1 0 7 / 01 / 1 3

EMISSIONS INVENTORY AND REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS PLAN FOR

THE HOUSTON

- GALVESTON

- BRAZORIA OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA

1997 EIGHT

- HOUR SIP REVISION

This document provides a technical review of two revision s to the Houston

- Galveston

Brazoria ( HGB ) State Implementation Plan (SIP) that address emissions inventory and “severe” area reasonable further progress (RFP) requirements for the 1997 8

- hour ozone national ambient air quality standard. The first was adopted on March 10, 2010 and submitted to EPA by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) on April 1, 2010. The second was adopted on April 23, 2013 , and submitted on May 6, 2013

. Both SIP revision s also establish motor vehicle emissions budget s (MVEB s ) for each milestone year

. This TSD will focus on the emissions inventory and RFP requirements as they relate to the attainment plan for the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard , as well as the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) o ffset demonstration

.

A. General Requirements

Section 182 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s)

1997 8

- hour ozone regulations (40 CFR 51.910) require each moderate and above 8

- hour ozone nonattainment area to submit an emissions inventory and RFP SIP revision that describes how

the area will achieve actual emissions reductions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) from a baseline emissions inventory. An emissions inventory is an estimation of actual emissions of air pollutants in an area. The emissions invent ory for an ozone nonattainment area contains VOC and NOx emissions, which are precursors to ozone formation. In this case, a “baseline” emissions inventory is required for the year 2002.

Phase 1 of the 8

- hour ozone implementation rule, published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951), set out criteria for classifying nonattainment areas under the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard. The

Phase 1 rule also addressed revocation of the 1

- hour NAAQS; how anti

- backsliding principles will ensure continued progress toward attainm ent of the 8

- hour ozone NAAQS; attainment dates; and the timing of emissions reductions needed for attainment. On November 29, 2005, EPA published the Phase 2 final rule for implementation of the 8

- hour standard. 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 (70 FR 71612). The Phase 2 final rule was revised on June 8, 2007 (72 FR 31727). Among other things, the Phase 1 and 2 rules outline the SIP requireme nts and deadlines for various requirements in areas designated as moderate

nonattainment and above . The rules set a due date of June 15, 2007 for the required base year

emission s inventory, RFP plan, modeling and attainment demonstration, MVEB, and conting ency measures (40 CFR 51.908(a), (c)).

Section 182(b)(l) 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 for review and approval into its SIP a n emissions inventory and RFP plan that describes

how the area will achieve actual emissions reductions of VOC and NOx from a baseline2 emissions inventory. For a moderate 8

- hour ozone nonattainment area with an attainment date more than 5 years after desig nation, a 15 percent RFP reduction in ozone precursor emissions is required within 6 years (2002

- 2008). For a moderate area with an approved 15 percent rate

- of progress (ROP) plan under the 1

- hour standard, states can use reductions from VOC or NOx or a

co mbination of either. For a moderate area without an approved ROP plan, a 15% reduction in VOC is required. The reductions may come from anywhere within the 8

- hour nonattainment area. Table 1 outlines these requirements.

Table 1. RFP Requirements for Moder ate 8

- Hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas with Attainment Dates More than 5 Years after Designation

Area Requirement 40 CFR Reference

With approved 15% VOC ROP plan 15% VOC and/or NOx reductions (2002

— 2008) 51.910(a)(1)(iii)(B)(2) & 51.910(b)(2)(b)(ii) Without approved15% VOC ROP plan 15% VOC reductions (2002

- 2008) The reductions may come from anywhere within the 8

- hour

nonattainment area. 51.910(a)(l)(iii)(B)(1)

For an area classified as severe, which the Houston

- Galveston

- Brazoria (HGB) area is, additional reductions must be achieved according to the following schedule:

• 9% from 2009 through 2011; • 9% from 2012 through 2014; • 9% from 2015 through 2017; and • 3% in 2018 (the attainment year). This is 3% per year for each time period.

In add ition, RFP plans must include contingency measures, which are additional controls that would be implemented if the area fails to make reasonable further progress ( See CAA section 172(c)(9)). Implementation of these measures would provide additional emissio ns reductions of up to three percent of the adjusted base year inventory (or a lesser percentage that will make up the identified shortfall). For more information on contingency measures

, please see the April 16, 1992 General Preamble (57 FR 13498

, 13510) and the November 29, 2005 Phase 2 8

- hour ozone standard implementation rule (70 FR 71612

, 71650). RFP plans must also include MVEB s
, which are the allowable on

- road mobile emissions an area can produce and continue to

demonstrate RFP . EPA’s regul ations concerning MVEBs may be found at 40 CFR Part 93

.

B. HGB Background In 1997, EPA revised the health

- based NAAQS for ozone, setting it at 0.08 parts per million (ppm) averaged over an 8

- hour time frame. EPA set the 8

- hour ozone standard based on

scie ntific evidence demonstrating that ozone causes adverse health effects at lower ozone concentrations and over longer periods of time, than was understood when the pre

- existing

1

- hour ozone standard was set. 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.3 On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951), 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 nonattainment areas wa s the Houston

Galveston

- Brazoria (HGB) moderate nonattainment area (NAA). This NAA includes the

c ounties of Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery, and

Waller . These counties were also classified as a severe nonattainment area under the 1

- hour ozone standard (November 6, 1991, 56 FR 56694). EPA approved a 15% VOC Rate of Progre ss plan under the 1

- hour standard on May 22, 1997 (62 FR 27964)

. Pursuant to Phase 1 of the 8

- hour ozone implementation rule, an area i s 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 abo ve 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1

- hour design value in Table 1 of Subpart 2). Based on this criterion, the HGB NAA was classified under Subpart 2 as a moderate nonattainment area for the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard

.

Table 2 identifies the 1

- hour ozone standard e missions inventory and rate of progress (ROP) SIPs approved by EPA for the HGB area. ROP refers to reasonable further progress for the 1

- hour ozone standard.

