining the 

emissions baseline from which the RFP 

reductions are calculated is described in 

section 182(b)(1) of the CAA and 40 CFR 

51.910. This baseline value is the 2002 

adjusted base year inventory. Sections 

182(b)(1)(B) and (D) require the 

exclusion from the base year inventory 

of emissions benefits resulting from the 

Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program 

(FMVCP) regulations promulgated by 

January 1, 1990, and the Reid Vapor 

Pressure (RVP) regulations promulgated 

June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23666). The 

FMVCP and RVP emissions reductions 

are determined by the State using EPA’s 

highway mobile source emissions model 

software, MOVES2010a. The FMVCP 

and RVP emission reduction are then 

removed from the base year inventory 

by the State, resulting in an adjusted 

base year inventory. The emission 

reductions needed to satisfy the RFP 

requirement are then calculated from 

the adjusted base year inventory. The 

reductions are then subtracted from the 

adjusted base year inventory to establish 

the emissions target for the RFP 

milestone year (2018). 

For severe areas like the HGB 

nonattainment area, the CAA 

§ 182(c)(2)(B) specifies a 15 percent 

reduction in ozone precursor emissions 

over an initial six-year period, and an 

additional three percent per year for 

every year thereafter until the 

attainment year. In the Phase 2 rule, 

EPA provided that areas that were also 

designated nonattainment and classified 

as moderate or higher for the 1-hour 

ozone standard and that have the same 

boundaries as an area for which the EPA 

fully approved a 15 percent plan for the 

1-hour NAAQS, are considered to have 

met the requirement of section 182(b)(1) 

of the CAA for the 8-hour NAAQS. In 

this situation, a severe nonattainment 

area is subject to RFP under 172(c)(2) of 

the CAA and shall submit, no later than 

three years after designation for the 8- 

hour NAAQS, a SIP revision that meets 

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.910(b)(2). 

The RFP SIP revision must provide for 

a 15 percent emission reduction (of NOX

and/or VOC) accounting for any growth 

that occurs during the six year period 

following the baseline emissions 

inventory year, i.e., 2002–2008. 

The HGB nonattainment area had the 

same boundary under the 1-hour ozone 

standard as that of the 8-hour ozone 

standard. The HGB area under the 1- 

hour ozone standard was classified as 

severe. The EPA approved the HGB 15 

percent RFP plan on April 22, 2009 (74 

FR 18298). Therefore, according to the 

Phase 2 Rule, the RFP plan for the HGB 

nonattainment area may use either NOX

or VOC emissions reductions (or both) 

to achieve the 15 percent emission 

reduction requirement. 

According to section 182(b)(1)(D) of 

the CAA, emission reductions that 

resulted from the FMVCP and RVP rules 

promulgated prior to 1990 are not 

creditable for achieving RFP emission 

reductions. Therefore, the 2002 base 

year inventory is adjusted by subtracting 

the VOC and NOX emission reductions 

that area expected to occur between 

2002 and the future milestone years due 

to FMVCP and RVP rules. 

Texas sets out its calculations for the 

adjusted base year (ABY) inventory and 

milestone target levels in Chapter 2, 

section 2.5.3 of the 2010 submittal and 

Chapter 2, section 2.5 of the 2013 

submittal, according to the following 

method. See the calculations in Table 3 

below. 

Step 1. Estimate the actual 

anthropogenic base year inventory for 

both VOC and NOX in 2002 with all 

2002 control programs in place. 

Step 2. Using the same highway 

vehicle activity inputs used to calculate 

the actual 2002 inventory, run the 

appropriate motor vehicle emissions 

model for 2002 and for 2008 with all 

post-1990 CAA measures turned off. 

Any other local inputs for vehicle 

inspection and maintenance (I/M) 

programs should be set according to the 

program that was required to be in place 

in 1990. Fuel RVP should be set at 9.0 

or 7.8 depending on the RVP required 

in the local area as a result of fuel RVP 

regulations promulgated in June 1990. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
55032 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Step 3. Calculate the difference 

between 2002 and 2008 VOC emissions 

factors calculated in Step 2 and 

multiply by 2002 VMT. The result is the 

VOC emissions reductions that will 

occur between 2002 and 2008 without 

the benefits of any post-1990 CAA 

measures. These are the non-creditable 

VOC reductions that occur over this 

period. Calculate the difference between 

2002 and 2008 NOX emissions factors 

calculated in Step 2 and multiply by 

2002 VMT. This result is the NOX

emissions reductions that will occur 

between 2002 and 2008 without the 

benefits of any post-1990 CAA 

measures. These are the non-creditable 

NOX reductions that occur over this 

period. 

