[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 203 (Tuesday, October 21, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54598-54601]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27848]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[TX 57-1-7183: FRL-5911-6]


Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans (SIP) for 
Texas: Houston Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Offset Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rulemaking.

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

[[Page 54599]]

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to disapprove the SIP revision submitted 
by the State of Texas for the Houston/Galveston Area (HGA) severe ozone 
nonattainment area to meet the VMT offset plan requirements of section 
182 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (the Act). The EPA is proposing 
disapproval because the State's VMT Offset SIP uses modeling which 
relies upon an Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program that was 
halted. This action is being taken under sections 110 and 182 of the 
Act.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 20, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to Mr. 
Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section, at the EPA Region 6 
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: Ms. Sandra G. Rennie, Air Planning 
Section (6PD-L), EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-
2733, telephone (214) 665-7367.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 182(d)of the Act, requires ozone nonattainment areas 
classified as severe or above to develop plans for VMT offsets. Section 
182(d)(1)(A) requires the State to submit plans which will identify and 
adopt specific enforceable transportation control strategies and 
Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) to offset growth in vehicle 
emissions so that, as vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled 
increase, vehicle emissions stay below an established ceiling as 
projected out to the attainment date for the National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards for the nonattainment area requiring the VMT Offsets 
plan. The HGA is classified as a severe ozone nonattainment area with 
an attainment deadline of 2007. Reduction in vehicle emissions is to be 
attained as necessary, in combination with other emission reduction 
requirements to comply with periodic emissions reduction requirements. 
States were directed to consider, choose, and implement measures as 
specified in section 108(f). The VMT Offsets Plans were due to be 
submitted to EPA by November 15, 1992. The State submitted a 
``committal'' SIP to the EPA for VMT offsets for the HGA nonattainment 
area on November 15, 1992. This submittal committed to submitting 
subsequent SIPs in 1993 and 1994 to parallel the development of the 
Rate-of-Progress SIP revision due November 15, 1993 and the 
demonstration of attainment SIP revision due by November 1994.
    On November 12, 1993, and November 6, 1994, the State of Texas 
submitted a revision to the SIP for the VMT Offsets Plan to fulfill the 
``committal'' SIP requirement. The Plan was submitted using specific 
modeling for vehicle emissions based on, among other things, a vehicle 
inspection and maintenance test-only program with most vehicles 
receiving an I/M loaded mode transient emission test known as the 
``IM240.'' EPA approved the I/M program on August 22, 1994 (59 FR 
43046). This program began operation in January 1995, before being 
halted by the Texas Legislature and Governor.
    Various states, including Texas, desired greater flexibility in 
implementing their I/M programs. On September 18, 1995, EPA revised and 
finalized I/M rules that gave states much greater flexibility in 
implementing I/M programs. One element of the I/M flexibility 
amendments included a provision for a new low enhanced performance 
standard that would allow for less stringent I/M programs if overall 
air quality goals were met. In addition, on November 28, 1995, 
President Clinton signed the National Highway System Designation Act of 
1995 (NHSDA) which allowed even greater flexibility in I/M programs for 
states, especially in the area of emission reduction estimates.
    In response to this additional flexibility, the State of Texas 
submitted a revised I/M program to EPA. The EPA proposed conditional 
interim approval of this new plan on October 3, 1996 (61 FR 51651). As 
a result, the State of Texas has implemented a decentralized testing 
network which allows for both test-and-repair and test-only stations, 
and includes remote sensing. Vehicles are subject to a two-speed idle 
test, and an optional Acceleration Simulation Mode (ASM) loaded mode 
test. This program is referred to as the Texas Motorist Choice Program. 
Therefore, the modeling in the VMT Offset SIP is no longer current. The 
Plan's modeling does not reflect the Texas Motorist Choice I/M program; 
it reflects a program no longer in use. The EPA believes this is a 
significant deficiency which prohibits approval of the SIP under 
sections 110 and 182 of the Act.
    For further information regarding EPA's analysis of the State 
submittal, refer to the Technical Support Document for this action 
found in the official docket.