Table 2. HGB 1

- hour Ozone Standard Emissions Inventory and Rate of Progress SIPs Approved by EPA

SIP Federal Register Emissions Inventory 2/14/2005, 70 FR 7407

15% VOC ROP Plan 11/14/2001, 66 FR 57195

Post 1996 ROP Plan 2/14/2005, 70 FR 7407

On May 23, 2007 the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) adopted as a SIP revision the RFP plan for the HGB 8

- hour ozone nonattainment area. The RFP plan was submitted to EPA on May 30, 2007. The plan documents required reductions in NOx emiss ions

, and includes a 2002 baseline emissions inventory and a MVEB for 2008. EPA approved this RFP Plan, Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets, and Revised 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory on April 22, 2009 (74 FR 18298)

.

On June 15, 2007, EPA received a reque st from Texas Governor Rick Perry seeking voluntary reclassification of the HGB area. The Governor requested that EPA reclassify the HGB area

from a moderate nonattainment area to a severe nonattainment area under the 1997 8

- hour ozone

standard. Reclassi fication of the area to severe require d Texas to develop and submit a revised

RFP SIP. The EPA reclassified the eight

- county HGB area from a moderate to a severe nonattainment area for the 1997 eight

- hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) effective on October 31, 2008. (73 FR 56983).

Required severe area RFP reductions are an average of 3 percent per year of VOC and/or NOx for: (1) the 6

- year period following the baseline emissions inventory year (2002) and (2) all4 remaining 3

- year peri ods after the first 6

- year period out to the area's attainment date (40 CFR 51.910(a)(1)(B)). A severe area RFP plan was due to EPA by April 15, 2010. This RFP SIP revision was submitted to EPA on April 1 , 2010.

Less than one month before (March 2, 2010) Texas submitted the April 1, 2010 submittal, EPA

released a new mobile source emissions estimate model that better reflects real

- world emissions

from on

- road vehicles. This model replaced the MOBILE 6.2 model that was used to create the Ap ril 2010 motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) that are the basis for the RFP

demonstration submitted in April 2010 . Because states must begin demonstrating transportation conformity using MOVES by March 2, 2013, Texas updated its MVEBs using MOVES 2010a in preparation for the 2013 transportation conformity requirement. Because this update involves a SIP revision, the state also has updated and replaced portions of the 2010 RFP demonstration to correspond to the new MVEB s based on the MOVES 2010a model

. T his revision was submitted

on May 6, 2013

.

C. E PA Review and Analysis

EPA reviewed the Texas submittal for consistency with the requirements of EPA regulations. The following is a summary of the analysis based on the information provided by

Texas.

1. Base Year Emissions Inventory An emissions inventory is a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions from all sources. The Base Year Inventory is the starting point for calculating the reductions necessary to meet the requirements of the CAA. The emissions inventory 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 of ozone. EPA recommended

2002 as the bas e year emissions inventory, and it is therefore the starting point for calculating

RFP. On May 13, 2005, Texas submitted the 2002 base year inventory to EPA as part of a SIP

revision for the HGB 8

- hour ozone non

- attainment area. It was approved by EPA on April 22,

2009 (74 FR 18298).

The inventory includes all area, point, non

- road mobile, and on

- road mobile source emissions in the HGB ozone nonattainment area. The inventory also includes a description of the methods

used to estimate emissions:

Point So urce Emissions : Industrial sources are required to submit emissions data to TCEQ annually. TCEQ stores the data in the STARS database. Inventory data for 2002 was obtained from STARS in 2006, and point source emissions were calculated using TCEQ and EPA

gu idance documents. A more detailed description of point source emissions estimation can be found in chapter 2 and Appendix 2 of the state submittal.

Area Source Emissions : TCEQ developed the area source emission inventory in 2003. Since then, TCEQ updat ed the inventory by using improved methods and improved emission factors to5 estimate emissions from several area source categories, such as industrial and residential fuel usage, gasoline stations, oil and gas production, and industrial coatings. Texas ha s performed studies and conducted surveys in order to obtain more accurate data and revise the inventory accordingly. These studies are described in chapter 2, section 2.3 of the submittal. We have reviewed these approaches and have determined that they follow EPA guidance

On

- road Emissions : TCEQ updated the on

- road mobile emissions in the May 6, 2013 submittal using the new MO VES2010a model

. MOVES2010a is an emission factor model predicting gram per mile emissions of hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon dioxide (CO 2) , particulate matter (PM), and toxics from cars, trucks, and motorcycles under various conditions. EPA reviewed the on road emission estimates approach and methodology and determined that they follow EPA gu idance . A detailed description of on road emission estimates is found in chapter 7 of the TCEQ May 6, 2013 submittal.

Non

- road Emissions Inventory : TCEQ updated the HGB non

- road emissions by using data obtained from studies and surveys of industrial and construction equipment. The EDMS aircraft model was used to produce aircraft emission data, and locomotive emissions were updated using survey results of engine activities. Using this area

- specific information and the latest version of

the NONROAD model has resulted in a substantial improvement in the inventory over estimates based on EPA’s default values. We find the approach and methodology used by TCEQ follows EPA guidance . A full description of the approach is detailed in section 2.4 of the state’s

submittal.

In the 2010 RFP SIP submittal , Texas updated the 2002 emissions inventory for point,

area, on

- road mobile and non

- road mobile sources. In the 2013 SIP revision Texas further updated the on

- road mobile source inventory using the EPA’s Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES 2010a ) on

- road emissions calculation model in lieu of the older EPA MOBILE 6 model.

Table 3 compares the previously approved base year emissions inventory with the updated base

year inventory adopted by Texas in 2013

.

Tab le 3 : Revisions to the 2002 RFP Base Year Emissions Inventory (tons/day)

Source Type NOx VOC

Old New Old New

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

830.57 957.27 743.30 933.026 Total

We find we can approve the updated 2002 base year emissions inventory.

2. Adjusted Base Year Inventory , Required Reductions and 2018 Target Level

Emissions

The process for determining the emissions baseline from which the RFP reductions are calculated is described in section 182(b)(l) of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.910. This baseline value has been determined to be the 2002 adjusted base year inventory. Sections 18 2(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 promulgate d June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23666). The FMVCP and RVP emissions reductions are determined by the state using the new EPA on

- road

mobile sour ce emissions modeling software MOVES2010a . The FMVCP and RVP emission reductions are then removed from the base year inve ntory 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. These reductions are then subtracted from the adjusted base year inve ntory to establish the emissions target for the RFP milestone year (201 8).