Step 4. Subtract the non-creditable 

VOC reductions calculated in Step 3 

from the actual anthropogenic 2002 

VOC inventory estimated in Step 1. 

Subtract the non-creditable NOX

reductions calculated in Step 3 from the 

actual anthropogenic 2002 NOX

inventory estimated in Step 1. These 

adjusted VOC and NOX inventories are 

the basis for calculating the target level 

of emissions in 2008. 

Step 5. The target level of VOC and 

NOX emissions in 2008 needed to meet 

the 2008 rate of progress ROP 

requirement is any combination of VOC 

and NOX reductions from the adjusted 

inventories calculated in Step 4 that 

total 18 percent. 

TABLE 3—HGB NAA 2008 RFP TARGET LEVEL CALCULATIONS WITH NOX SUBSTITUTION

[Ozone Season tpd] 

Description Formula NOX VOC 

A 2002 Rate-of Progress Base Year Inventory ........................................................................ ........................ 957.27 933.02 

B 2002 On-road ABY emissions inventory ............................................................................... ........................ 552.30 205.76 

C FMVCP/RVP Reductions Between 2002 and 2008 .............................................................. B¥C ¥25.99 ¥0.13 

D 2008 On-road ABY emissions inventory ............................................................................... ........................ 578.29 205.89 

E 2008 ABY emission inventory ............................................................................................... ........................ 983.26 933.15 

F RFP Ratio .............................................................................................................................. ........................ 17% 1% 

G Emissions Reductions Required Between 2002 & 2008 ...................................................... E × F 167.15 9.33 

Target Level for 2008 ........................................................................................................... A¥G 816.10 923.82 

C. Projected Inventories and 

Determination of RFP 

Texas describes its methods used for 

developing its 2018 projected VOC and 

NOX inventories in Chapter 2 of the 

2010 SIP submittal. EPA reviewed the 

procedures Texas used to develop its 

projected inventories and found them to 

be reasonable. 

Projected controlled 2018 emissions 

for the HGB nonattainment area are 

summarized in Tables 4 and 5. 

TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF HGB RFP NOX EMISSION REDUCTIONS IN TONS PER DAY

Control strategy description 2008 2011 2014 2017 2018 

Mass Emissions Cap and Trade Program (MECT) ............. 219.83 227.65 243.87 263.23 269.94 

Tank Landing Loss Rule ...................................................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Federal Portable Fuel Container (PFC) Rule ...................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) .............. 150.64 319.72 409.05 486.84 510.15 

Federal Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) ................................ 150.64 189.54 213.44 235.00 241.29 

Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) ....................................... 17.35 16.62 11.80 8.03 7.10 

On-road Texas Low Emission Diesel (TxLED) .................... 6.03 5.08 3.52 2.55 2.36 

Tier I and II Locomotive NOX standards ............................. 11.74 12.75 14.09 15.24 16.04 

Small Non-Road Spark Ignition (SI) Phase I ....................... 1¥0.30 1¥0.39 1¥0.47 1¥0.56 1¥0.58 

Heavy-duty Non-Road Engines ........................................... 5.76 7.91 9.64 12.02 12.56 

Tier 2 and 3 Non-Road Diesel Engines .............................. 8.13 14.01 18.76 23.25 24.29 

Federal Standards for New Small Non-Road Spark Ignition 

(SI) Engines (Phase II) ..................................................... 1.25 1.65 1.85 1.99 2.04 

Federal Standards for New Large Non-road SI and Recreational Marine ................................................................ 12.27 20.30 27.01 31.10 32.13 

Non-road TxLED .................................................................. 2.87 2.59 2.14 1.73 1.59 

Non-road RFG ..................................................................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Tier 4 Federal Standards for Diesel Engines ...................... 0.00 0.52 4.67 10.96 12.82 

Federal Marine Diesel Tier 2 ............................................... 1.96 3.23 4.72 6.20 6.90 

Sum of Control Reductions .................................................. 678.70 821.18 964.09 1097.58 1138.63 

1The negative NOX emissions reductions number from Small Non-Road SI Phase I engines is attributed to fleet growth in light of more stringent standards. 

TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF HGB RFP VOC EMISSION REDUCTIONS IN TONS PER DAY

Control strategy description 2008 2011 2014 2017 2018 

Mass Emissions Cap and Trade Program (MECT) ............. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Tank Landing Loss Rule ...................................................... 0.00 11.50 11.50 11.50 11.50 

Federal Portable Fuel Container (PFC) Rule ...................... 0.00 3.68 9.65 10.10 10.25 

Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) .............. 109.17 148.83 188.98 222.89 232.44 

Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) ............................................. 22.03 22.79 17.27 14.12 13.48 

Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) ....................................... 9.56 9.77 7.99 6.86 6.51 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 55033 

TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF HGB RFP VOC EMISSION REDUCTIONS IN TONS PER DAY—Continued 

Control strategy description 2008 2011 2014 2017 2018 

On-road Texas Low Emission Diesel (TxLED) .................... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Tier I and II Locomotive NOX standards ............................. 0.27 0.34 0.43 0.53 0.59 

Small Non-Road Spark Ignition (SI) Phase I ....................... 1.77 2.50 3.23 3.95 4.19 

Heavy-Duty Non- Road Engines ......................................... 4.73 6.82 8.54 10.17 10.58 

Tier 2 and 3 Non-Road Diesel Engines .............................. 0.95 1.68 2.32 2.95 3.10 

Small Non-Road Spark Ignition (SI) Engines (Phase II) ..... 16.70 20.81 22.72 24.13 24.57 

Large Non-Road SI and Recreational Marine ..................... 4.14 7.96 11.37 14.03 14.76 

Non-road TxLED .................................................................. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Non-road RFG ..................................................................... 0.04 0.13 0.22 0.30 0.33 

Tier 4 Diesel Engines .......................................................... 0.00 0.03 0.26 0.52 0.59 

Federal Marine Diesel Tier 2 ............................................... 0.08 0.12 0.18 0.24 0.26 

Sum of Control Reductions .................................................. 169.44 236.96 284.66 322.29 333.15 

To determine if 2018 RFP is met in 

the HGB nonattainment area, the total 

projected controlled emissions must be 

compared to the target levels calculated 

in the previous section of this 

document. As show below in Table 6, 

the total VOC and NOX emission 

projections meet the 2018 emission 

targets. Therefore, the 2018 RFP in the 

HGB nonattainment area is 

demonstrated. 

TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF RFP DEMONSTRATION FOR HGB 

[Tons/Day] 

Inventory NOX VOC 

1 2018 Target ................................................................................................................................................ 555.22 907.50 

2 2018 Uncontrolled Emissions .................................................................................................................... 1636.21 1210.28 

3 2008–2017 RFP Emission Reductions ...................................................................................................... 1097.60 302.46 

4 2017–2018 RFP Emission Reductions ...................................................................................................... 41.03 10.86 

5 Controlled RFP Emissions Forecast (Line 2 minus Line 3 minus Line 4) ................................................ 497.59 896.95 

6 Amount of Creditable Reductions Reserved for 2009–2018 Contingency ................................................ 24.58 4.67 

7 2018 Projected Emissions after RFP Reductions (Add Lines 5 and 6) .................................................... 522.17 901.62 

8 Excess(+)/Shortfall(¥) (Line1 minus Line 7) ............................................................................................. +33.04 +5.88

9 RFP Met? (Line 7 < Line 1) ....................................................................................................................... Yes Yes 

D. Control Measures and Emission 

Reductions for RFP 

The control measures upon which 

Texas relies for credit to demonstrate 

RFP requirements for the HGB 

nonattainment area are described in 

Chapter 4 of the 2010 SIP submittal. To 

demonstrate RFP for the HGB 

nonattainment area, Texas used a 

combination of (1) stationary point, (2) 

highway mobile, and (3) non-road 

mobile source control measures. 

Stationary point source NOX

reductions are from the mass emissions 

cap and trade program (MECT). The 

MECT program is mandatory for 

stationary facilities that emit NOX in the 

HGB ozone nonattainment area (at sites 

that have a collective design capacity of 

10 tons per year or more) and which are 

subject to the Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality NOX rules as 

found at 30 TAC Chapter 117. Non-road 

emission reductions are from Federal 

controls on non-road engines. Reduction 

in on-road mobile source emissions are 

from the inspection and maintenance (I/ 

M) program, summer reformulated 

gasoline, the Federal Motor Vehicle 

Control Program (FMVCP), and the 

Texas low emission diesel (TxLED) 

program. 