II. Evaluation of Houston VMT SIP

    While the current Texas Motorist Choice vehicle emission testing 
program appears to fulfill the requirements of the NHSDA, the Clean Air 
Act, and Federal I/M Rules, it presents a significant inconsistency 
within the VMT Offset SIP. This review compares the State's VMT Offset 
SIP submittal with the Act to determine compliance with requirements in 
the Act. The following narrative highlights the deficiency and 
rationale for disapproving this SIP revision.
    The EPA interprets 182(d)(1)(A) to require sufficient measures be 
adopted so that projected motor vehicle volatile organic compound 
emissions will stay beneath a ceiling level established through 
modeling of mandated transportation-related controls. When growth in 
VMT and vehicle trips would otherwise cause a motor vehicle emissions 
upturn, this upturn must be prevented by VMT offset measures. If 
projected total motor vehicle emissions during the ozone season in one 
year are not higher than during the ozone season the year before due to 
the control measures in the SIP, the VMT offset requirement is 
satisfied.
    In order to make these projections, two curves of vehicle emissions 
are calculated. The upper curve includes the effects of mandated 
controls such as reformulated gasoline, Reid Vapor Pressure control of 
gasoline, the employer trip reduction program, transportation control 
measures committed to in the 1993 TCM SIP, and an enhanced I/M program. 
The lower curve is produced by using an enhanced I/M program expanded 
into additional counties and other TCMs.
    The November 15, 1993, VMT Offset SIP revision included a 
projection of the mobile source emissions profile for the HGA 
nonattainment area through the year 2010. The profile included the 
effects of required reductions from the mandatory vehicle I/M program 
in Harris and Galveston Counties, Reid vapor pressure controls, 
reformulated gasoline, an employee trip reduction program, Stage II 
vapor recovery for refueling, and a clean fuel fleets program. An 
estimation of the lowest point in these emissions projections was 
established as a ceiling for mobile source emissions. The lower curve 
includes the expansion of the enhanced

[[Page 54600]]

I/M program into three additional counties in 1995 and another three 
counties in 1997.
    The November 6, 1994, submittal included a modification of the 
mobile source emissions projections and ceiling level to reflect 
updated information and methodology as well as TCMs and mobile source 
controls necessary to achieve VMT offset at least through the year 
2010.
    The final emissions estimates for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 
were obtained by multiplying the VMT times the vehicle emissions 
factor. Vehicle miles traveled data was generated from the Texas Travel 
Demand Package developed and maintained by the Texas Department of 
Transportation. Transit mode-choice estimates were performed by the 
Metropolitan Transit Authority using their mode choice models. Mobile 
source emission factors were obtained using the MOBILE5a model approved 
by EPA. Results of the updated modeling demonstration are found in 
Appendix B of the 1994 SIP submittal. The MOBILE5a model estimated 
emissions based on a number of input parameters. Among these were I/M 
program type and test type. The estimates were obtained using a test 
only I/M program type with either a loaded/idle test or a transient 
test. The geographic coverage of the I/M program in the Houston area 
was assumed to cover eight counties to include the commuting areas 
surrounding Harris County.
    In the Texas Motorist Choice I/M Program, adopted by the State and 
in operation, not only has the program type changed to primarily a 
test-and-repair format, but the majority of the test stations offer 
only the loaded/idle test. In addition, the geographic area for 
mandatory testing has been reduced to just Harris County, with remote 
testing proposed, but not yet implemented, to monitor traffic coming 
into Harris County from the surrounding counties. With these major 
changes in mobile source emission parameters, the modeling may project 
different estimates of mobile source emissions, thereby impacting the 
emission levels projected to demonstrate the VMT Offset SIP 
requirements of the Act. The submitted SIP does not reflect any of the 
changes discussed above.
    Employee Trip Reduction (ETR) programs are no longer required under 
the Act. Texas has dropped its ETR program and requested a withdrawal 
of the ETR program from the SIP. However, ETR credits were used in 
modeling VMT offsets. The ETR credits can no longer be used in VMT 
modeling, further emphasizing the need to revise the SIP submittal.
    In summary, the HGA VMT SIP submittal is based on out-of-date 
modeling and must be revised. Motor vehicle emission reductions claimed 
for the vehicle I/M program will have changed since the SIP revision 
was submitted in 1993 and 1994. Elimination of the ETR program by the 
State eliminates the use of ETR emission reductions in the VMT SIP 
modeling demonstration. Based on the above analysis, EPA cannot approve 
the HGA VMT SIP.