For severe areas like the HGB NAA, the CAA specifies a 15 percent reduction in ozone precursor emissions over an initial 6

- year period , plus 9% for each milestone year, and 3% for each year past the milestone year . In the Phase 2 Implementation Rule (70 FR 71612), EPA interpreted this requirement for areas that were also designated nonattainment and classified as moderate or higher for the 1

- hour ozone standard. In the Phase 2 Rule, EPA provided that an area classified as moderate or higher that has the same boundaries as an area, or is entirely composed of several areas or portions of areas, for which EPA fully approved a 15 percent plan

for the 1

- hour NAAQS, is considered to have m et the requirements 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 section 172( c )(2) of the CAA and shall submit, no later than 3 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 (either NOx and/or VOC) accounting for any growth that occurs during the 6

- year period following the baseline emissions

i nventory year, that is, 2002

- 2008 , plus 3% per year as described above out to the attainment

year

.

The HGB ozone nonattainment area under the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard has the same boundary as the HGB NAA under the prior 1

- hour ozone standard. Under the 1

- hour ozone standard, the HGB nonattainment area was classified as severe

. EPA fully approved Texas’s 15% plan for the HGB 1

- hour severe ozone NAA (66 FR 57105) on November 14, 2001

. The Post 1996 ROP Plan was approved by EPA on 2/14/2005 (70 FR 7407). T herefore, according to the Phase 2 Rule, the RFP plan for the HGB 8

- hour ozone NAA may use either NOx or VOC emissions reductions (or both) to achieve the required 15 percent emission reduction.7 According to section 182(b)(1)(D) of the CAA, emission reduc tions 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 must be adjusted by subtracting the VOC and NOx emission reductions that are expect ed to occur between 2002 and the future milestone years due to the FMVCP and RVP rules. The adjustments are calculated in the following

manner: A) Estimate the actual anthropogenic base year inventory fo r both VOC and NOx in 2002

with all 2002 control program s in place.

B) 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 turne d 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.

C) Calculate the difference between 2002 and 2008 VOC emissions factors calculated in Step B and multiply by 2002 VMT. The result is the VOC emissions reductions that will

occur between 2002 and 200 8 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 B and multiply by 2002 VMT. This result i s 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.

D) Subtract the non

- creditable VOC reductions calculated in Step C from the actual anthropogenic 2002 VOC inventory estimated in Step A. Subtract the non

- creditable

NOx reductions calculated in Step C from the actual anthropogenic 2002 NOx inventory

estimated in Step A. These adjusted VOC and NOx inventories are th e basis for calculating the target level of emissions in 2008.

E) The target level of VOC and NOx emissions in 2008 needed to meet the 2008 ROP requirement is any combination of VOC and NOx reductions from the adjusted

inventories calculated in Step D th at total 18 percent. For example, the target level of

VOC emissions in 2008 could be a 10 percent reduction from the adjusted.

Texas set forth its updated calculations for the adjusted base year inventory and 20 1 8 RFP target

levels in Chapter 7, section 7.2.5.3, of the 2013 submittal , Updated 2002 Adjusted Base Year

Inventories for the Base and Milestone Years. The following demonstrates the steps A

- E listed

above for the HGB NAA.8 A) The HGB NAA 2002 a nthropogenic base year inventories for VOC and NOx are found in

Table 2

- 13 through Table 2

- 16 in Chapter 2.7 of the 2010 RFP Plan and Table 7

- 3 of the 2013 RFP update . Biogenic emissions are not included in the inventories used to

demonstrate RFP. The updated 2002 base year emissions are summarized in T abl e 4

below

.

Table 4 . RFP 2002 Base Year Emission s Inventory Summary

RFP 2002 Baseline Emissions Inventory Summary

Source

Type NOx VOC NOx VOC

Uncontrolled Controlled

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 10 0

. 15 156.98 84.32

Total 1147.68 1030.14 957.27 933.02

B & C) Texas calculated the non

- creditable emission reductions between 2002 and 2008 by modeling its 2002 and 201 8 motor vehicle emissions with all post

- 1990 CAA measures “switched off’, and calculating the difference. See summary Tables 7

- 4 and 7

- 5 of the 2013 RFP update plan. The non

- creditable reductions are calculated in Table 5 , below.

Table 5 . Houston

- Galveston

- Brazoria NAA N on

- Creditable Emission Reductions from 2002

- 2008 (Ozone Season tpd) Source Category VOC NOx (i) 2002 On

- Road (Adjusted) 205.76 552.30
(ii) 2008 On

- Road (Adjusted) 205.89 578.29

Non

- creditable Reductions (i)

- (ii) - 0.13

- 25.99

D & E) Texas’s calculation of its portion of the HGB NAA 2002 VOC and NOx inventories adjusted relative to 2008 and VOC and NOx target levels for 2008 are found in Table 7

- 17 of the

2013 RFP update plan, and are summarized in Table 6 , below.9 Table 6

. HGB NAA 2 008 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 FMVCP/RVP Reductions Between 2002

And 2008 - 25.99

- .013

C 2002 Adjusted Bas e Year Inventory

Relative To 20 0 8 A

- B 983.26 933.15

D RFP Ratio 17% 1%

E Emissions Reductions Required Between

2002 & 2008 C * D 167.15 9.3 3

F Target Level for 20 0 8 C

- E 816.10 923.82

We agree with the adjusted base year inventory set forth in the submittal

.

3. Control Measures

The control measures that achieved the necessary emission reductions to meet the RFP requirements are discussed in chapter 4 of the March 10, 2010 submittal and again in Chapter 7 of the 2013 submittal at 7.4 Control Measures to Achieve Target Levels. T he mass emissions cap and trade program (MECT) at such sources as utility boilers, turbines, duct burners, heaters and furnaces, IC engines, and industrial bu rners provides large reductions in the 2002

- 2008 time period

. After that the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) continues to provide the most emission reductions through the 2018 attainment year. Non

- road emission reductions

are from Federal c ontrols on non

- road engines. The mobile non

- road emission red uctions were estimated using the NONROAD 2005 model, with customized data files to reflect emissions generated by non

- road mobile equipment in Texas. Emissions from locomotives, aircraft and

su pport equipment, and commercial marine vessels were calculated outside of the NONROAD 5 model using EPA approved methodologies. EPA agrees with Texas’ projected emissions and

emission reductions for these three non

- road mobile sources. Reduction s in on

- r oad mob i le

source emissions c o me from the inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, summer reformulated gasoline, the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP), and the Texas low emission diesel program. A description of the control measures and a sum mary of the emission

reductions are listed in table 4

. EPA agrees with the emission reduction projected from these

rules

. The s tate rules relied on in this plan were previously approved at various times and listed

in T able 7

. Other than the Tank Landing Loss Rule, the other three rules have been revised and approved as revised by EPA since the initial approval.