The EPA initially approved the MECT 

rules on November 14, 2001 (66 FR 

571252). The most recent revision to 

these rules was on July 16, 2009 (74 FR 

34503). All non-road, summer RFG and 

the FMVCP are federal programs. The I/ 

M program was initially approved 

November 14, 2001 (66 FR 57268), with 

the most recent revision on September 

6, 2006 (71 FR 52670). The TxLED 

program was initially approved 

November 14, 2001 (66 FR 57196), with 

the most recent revision on May 6, 2013 

(78 FR 26255). Emission reductions 

from these control measures are 

summarized in Tables 5 and 6 above. 

E. Contingency Measures 

Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA requires 

a state with a moderate or above ozone 

nonattainment area to include sufficient 

additional contingency measures in its 

RFP plan in case the HGB 

nonattainment area fails to meet RFP 

requirements. The same provision of the 

CAA also requires that the contingency 

measures must be fully adopted control 

measures or rules. Upon failure to meet 

and RFP milestone requirement, the 

state must be able to implement the 

contingency measures without any 

further rulemaking activities. Upon 

implementation of these measures, 

additional emission reductions of at 

least 3 percent of the adjusted 2002 

baseline must be achieved. For more 

information on contingency measures, 

see the April 16, 1992 General Preamble 

(57 FR 13498, at 13512) and the 

November 29, 2005 Phase 2 8-hour 

ozone implementation rule (70 FR 

71612). 

To meet the requirements for 

contingency emission reductions, the 

EPA interprets the CAA to allow for the 

use of early implementation of control 

measures as contingency measures. The 

EPA also interprets the CAA to allow for 

the substitution of NOX emission 

reductions for VOC emission reductions 

in the contingency plans (by any 

combination of NOX and VOC, as long 

as the 3 percent reduction is achieved 

and 0.50 percent of the total is 

attributable to VOCs as prescribed by 

Texas). 

The RFP contingency requirement 

may be met by including in the RFP 

plan a demonstration of 27 percent VOC 

and NOX RFP reductions. The 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
55034 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

3Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 632 

F.3d 584, at 596–597 (9th Cir. 2011), reprinted as 

amended on January 27, 2012. 

4Office of Transportation and Air Quality, EPA– 

420–B–12–053, August 2012. This guidance is 

available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/

stateresources/policy/general/420b12053.pdf. 

additional 12 percent above the 15 

percent requirement must be attributed 

to specific measures. Texas elected to 

use emission reductions in excess of 

those needed for RFP as the contingency 

measures for the HGB RFP SIP. Tables 

7–47 and 7–48 in the state’s submittal 

show how this is done. Table 7 below 

summarizes these calculations and 

results for the 2018 attainment year. 

Contingency measures for the 2008– 

2017 milestone years were calculated in 

a similar manner. 

TABLE 7—CONTINGENCY MEASURE DEMONSTRATION FOR THE 2018 ATTAINMENT YEAR

[Tons/Day] 

Description NOX VOC 

2018 ABY Emission Inventory ......................................................................................................................... 1003.92 935.59 

Percent for contingency calculation (total of 3%) ............................................................................................ 2.50 0.50 

3% needed for contingency (2018–2019) ....................................................................................................... 25.10 4.68 

Control reductions to meet contingency requirements .................................................................................... ............................ ............................

Surplus reductions from 2018 RFP demonstration ......................................................................................... 33.04 5.88 

Subtract 2018 RFP MVEB safety margin from surplus reductions from 2018 RFP demonstration ............... ¥11.00 ¥5.18 

State and federal control measures (see TSD) .............................................................................................. 33.00 10.83 

Total contingency reductions ........................................................................................................................... 55.04 11.53 

Contingency excess (+) or shortfall (¥) .......................................................................................................... +29.95 +6.85 

Contingency met? ............................................................................................................................................ Yes Yes 

To determine if Texas meets the 3 

percent contingency measure 

requirement for the HGB nonattainment 

area, the total projected controlled 

emissions (including growth, but 

excluding reductions from the noncreditable pre-1990 FMVCP) must be 

compared to the contingency measure 

target levels calculated above. Texas has 

sufficient early contingency measures in 

place to meet the contingency measure 

requirement for the HGB nonattainment 

area for purposes of demonstrating RFP 

in the attainment year and in the 

milestone years. 