III. Proposed Action

    The EPA proposes to disapprove the HGA VMT Offset SIP under 
sections 110(k) and 182 of the Act because one or more of the elements 
of the VMT SIP submitted on November 12, 1993, and August 16, 1994, are 
incorrect. The VMT SIP submittal represents vehicle emission credits at 
one level based on modeling using a test-only I/M loaded mode transient 
emission test (IM240). That particular program was halted after a few 
weeks of operation. The State has since chosen to implement a different 
program, the Texas Motorist Choice Program, which is a test and repair 
program with a two-speed idle test or ASM loaded mode test, in a 
reduced geographic area, plus remote sensing to cover the outlying 
commuter areas. It is EPA's position that the emission reduction 
credits for the Texas Motorist Choice Program will be significantly 
different than those for an IM240 test only program. Consequently, the 
projected motor vehicle emissions in the August 16, 1994, VMT Offset 
SIP submittal are incorrect. They are based on an I/M program that is 
not in existence. They also do not reflect the projections of the new 
program.
    In addition, due to the elimination of the ETR program, the 
modeling is based on incorrect information. Therefore, the emission 
reductions projected could not be reflecting the trends of VMT in the 
Houston area.
    The State recently approved and submitted a revision to the HGA VMT 
offset SIP to correct concerns raised in this notice. We expect to 
review and take appropriate action on the latest revision rather than 
finalize this disapproval.
    Under section 179(a)(2), if the EPA Administrator takes final 
disapproval action on a submission under section 110(k) for an area 
designated nonattainment based on the submission's failure to meet one 
or more of the elements required by the Act, and the deficiency is not 
corrected within 18 months of the effective date of the final 
disapproval action, the Administrator must apply one of the sanctions 
set forth in section 179(b) of the Act. Section 179(b) provides two 
sanctions available to the Administrator: revocation of highway funding 
and the imposition of emission offset requirements. If the 
administrator imposes the first sanction and the deficiency is not 
corrected within six months, the second sanction shall apply. The 
sanctions shall apply until the administrator determines that the State 
has come into compliance. This sanctions process is set forth in 40 CFR 
52.31. Today's action serves only to propose disapproval of the State's 
revision, and does not constitute final agency action. Thus, the 
sanctions process described above does not commence with today's 
action. The 18 month period for the State to correct the deficiency 
would begin upon the effective date of a final disapproval action.
    Nothing in today's action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be 
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and 
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and 
regulatory requirements.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory 
action from Executive Order 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA 
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of 
any proposed or final rule on small entities. See 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, 
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than 
50,000.
    The EPA's proposed disapproval of the State request under sections 
110 and 301, and subchapter I, part D of the Act does not affect any 
existing requirements applicable to small entities. Any preexisting 
Federal requirements remain in place after this proposed disapproval. 
Federal disapproval of the State submittal does not affect its State-
enforceability. Moreover, the EPA's disapproval of the submittal does 
not impose any new Federal requirements. Therefore, the EPA certifies 
that this proposed

[[Page 54601]]

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 impose any new Federal requirements.

C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    Under section 801(a)(1)(A) of the Administrative Procedures Act 
(APA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. House of Representatives and the 
Comptroller General of the General Accounting Office prior to 
publication of the rule in today's Federal Register. This rule is not a 
``major rule'' as defined by section 804(2) of the APA as amended.

D. Unfunded Mandates Act

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandate 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 aggregate; or to the 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 proposed disapproval action 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 does not 
impose new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, 
local, or tribal governments, or private sector, result from this 
action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: October 8, 1997.
Jerry Clifford,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-27848 Filed 10-20-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P