Table 7 . EPA Approved State Rules for RFP

State Rule EPA Approval Mass Emissions Cap and Trade 66 FR 57252, Novem ber 14, 2001 Tank Landing Loss Rule 75 FR 15348, March 29, 2010 Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance 66 FR 57261, November 14, 200110 Texas Low Emission Diesel (On

- and non

- road) 66 FR 57196, November 14, 2001

In the section discussing Control Measures, t he on

- road mobile source controls were updated from the 2010 RFP submittal to reflect the new mobile model MOVES 2010a In the final submittal, the state provided the cumulative emission reductions by year and by pollutant, in easily understood tables.

In addition, in the final submittal, the state consolidated some of the measures into broader categories than were presented in the 2010 submittal. These were the FMVCP category and the I/M control strategy category. The broader categories were then footnote d to define what individual measures were in them. This is an acceptable approach that make s reviewing the

submittals easier. Tables 8 and 9 contain a list of the control measures and the emission reductions achieved by milestone year and pollutant.

Tab le 8

. S u mm a ry of HGB RFP N O X E m ission Reductions (Tons/Day)

Control Strategy Descri p tion 2008 2011 2014 2017 2018

Mass E m i ss i ons Cap and Trade Program (MECT) 219

. 8 3 227

. 6 5 243

. 8 7 263

. 2 3 269

. 94

Tank Landi n g Loss Rule 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0

Federal Portable Fuel Con t ainer (PFC) Rule 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Federal Motor Veh i cle Control P rogram (FMVCP) 150.64 319.72 409.05 486.84 510.15

Federal Refor m ulated Gas o line (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 E m iss i on Diesel (TxLED) 6.03 5.08 3.52 2.55 2.36

Tier I and II Loco m o tive NO X s t andards 11. 7 4 12. 7 5 14. 0 9 15. 2 4 16. 0 4

S m all Non

- Ro ad Spark Ignition (SI) Phase I

- 0.30 1

- 0.39 1

- 0.47 1

- 0.56 1

- 0.58 1

Heav y

- Duty Non

- Road Engines 5.7 6 7.9 1 9.6 4 12. 0 2 12. 5 6

Tier 2 and 3 Non

- Road Diesel Engines 8.1 3 14. 0 1 18. 7 6 23. 2 5 24. 2 9

Federal Standards for New S m all Non

- Road Spark Ignition (SI) Engines (Phase II) 1.2 5 1.6 5 1.8 5 1.9 9 2.04

Federal Standards for New Large Non

- Road SI

and Recreati o nal Marine 12. 2 7 20. 3 0 27. 0 1 31. 1 0 32. 1 3

Non

- road TxLED 2.8 7 2.5 9 2.1 4 1.7 3 1.59

Non

- road RFG 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Tier 4 Federal Standards for Diesel Engines 0.0 0 0.5 2 4.6 7 10. 9 6 12. 8 2

Federal Mar i ne Diesel Ti e r 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

1 The 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 9

. S u mm a ry of HGB RFP VOC E m ission Reductions in tons per day

Control Strategy Descri p tion 2008 2011 2014 2017 2 018

Mass E m i ss i ons Cap and Trade Program 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0011 (MECT)

Tank Landi n g Loss Rule 0.00 11.50 11.50 11.50 11.50

Federal Portable Fuel Con t ainer (PFC) Rule 0.00 3.68 9.65 10.10 10.25

Federal Motor Veh i cle Control P rogram (FMVCP) 109.17 148.83 188.98 222.89 232.44

Refor m ulated Gas o line (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

On

- road Texas Low E m iss i on Diesel (TxLED) 0.0 0 0.0 0 0. 00 0. 00 0. 00

Tier I and II Loco m o tive NO X s t andards 0.27 0.34 0.43 0.53 0.59

S m all Non

- Ro ad Spark Ignition (SI) Phase I 1.77 2.50 3.23 3.95 4.19

Heav y

- 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

S m all 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 Mar i ne Diesel Ti e r 2 0.08 0.12 0.18 0.24 0.26

Sum of Control Reductions 1 69 .44 236.96 284.66 322.29 333.15

4. RFP Demonstration

Chapter 3 of the March 10, 2010 submittal discusses in detail the approach and methodology used to calculate both the target emission levels and RFP demonstration. EPA reviewed the approach and methods Texas used to calculate the rate of progress emission reductions and target levels a nd found them to be performed in accordance with EPA guidelines. The 2013 submittal provides a revised summary of the RFP demonstration that includes the new

on

- road modeling conducted with MOVES2010a. Texas documented the correct amount for the total exp ected reductions in the nonattainment area by showing each step, discussing any assumptions made, and stating the origins of the numbers used in the calculations. The EPA guidelines are found in Appendix A of the Phase 2 8

- hour ozone implementation rule ( November 29, 2005 Federal Register, 70 FR 71642).

T o show that the reductions associated with these control measures are adequate to meet the reduction requirement, the 2002 base year emissions are projected to 20 1 8. The total amount

of NOx emissions in the 20 1 8 projection inventory must be equal to or less than the 20 1 8 target inventories ( shown in Line 1 of Table 10 below ). Texas developed the 2008 projection inventory through a two

- step process. First, Texas applied a model that incorporated a numbe r of economic, industrial, and population growth factors (the EGAS model) . Next, Texas applied the

control measures described above. A s illustrated in Table 10 , for both pollutants the projected

20 1 8 inventory is less than the target level of emissions. Therefore, the control measures12 included in the 2008 projection inventory are adequate to meet the 15% RFP requirement plus 3% contingency requirement, the 9% requirement for 2009

- 2011, the 9% requirement for 2012

- 2014, the 9% requirement for 2015

- 2017, t he 3% requirement for 2018, and 3% for contingency

measures

.