F. Vehicle Miles Traveled Offset 

Analysis 

1. What is a VMT offset analysis? 

Section 182(d)(1)(A) of the Act directs 

states containing ozone nonattainment 

areas classified as severe, pursuant to 

section 181(a) of the Act, to adopt 

specific enforceable transportation 

control strategies (TCSs) and 

transportation control measures (TCMs) 

to offset increases in emissions resulting 

from growth in vehicle miles traveled 

(VMT) or numbers of vehicle trips and 

to obtain reductions in motor vehicle 

emissions as necessary (in combination 

with other emission reduction 

requirements) to comply with the Act’s 

RFP milestones (sections 182(b)(1) and 

(c)(2)(B)) and attainment demonstration 

requirements (section 182(c)(2)(A)). 

Section 182(d)(1)(A) of the Act directs 

states to submit the VMT Offset SIP by 

November 15, 1992, for any severe and 

above ozone nonattainment area. Texas 

has one severe 1997 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area, the HGB area, with 

an attainment deadline of 2018. 

The EPA originally interpreted 

section 182(d)(1)(A) in the April 16, 

1992, General Preamble to Title I of the 

Act (57 FR 13498, 13521–13523). In that 

interpretation, EPA allowed areas to 

meet the requirement by using the 

aggregate motor vehicle emissions from 

a prior year as the appropriate baseline 

against which to measure the change in 

emissions to determine whether VMT 

offsets are required. In other words, a 

plan was approvable if it showed 

decreases in aggregate year-over-year 

motor vehicle emissions from a base 

year through the applicable attainment 

year. EPA applied this interpretation in 

approving numerous states’ VMT offset 

demonstrations, including our 2001 

approval of the HGB area’s first VMT 

offset demonstration. Although a 

commenter objected to this 

interpretation in our 2001 approval, it 

did not challenge it in court. However, 

EPA’s historical interpretation of section 

182(d)(1)(A), as applied to California’s 

2003 South Coast 1-Hour Ozone SIP, 

was finally challenged in the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. In 2011, 

that court rejected EPA’s interpretation, 

stating that section 182(d)(1)(A) requires 

VMT offsets if there is ‘‘any increase in 

the level of emissions solely from VMTs 

(italics added).’’ 3 The court explained 

that EPA incorrectly interpreted the 

phrase ‘‘growth in emissions’’ as 

meaning a growth in ‘‘aggregate motor 

vehicle emissions’’ versus a growth 

solely from VMT. As a result, the court 

held that EPA should have required the 

State to implement TCMs to offset 

growth in emissions from growth in 

VMT. However, the Court 

acknowledged that ‘‘clean car 

technology’’ advances could result in 

there being no increase in emissions 

even in the face of VMT growth, which 

would then allow VMT to increase 

without triggering the requirement to 

adopt offsetting TCMs. In response to 

the court’s decision, EPA provided new 

guidance for states with severe or above 

areas. The guidance, Implementing 

Clean Air Act Section 182(d)(1)(A): 

Transportation Control Measures and 

Transportation Control Strategies To 

Offset Growth in Emissions Due to 

Growth in Vehicle Miles Travelled,4

recommends that both TCSs and TCMs 

should be included in calculations for 

the purpose of determining the degree to 

which any hypothetical growth in 

emissions due to growth in VMT should 

be offset. 

The approved HGB 1-hour ozone 

attainment demonstration (November 

14, 2001, 66 FR 57160) relies on the 

EPA approval of a VMT Offset analysis 

dated November 14, 2001 (66 FR 57247). 

On May 6, 2013, the State submitted an 

analysis based on the new EPA 

guidance, which demonstrates how the 

HGB area meets the VMT Offset 

requirement of CAA 182(d)(1)(A). This 

was done in concert with the revised 

emission inventory, the RFP, and the 

MVEBs for 2018. 

2. How is the VMT offset requirement 

satisfied? 

The August 2012 guidance cited 

above explains how States may 

demonstrate that the VMT offset 

requirement is satisfied. States are 

recommended to estimate emissions for 

two different years: The nonattainment 

area’s base year and three different 

scenarios for the attainment year. One 

emission inventory is developed for the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 55035 

5Approval of the VMT Offset Plan requires 

approval of all the TCSs and TCMs that Texas relies 

on in the actual scenario. EPA has previously 

approved all such TCSs and TCMs. November 14, 

2001, 66 FR 57195, 66 FR 57196, and 66 FR 57 261. 

base year and three different inventory 

scenarios are developed for the 

attainment year. For the attainment year 

the state would present three emissions 

estimates, two of which would represent 

hypothetical emissions scenarios that 

would provide the basis to identify the 

‘‘growth in emissions’’ due solely to 

growth in VMT, and one that would 

represent projected actual motor vehicle 

emissions after fully accounting for 

projected VMT growth and offsetting 

emissions reductions obtained by all 

creditable TCMs and TCSs. See the 

guidance for specific details on how 

states might conduct the calculations. 