Table 10 is a summary of the RFP demonstration for the HGB RFP SIP and shows that

the severe area RFP requirements are met for the HGB area. Chapter 7 of the 2013 SIP describes

the RFP demonstration. T he measures in table 4

- 1 and table 4

- 2 of the SIP are included in the

RFP demonstration and captured in table 10 below

.

Table 10 . 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

- 201 7 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 4.6 7

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

It is worth noting here that in our review, we discovered a discrepancy in the calculation

of VOC emission reductions that does not influence the final outcome of the RFP demonstration. In examining the values for the creditable RFP reductions for each mi lestone year starting in 2008, we found that the values listed in Tables 7

- 29 through 7

- 31 of the submittal did not match

with the values for the cumulative emission reductions for VOCs shown in Tables 7

- 33 through

7

- 36 of the submittal. The values in T abl es 7

- 29 through 7

- 33 did, however, match with the corresponding values shown in Appendix C

, starting with Sheet 5 . We consulted with TCEQ about this discrepancy. TCEQ discovered an error in their spreadsheet calculations that lowered

the VOC values in Tab les 7

- 29 through 7

- 31 by 19.82 tons/day of VOC. This error resulted in a conservative projection of VOC emission reductions taking place by that amount. The resulting surplus of VOCs could have been greater by 19.82 tons/day. TCEQ does not intend to subm it a correction to this RFP demonstration, but will address the error in their next applicable SIP

submittal.

We agree that the demonstration for RFP is met even with the discrepency

.

5. Contingency Measures

For ozone nonattainment areas classified as m oderate or above, states must include in their submittal contingency measures to be implemente d if the area fails to make reasonable13 further progress (CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) )

. Contingency measures are additional controls to be implemented in the event the area fails to meet a RFP milestone. They are intended to achieve reductions over and beyond those relied on in the RFP demonstrations. This

could include f ederal measures and local measures already scheduled for implementation. The CAA does not preclude a s tate from implementing such measures before they are triggered. EPA interprets the CAA to require sufficient contingency measures in the R F P submittal, so that upon implem entation 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. For more information on contingency measures pleas e see the April 16, 1992 General Preamble (57 FR 13512) and the November 29, 2005 Phase 2 8

- hour ozone standard implementation rule (70 FR 71612).

Texas used emission reductions in excess of those needed for RFP as the contingency

measures for the HGB RFP SIP ( see Table s 7

- 47 and 7

- 48 in the state’s submittal ) . Table s 11

and 12 below demonstrate that the requirement for contingency measures is met for the milestone years and the 2018 attainment year in the HGB RFP SIP.

Table 11

. Contingency Measure Demonst r ation for the 2018 Attainment Year (Tons/Day)

Description NOx VOC

2018 Adjusted Base Year emissions inventory 1003.92 935.59

Percent for contingency calculation (total

of 3% ) 2.50 0.50

3% needed for contingency 25.10 4.68 Total contingency reductions 55.04 11. 53 Contingency excess (+) or shortfall (

- ) + 29.95 + 6.85

Contingency met? Yes Yes

Table 12 . Contingency Measure Demonstration for Milestone Years 2008

- 2017 (Tons/Day)

Description NOx VOC

2008 Adjusted Base Year Inventory 983.26 93 3.15

Percent for milestone year 2011 contingency calculation (total of 3%) 2.50 0.50

2008 to 2009 required contingency reductions (ABY emissions inventory x contingency percent) 24.58 4.67

Reserved surplus reduction from 2008

RFP demonstration 24.58 4.67

Contingency excess (+) or shortfall (

- ) 0 014 Contingency met? Yes Yes

We agree with the contingency measure demonstration for the RFP SIP.

6. VMT, On

- Road Emissions, and Transportation Control Measures

The Texas RFP SIP contains a serious area element under this heading. The April 1,
2010, SIP at 4.6 states, “Transportation control measures (TCM) are required to offset growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) that resul ts in an increase in vehicle emissions for nonattainment

areas classified as serious [emphasis added] under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).” In the CAA this serious area element is found in 182(c)(5), Transportation Control.

This elem ent may have be en confused in the 2010 submittal with the severe area Vehicle Miles Traveled requirement in 182(d)(1), often referred to as the VMT offset demonstration. EPA

commented on this and the State revi sed the VMT offset portion of the SIP in the May 6, 2013

submittal.

The serious area Transportation Control requirement has the state develop a transportation control program demonstration based on section 108(f) “that will reduce emissions to levels that are consistent with emission levels project in such [attainment] demonstration.” CAA section 182(c)(5). This includes considering “current aggregate vehicle mileage, aggregate vehicle emissions, congestion levels, and other relevant parameters...consistent with those used

for the area’s demonstrati on of attainment.” Id.

The severe area Vehicle Miles Traveled requirement calls for “specific enforceable transportation control strategies and transportation control measures to offset any growth in emissions from growth in vehicle miles traveled or number of vehicle trips i n such area and to

attain re d uction of motor veh i cle emissions as necessary...to comply with the requirement of subsection (b)(2)(B) and (c)(2)(B) (pertaining to periodic emissions reduction requirements).” This requirement also adv ises states to “consider measures specified in section 108(f)...” Id.

The serious area Transportation Control requirement is a more general demonstration that shows how the TCMs adopted by the state will help show achievement of attainment in the

attainm ent demonstration. The VMT Offset requirement must also include /consider transportation control strategies and demonstrate how any TCMs (“as necessary”) are used to reduce emissions enough to offset the emissions resulting from an increase in emissions fr om an increase in VMT

. This is a more rigorous demonstration than the Transportation Control requirement.

As stated above, the RFP SIP contains a demonstration that satisfies the serious area Transportation Control measure. The state shows how VMT grow s from 2002 ( 128.1 million miles per day) steadily to 2018 (184.0 million miles per day). The RFP controlled emissions for

NOx and VOC (which do not include TCMs) are shown to decrease steadily from 2002 through

2018 . See Table 7

- 43 of the 2013 submittal. Although the TCMs are not needed to meet the15 RFP requirements, they are included as part of the control strategy for the attainment

demonstration.

EPA has determined that such a demonstration, while required in the CAA, does not have

to be s ubmitted as part of a SIP

. We find that what was submitted is approvable as it

demonstrates how the emissions from on

- road vehicles steadily declines to at least 2030 while, at the same time, the VMT continues to increase. See section 7.4.6.1 of the 2013 s ubmittal.

The 2010 submittal attempted to use the above demonstration to meet the VMT offset requirement in 182(d)(1). We commented during comment period as follows: In section 7.4.6 of the 2012 proposal, t he U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Decisio n is mistakenly discussed in relation to a serious area requirement

, Transportation Control, section 182(c)(5)

. This is a once every three year exercise to demonstrate that the increase

in VMT does not result in parameters or emission levels that exceed t hose projected for purposes of the attainment demonstration

. The court’s d ecision was directed at the severe area requirement, 182(d)(1), Vehicle Miles Traveled, a one

- time demonstration also

referred to as the VMT Offset demonstration because it’s purpos e is to offset any growth in emissions with the use of transportation control measures and/or transportation control strategies, that may result from growth in VMT

. The VMT offset demonstration should be presented in the context of 182(d)(1) . In the final adoption and submittal to EPA, please
separate the discussions and demonstrations on these two similar

- sounding topics and clearly distinguish between them.

The state complied with the comment and provided an analysis using the guidance

p rovided by EPA after the state SIP was adopted. Our analysis of the VMT Offset

demonstration follows.

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 res ulting 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 Reasonable Further Progress milestones (section 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 , the General Preamble). 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 VM T offsets are required. In other words, a plan was approvable16 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 V MT offsets if there is “any increase in the level of emissions solely from VMTs (italics added).” 1 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 bein g 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 ar eas. 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

, 2 recommends that both TCSs and TCMs should b e 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.

On May 6, 2013 , the State submitted an analysis based on the new guidance

, which

demonstrates how th e 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 requirement is satisfied. States are recommended to estimate emissions for two different years: the nonattainment area’s base year and three different scenarios for t he attainment year. One emission inventory is developed for the 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 represen t hypothetical emissions scenarios that would provide the basis to identify the “growth in emissions” due to growth in VMT, and one that would represent projected actual motor vehicle emissions after fully accounting for projected VMT growth and 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

thes e inventories, a special version of MOVES2010 was provided to the State, MOVES2010bROP, whic h was designed by EPA to be used exclusively for VMT Offset

1 Association of Irritated Residents v . EPA , 632 F.3d 584, at 596

- 597 (9th Cir. 2011), reprinted as amended on January 27, 2012.

2 Office 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/420b12 053.pdf

.17 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 calcul ation.

The base year (2002) VOC on

- road 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 implemented TCMs that were already required by or credited in the SIP as of that base year.

The first of the attainment year emissions calculation s for the attainment year (2018) would be based on the projected VMT for that year, and assum e that no new TCSs or TCMs have been put in place since the base year. This calculation demonstrates how emissions would hypothetically change if no new TCSs or TCM s 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 calculation s 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

betw een 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 th e 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. This emissions estimate would reflect a ceiling on the emissions that should be allowed to oc cur 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 attainm ent year. 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 du e 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 post

- baseline

- year TCSs and TCMs that have actually been adopted . This estimate would be based on the VMT that is expected to occur

in the at tainment 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 sinc e the baseline year. If18 this emissions estimate is less than or equal to the emissions ceiling that was established in the

second of the attainment year calculation s , the credited TCSs or TCMs for the attainment year would be sufficient to offset the hypot hetical 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 calculation s , 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 calculation s

.

3. What Does Texas ' Demonstration Show?

The May 6, 2013, VMT analysis

, found in section 7.4.6.3 of the submittal, provides a 2002 base year invento ry that includes all TCS s and TCMs in place in 2002. It also provides the suggested three attainment year inventories depicting the No

- Action On

- Road scenario, the VMT Offset Ceiling On

- Road scenario, and the 2018 Attainment Year On

- Road scenario prepared using MOVES2010bROP. In addition the 2002 and 2018 On

- Road Mobile Control scenarios are provided along with a list of those control scenarios and the year those programs started

. A summary of what Texas provided is illustrated in their Table 7

- 45, shown here.

Ta b l e 7

- 4 5 : VMT O ffs e t I n v e n t o ry S c e n a r i o s a n d R e s u lt s

VM T O ff s e t

S c ena ri o

N u m be r D e s c ri p t i on VM T Y ea r C on t r o l Y ear F l eet

T u r no v e r

Y ea r VO C

Em i s s i on s

S c ena ri o 1 Base Y e ar 2 0 02 2 0 02 2 0 02 1 2 4

. 47

S c ena ri o 2 N o A ct i o n 2 0 18 2 0 02 2 0 18 87

. 3 2

S c ena ri o 3 V M T Offs e t

C e ili n g 2 0 02 2 0 02 2 0 18 58

. 1 5

S c ena ri o 4 A ttai nm e n t

Y e ar 2 0 18 2 0 18 2 0 18 51

. 8 4

The mobile control strategies shown in Table 7

- 46 of the May 6, 2013 submittal

, shown below, shows which control strategies were used in making the calculations including vehicle inspection and maintenance, federal on

- road and non

- road emission control programs, and state and federal clean fuel programs.