To properly construct these inventories, 

a special version of MOVES2010 was 

provided to the State, 

MOVES2010bROP, which was designed 

by EPA to be used exclusively for VMT 

Offset demonstrations. 

MOVES2010bROP is identical to the 

original April 2012 release of 

MOVES2010b except that it allows users 

to set a base year other than 1990 for the 

purposes of the VMT offset calculation. 

The base year (2002) on-road VOC 

emissions should be based on VMT in 

that year and it should reflect all 

enforceable TCSs and TCMs in place in 

the base year. This would include the 

vehicle emissions standards, State and 

local control programs such as 

inspection and maintenance programs 

or fuel rules, and any additional 

implemented TCSs and TCMs that were 

already required by or credited in the 

SIP as of that base year. 

The first of the attainment year 

emissions calculations for the 

attainment year (2018) would be based 

on the projected VMT for that year, and 

assume that no new TCSs or TCMs 

beyond those already credited in the 

base year inventory have been put in 

place since the base year. This 

calculation demonstrates how emissions 

would hypothetically change if no new 

TCSs or TCMs were implemented, and 

VMT was allowed to grow at the 

projected rate from the base year. This 

estimate would show the potential for 

an increase in emissions due solely to 

growth in VMT. This represents a no– 

action-taken scenario. Emissions in the 

attainment year may be lower than those 

in the base year due to the fleet that was 

on the road in the base year gradually 

being replaced through fleet turnover, 

but they would still be higher than they 

would have been assuming VMT had 

held constant. 

The second of the attainment year’s 

emissions calculations for the 

attainment year would also assume that 

no new TCSs or TCMs beyond those 

already credited were added or 

implemented after the base year and 

would also assume that there was no 

growth in VMT between the base year 

and attainment year. This estimate 

would reflect the hypothetical 

emissions level that would have 

occurred had no further TCMs or TCSs 

been adopted or implemented and had 

VMT levels held constant. Like the first 

estimate, emissions in the attainment 

year may be lower than those in the base 

year due to the fleet that was on the 

road in the base year gradually being 

replaced through fleet turnover, but in 

this case they would not be influenced 

by any growth in VMT. This emissions 

estimate would reflect a ceiling on the 

emissions that should be allowed to 

occur under the statute as interpreted by 

the Court in the attainment year because 

it shows what would happen under a 

scenario in which no new TCSs or 

TCMs are put in place and VMT is 

‘‘held constant’’ during the period from 

the area’s base year to its attainment 

year. This represents a VMT ceiling 

scenario. This hypothetical status quo is 

a necessary step in identifying the target 

level of emissions from which states 

would determine whether further TCMs 

or TCSs would need to be adopted and 

implemented in order to offset ‘‘any 

increase in emissions due solely to 

VMT’’ as shown by the first calculation. 

The comparison of these first two 

calculations would thus identify 

whether there is a hypothetical growth 

in emissions from growth in VMT that 

would need to be offset. 

Finally, the state would present the 

emissions that are actually expected to 

occur in the area’s attainment year, 

giving credit to all enforceable postbaseline-year added and credited TCSs 

and TCMs that have actually been 

adopted. This estimate would be based 

on the VMT that is expected to occur in 

the attainment year (i.e., the VMT level 

from the first estimate) and all of the 

TCSs and TCMs that are in reality 

expected to be in place and for which 

the SIP will take credit in the area’s 

attainment year, including any TCMs 

and TCSs adopted and credited since 

the baseline year. This represents the 

Attainment Year scenario (or the 

‘‘actual’’ scenario). If this emissions 

estimate is less than or equal to the 

emissions ceiling that was established 

in the second of the attainment year 

calculations, the credited TCSs or TCMs 

for the attainment year would be 

sufficient to already offset the 

hypothetical growth in emissions 

represented by comparing the first two 

calculations. If, instead, the estimated 

attainment year emissions are greater 

than the ceiling which was established 

in the second of the emissions 

attainment year calculations, the state 

would need to implement additional 

TCSs or TCMs to further offset the 

growth in emissions and bring the 

actual emissions down to at least the 

‘‘had VMT held constant’’ ceiling 

estimated in the second of the 

attainment year calculations. 

3. What does Texas’ demonstration 

show? 

The May 6, 2013 VMT analysis 

provides a 2002 base year inventory 

based on VMT in that year and includes 

all enforceable TCSs and TCMs in place 

in that base year of 2002. It also 

provides the three different scenarios for 

the attainment year inventories 

including the No-Action scenario, the 

VMT Offset Ceiling scenario, and the 

2018 Attainment Year (actual) scenario, 

as described above. These were 

prepared using MOVES2010bROP, as 

provided by EPA specifically for the 

VMT offset analysis. In addition, for the 

actual scenario, the State clearly 

identified all enforceable post-base year 

TCMs and TCSs, relied upon in the 

attainment demonstration SIP submittal. 

These include, among other things, the 

vehicle inspection and maintenance, 

federal on-road and non-road emission 

control programs, and state and federal 

clean fuel programs.5 A comparison of 

the 2018 attainment year inventory with 

the VMT Offset Ceiling scenario’s 

results (step 3 in the guidance) shows 

that the emissions level calculated in 

step 4 is less than the emissions level 

calculated in step 3. See Table 8 below 

and Table 7–45 in the May 6, 2013 

submittal. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
55036 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 8—VMT OFFSET INVENTORY SCENARIOS AND RESULTS

VMT Offset scenario Description VMT Year Control year Fleet turnover 

year 

VOC 

Emissions 

Scenario 1 ......................................... Base Year ........................................ 2002 2002 2002 124.47 

Scenario 2 ......................................... No Action .......................................... 2018 2002 2018 87.32 

Scenario 3 ......................................... VMT Offset Ceiling ........................... 2002 2002 2018 58.15 

Scenario 4 ......................................... Attainment Year ............................... 2018 2018 2018 51.84 

In this case, any increased emissions 

due to solely increased VMT identified 

in the difference between the levels of 

the No Action and VMT Offset Ceiling 

scenarios have been adequately offset by 

TCSs and TCMs used to identify 

emissions levels in the Attainment Year 

scenario. That is, the credited TCSs or 

TCMs for the attainment year will be 

sufficient to offset the hypothetical 

growth in emissions represented by 

comparing the first two calculations. So, 

the VMT Offset requirement is met, and 

no additional offsetting TCSs or TCMs 

beyond those already identified are 

required. 

Therefore, we propose to approve the 

VMT Offset analysis for the HGB ozone 

nonattainment area. 

G. Transportation Conformity Budgets 

Transportation conformity is required 

by CAA section 176(c). The EPA’s 

conformity rule requires that 

transportation plans, programs and 

projects conform to state air quality 

implementation plans and establishes 

the criteria and procedure for 

determining whether they do or not. 

Conformity to a SIP means that 

transportation activities will not 

produce new air quality violations, 

worsen existing violations, or delay 

timely attainment of the NAAQS. The 

MVEB is the mechanism to determine if 

the future transportation plans conform 

to the SIP. A MVEB is the maximum 

amount of emissions allowed in the SIP 

for on-road motor vehicles. The MVEB 

establishes an emissions ceiling for the 

regional transportation network. States 

must establish VOC and NOX MVEBs for 

each of the milestone years up to the 

attainment year and submit the mobile 

budgets to the EPA for approval. Upon 

an adequacy determination or approval 

by the EPA, states must conduct 

transportation conformity analyses for 

their Transportation Improvement 

Programs and long range transportation 

plans to ensure highway vehicle 

emissions will not exceed relevant 

MVEBs. 

Texas discusses MVEBs in Chapter 7 

of the 2013 submittal and Chapter 5 in 

the 2010 submittal. The State worked 

with the Houston-Galveston Area 

Council to establish the budgets for 

2008 and beyond. The mobile emission 

inventory was calculated using EPA’s 

MOVES2010a mobile source emissions 

model. 

Table 9 shows the total projected 

transportation emissions for milestone 

years 2008–2018, as submitted in Tables 

7–43 through 7–47 of the 2013 SIP 

Submittal. 