Ta b l e 7

- 4 6 : S umm a ry 2 0 0 2 a n d 20 1 8 On

- Ro ad M ob il e C on t r o l S c e n a r i o s

C on t r o l P r o gr a m

D e s c ri p t i on Y ea r C on t r o l

P r o gr a m S t a r t e d I n cl ude d i n 2 0 0 2 C on t r o l S c ena ri o

P r e

- 1 9 9 0 F M V C P 1 P r e

- 1 9 90 P r e

- 2 0 0 3 C o n t r o l

1 9 9 2 F e d e ral C o n t r o ls

o n Ga s o li n e V o latili t y 1 1 9 92 P r e

- 2 0 0 3 C o n t r o l. M ax i m u m R e id

V a p o r P r e ss u re o f 7

. 8 p o u n d s p e r

s qu are i n ch

An ti

- Ta m p e ri n g

P r o g r a m 1 1 9 86 P r e

- 2 0 0 3 C o n t r o l

I / M P r o g ra m 1 1 9 97 P r e

- 2 0 0 3 C o n t r o l19 Tier 1 F M V C P 1 1 9 94 P r e

- 2 0 0 3 F M V C P

R F G 1 1 9 9 5 f o r P h a s e O n e
, 2 0 0 0 f o r P h a s e T wo P r e

- 2 0 0 3 C o n t r o l S t r ate g y

N L EV P r o g r a m 1 2 0 01 P r e

- 2 0 0 3 F M V C P

Tier 2 F M V C P 1 2 0 04 Po s t

- 2 0 0 2 F M V C P

, P h a s e in 2 0 0 4 t o

2 0 09

Tx L E D 1 2 0 06 Po s t 2 0 0 2 C o n t r o l S t r ate g y : L o w

ar o m atic h y d r o car b o n a n d h i g h c e ta n e

nu m b e r t o c o n t r o l N O X

F e d e ral L ow

- Su lf u r

H i gh way D i e s e l 1 2 0 06 Po s t 2 0 0 2 C o n t r o l S t r ate g y : 1 5 p arts

p e r m ill i o n m ax i m u m s u lf u r c o n t e n t

2 0 0 7 H e a v y D u ty

F M V C P 1 2 0 07 Po s t

- 2 0 0 2 F M V C P

, P h a s e in 2 0 0 7 t o

2 0 10

1 I n f o r m a ti o n o n t h e m od e li n g o f t h e c on tr o l s tr a t e g i e s i s d oc u me n t e d in t h e S u m m a ry o f C on tr o l Pr o gr a m s

M od e l e d s e cti o n o f A pp e nd ix E

.

The TCMs relied on for this demonstration include those from the 2007 1997 8

- hour ozone attainment demonstration which are described as various measures in the HGAC’s long

range transportation plan, and the 2010 1997 8

- hour attainment demonstration SIP

, Both are being acted on in a separate action on a similar timeline. Th e list of TCMs that will reduce NO X emissions in the HGB area by .015 tons per day (tpd) are found in Appendix G of the attainment demonstration submitted May 6, 2013 : Transportation Control Measures for the HGB Attainment Demonstration SIP Revision for the 1997 Eight

- Hour Ozone Standard (prepared by

ENVIRON for the H

- GAC) in the 2010 HGB Attainment Demonstration.

Appendix E of the May 6, 2013 submittal further demon strates this in Appendix E, Table 2, shown here

.

T a b le 2. H G B E m issio n s I n v e n t o r i e s f or t h e V M T O f f

s e t D e m o n s tr a t ion ( T o n s/Day )

.

I n v e n t o r y 1 V MT Sp eed VOC NO

x

2002 B a se Y e a r 128,145,285 36.40 124.47 371.89

2018 with P re

- 2003 C ont r ols

with G r owth 184,065,162 35.87 87.32 414.80

2018 with P re

- 2003 C ont r ols

without G r owth 128,145,285 36.40 58.15 282.75

2018 Att a inm e nt Y ea r C ont r ol S t ra t e g y 184,065,162 35.87 51.84 109.98

1 E m i s s i o n s e s t i m ates a r e b a s e d o n E P A’ s M O V E S 2010b R OP m od el ( Se p t e m b er 2012)

.

A c omp ar ison of the inv e nto r i e s in T a ble 2 shows th a t the e stim a t e d 2018 a tt a inm e nt y e a r

c ont r ol st ra t e g y s c e n ar io e missions ( l a st row in T a ble 2) a r e b e low t h e e missions “ce ilin g s ”

e stim a t e d a s the 2018 wi t h p re

- 2003 c on t r ols a nd without g r owth s c e n ar io ( thi r d line in T a ble

2 )

. A cc o r di n g to t he 2012 E P A g ui d a n ce
, t his d e monst ra t e s th a t the in crea s e d e missions due to
in crea s e d VMT a r e a d e q u a t e l y o ff s e t.20 The companion attainment demonstration, which is the subject of a separate rulemaking, also contains transportation control measures (TCMs) and voluntary mobile emission reduction measures (VMEP). The VMEP measures were not used in the calculations

for the VMT offset an alysis. The list of TCMs can be found in Appendix G: Transportation Control Measures for the HGB Attainment Demonstration SIP Revision for the 1997 Eight

- Hour
Ozone Standard (prepared by ENVIRON for the H

- GAC) of the attainment demonstration. The TCMs focus on pedestrian, transit, and bikeway improvements that encourage alternate modes of transportation. For reference only, t he VMEP is described in Appendix H: Voluntary Mobile Emission Reduction Programs for the HGB Attainment Demonstration S IP Revision for the 1997 Eight

- Hour Ozone Standard (prepared by ENVIRON for the H

- GAC) of the attainment

demonstration. The VMEP measures focus on alternative commuting options, regional traffic flow improvement, vehicle retrofit and replacement, and off

- road measures.

In summary, the VMT is projected to increase without a corresponding increase in emissions. The state’s analysis can be found in the 2013 submittal at section 7.4.6.3

. A comparison of the actual 2018 attainment year inventory (51.84 tpy o f VOC) with the VMT Offset Ceiling On

- road inventory (58.15 tpy of VOC) shows that the 2018 attainment inventory is less than the VMT Offset Ceiling On

- road inventory. A graphic depiction of this data was also provided in Figure 7

- 5 : VMT O ffs e t D e mon s

t r a

t i o

n , of the submittal

. In this case, the VMT Offset requirement is met, and no additional TCSs or TCMs beyond those already identified are required.

We agree with t he state’s VMT Offset analysis.

7. Motor Vehicle Emission s Budge ts

Transportation conformity is required by CAA section 176(c)(2). The 1997 8

- hour ozone RFP plan must include MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes. See 40 CFR

section 93.109(c) through (g)

. Texas submitted its RFP MVEBs for VOCs and NOx. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities within the areas of concern will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, delay reaching reasonable further progress milestones, or delay t imely attainment of the NAAQS.

A MVEB is the maximum amount of emissions allowed in the SIP for on

- road motor vehicles. The MVEB is the mechanism to determine if the future transportation plans conform to the SIP. The MVEB establishes an emissions ceiling for the regional transportation network. For

the MV EBs to be approvable, 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) requires that: (i) t he SIP revision was endorsed by the Governor and s ubject to a State public hearing; (ii) b efore the SIP i s submitted to EPA, consultation among federal, State, and local agencies occur s ; full imp lementation plan

documentation is provided to EPA; and EPA's stated concerns, if any, are addressed; (iii) the

MVEB must be clearly identified and precisely quantified; (iv) the MVEB , when considered together with all other emissions sources, must be c onsistent with applicable requirements for

RFP , attainment, or maintenance (whichever is applicable ); (v) t he MVEB must be consistent with and clearly related to the emissions inventory and the control measures in the submitted SIP21 revision ; and (vi) r evis ions to previously submitted SIPs must explain and document any changes to previously submitted budgets and control measures

, impacts on point and area source

emissions

, any changes to established safety margins (see § 93.101 for definition)

, and reasons

f

or the changes (including the basis for any changes related to emission factors or estimates of

VMT ).

TCEQ worked with the Houston

- Galveston Area Council to establish the budgets for 2008 and beyond. The HGB RFP SIP contains VOC and NOx MVEBs for the RF P milestone year 2008. The emissions budget for VOC is 102.50 tpd, and the NOx emissions budget is 261.95 tpd. On

road emissions must be shown in future transportation plans to be less than the MVEB for 2008 and subsequent years. The VOC and NO X RFP emis sions budgets are acceptable because when added to the other components of the 2008 emissions inventory (including non

- road, stationary source, and area source emissions) the total level of emissions is below the 2008 RFP emissions target level.

We hav e found the RFP MVEBs (also termed transportation conformity budgets)

submitted in May 6, 2013

, adequate through EPA’s substantive criteria for determining “adequacy” of a MVEB found in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). On May 14, 2013 , the availability of

these budgets was posted on our website for the purpose of soliciting public comments. The comment period closed on Ju ne 13, 2013 , and we received no comments. We published the Notice of Adequacy Determination for these RFP MVEBs on July xx, 2013 ( 78 FR xxxx ). Once determined adequate, these RFP budgets must be used in future HGB transportation conformity determinations. The adequacy determination represents a preliminary finding by EPA of the acceptability of the MVEB.

As of March 2, 201 3 , EPA required th at the new MOVES mobile emission estimation model must be used to demonstrate transportation conformity. Consequently the previous

MOBILE6.2 model

- based MVEBs submitted in 2010 were n ot available to be used for the

purpose of 2013 RFP analysis . The state submitted new MVEBs in a SIP revision adopted April 23, 2013 and submitted on May 6, 2013

. Finding the budgets adequate before they are fully approved allows the budgets to be in

- place, effective and use able more quickly than waiting for

the approval proc ess

.

Development of the MVEBs is discussed in Chapter 5 of the April 1, 2010 submittal, Chapter 7 at 7.5 in the May 6, 2013 submittal, and in Appendix D of the 2013 submittal. The State took these budgets out for public hearing as part of the SIP process. They submitted the SIP under the authority of the Governor’s designee. EPA bases its conclusion on comparison of

the NOx and VOC MVEBs with emissions allotted to on

- road emis sion categories within each SIP, and determined that these emission levels are available within the context of on

- road RFP and attainment emissions for the budget years demonstrated. Therefore the budgets satisfy the requirements of 40CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv). The state conducted consultation among federal, State, and local agencies as required , and provided full imp lementation plan documentation to EPA

. EPA stated no concerns with the process or the budgets for the state to address. Because this is a

r evision to a previously submitted SIP, the state explain ed and document ed the changes to previously submitted budgets and control measures

, and the changes to established safety22 margins . There were no changes to area, point source, and nonroad inventories. The r evised budgets were provided solely because of the requirement to use the newest version of the

MOVES model discussed elsewhere in this TSD

.

We agree that the MVEBs are fully consistent with RFP, and the RFP plan is fully approvable, as it sets the allowable on

- road mobile emissions the HGB area can produce and

continue to demonstrate RFP.

Table 13 list s the MVEBs for HGB. Table 14 demonstrates that the MVEB s for NOx

and VOC are consistent with the RFP SIP.

Table 13

. RFP Motor Vehicle Emission s Budget s for HGB

Year NOx (Tons/D ay) VOC ( T ons/ D ay)

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

Table 14 . Comparison of 201 8 RFP Onroad NOx and VOC Emissions with 201 8 MVEB (tons/day)

Inventory NOx (Tons/Day) VOC (Tons/Day)

20 1 8 Onroad Uncontrolled Emissions 870.89 304.27

20 1 8 Onroad RFP Emission Reductions 760.90 252.43

20 1 8 Emissions after RFP Controls 109.99 51.84

20 1 8 Excess Emission Reductions for Safety Margin 11.00 5.18

20 1 8 Emissions after RFP Controls with Safety Margin 120.99 57.02 Is MVEB acceptable? Yes Yes

We agree with the MVEBs submitted May 6, 2013.

E

. Summary and Recommendation s :

TCEQ used acceptable techniques and methodologies to develop the base year and milestone year inventories, the emission reductions for the milestone year s , and the effects of

non

- creditable reductions and pre

- 1990 CAA rule corrections. Table 15 demonstrates that the RFP and contingency measure requiremen ts are met in the HGB RFP SIP. NOx emissions for the period between 2002 and 201 8 were well below the target l evel for 201 8 and emissions in

201 8 will be below the target needed fo r RFP and contingency measure requirements. Therefore we recommend appr oval of the Houston

- Galveston

- Brazoria R FP Plan.

Table 15

. Summary of RFP and Contingency Measures Reductions23 Description NOx (Tons/Day)

a 2008 Target 670.11

b 3% Needed for Contingency (a x 0.03) 23.65

c Adjusted Target Emissions 646.46

d 2008 Uncontrolled Emissions 1026.63

e 2008 RFP Emission Reductions 472.67

f 2008 Projected Emissions after RFP

Reductions (d minus e) 553.96

Adjusted Target Met? (f < d) Y es

W e also recommend the approval of the TCEQ adopted MVEBs which are based on the

RFP Plan. We recommend approval of the revised emissions inventory that was used for the

RFP and also for the 2010 attainment demonstration. And finally, we recommend approval of the VMT Offset analysis t hat shows no additional TCMs or TCS s are needed to demonstrate compliance with CAA 182(d)(1)(A).