TABLE 9—RFP MOTOR VEHICLE

EMISSIONS BUDGETS FOR HGB 

Year NOX

(Tons/Day) 

VOC 

(Tons/Day) 

2008 .......... 261.95 102.50 

2011 .......... 234.92 93.56 

2014 .......... 171.63 71.56 

2017 .......... 130.00 59.76 

2018 .......... 120.99 57.02 

For the budgets to be approvable, they 

must meet, at a minimum, EPA’s 

adequacy criteria (See 40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4)). The Notice of Adequacy 

Determination for these RFP MVEBs 

finding the revised 2010 RFP MVEBs 

(also termed transportation conformity 

budgets) adequate because they meet all 

of the criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) 

was signed by the Regional 

Administrator on July 19, 2013. In 

addition to the budgets being adequate 

for transportation conformity purposes, 

EPA found the procedures Texas used to 

develop the MVEBs to be reasonable. In 

this action we propose to approve the 

revised budgets submitted on May 6, 

2013. 

We are proposing to find that the 

MVEBs are fully consistent with RFP, 

and proposing to find that the RFP plan 

is fully approvable, as it sets the 

allowable on-road mobile emissions the 

HGB area can produce and use to 

continue to demonstrate RFP. These 

budgets are approvable because they 

conform to the emissions inventory 

projections provided for this RFP. 

Therefore, the 2013 budgets are 

proposed for approval. 

IV. Proposed Action 

The EPA’s review of the 2008–2018 

emission inventory, the RFP plan, the 

RFP contingency measures, the VMT 

Offset Plan, and the 2008–2018 

transportation conformity budgets 

contained in the April 1, 2010 and May 

6, 2013, submittals for the HGB 

nonattainment area fully address the 

CAA requirements, EPA’s regulations, 

and are consistent with EPA guidance. 

Therefore, the EPA is proposing 

approval of these specific elements of 

the HGB 8-hour ozone plan. The EPA is 

soliciting public comments on the 

issues discussed in this document. 

These comments will be considered 

before taking final action. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the CAA and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus in reviewing SIP 

submissions, the EPA’s role is to 

approve state choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the CAA. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, these proposed actions: 

• Are not ‘‘significant regulatory 

actions’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• are certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• do not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• are not economically significant 

regulatory actions based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 55037 

• are not a significant regulatory 

action subject to Executive Order 13211 

(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• are not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• do not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Ozone, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: August 28, 2013. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2013–21883 Filed 9–6–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2013–0387; FRL–9900–80– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Texas; 

Attainment Demonstration for the 

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 1997 8- 

Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submittals from the State of Texas for 

the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 1997 8- 

hour ozone nonattainment area (HGB 

area). EPA is proposing approval of the 

following SIP Clean Air Act required 

elements from Texas for the HGB area: 

The attainment demonstration for the 

1997 ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS), the 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM) demonstration for the NAAQS, 

the contingency measures plan in the 

event of failure to attain the NAAQS by 

the applicable attainment date, and a 

Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget 

(MVEB) for 2018, which is the 

attainment year for the area. EPA is also 

proposing to approve revisions to the air 

pollution control measures and General 

Air Quality Definitions in the Texas SIP. 

The revisions to the air pollution 

control measures include revisions to 

the Mass Emissions Cap and Trade 

(MECT) program for nitrogen oxides 

(NOX), revisions to the highly reactive 

volatile organic compound (HRVOC) 

emissions cap and trade (HECT) 

program, Voluntary Mobile Emissions 

Program (VMEP) measures, and 

Transportation Control Measures 

(TCMs). EPA is proposing these actions 

in accordance with section 110 and part 

D of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before October 9, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2013–0387, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions. 

• Email: r6air_hgbozone@epa.gov. 

Please also send a copy by email to the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section below. 

• Mail or delivery: Mr. Guy 

Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section 

(6PD–L), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–2013–0387. 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information through 

www.regulations.gov or email that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected. The www.regulations.gov 

Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ 

system, which means EPA will not 

know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send an 

email comment directly to EPA without 

going through www.regulations.gov your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. Contact the person listed 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT paragraph below to make an 

appointment. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl 

Young, Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

telephone (214) 665–6645, email 

young.carl@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. The 1997 Ozone NAAQS and the HGB 

Area 

B. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for 

Ozone Nonattainment SIPs 

C. State SIP Submittals 

II. EPA’s Evaluation 

A. Attainment Demonstration Modeling 

and Weight-of-Evidence 

1. Attainment Demonstration General 

2. Photochemical Grid Modeling 

3. Modeling Episodes 

4. Modeling Emissions Inventory 

5. Model Performance 

6. Future Year Modeling 

7. Results of 2018 Future Year Modeling 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS