Technical Support Document

Attainment Demonstration State Implementation Plan (SIP) and Related Regulations for the Houston

Galveston

- Brazoria 1997 8

- hour Ozone Nonattainment Area (HGB Area)

Docket ID EPA

- R06

- OAR

- 2013

- 0387

Table of Contents

I. Summary of Proposal I I. Background A. The 1997 ozone NAAQS and the HGB Ozone Nonattainment Area B. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment SIP C . State SIP submittals I I I. Evaluation of Components for the Attainment Demonstration A. Attainment Demonstration Modeling and Weight of Evidence B. Control Measures Relied Upon in the Attainment Demonstration 1. Mass Emissions Cap and Trade (MECT) program 2. H ighly R eactive V olatile O rganic C ompound (HRVOC) emissions cap and trade (HECT) prog ram 3. Voluntary Mobile Emissions Program (VMEP) Measures and Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) 4

. Previously Approved State Measures and Federal Measures 5 . Summary of Regarding Control Measures Relied Upon in the Attainment Demonstra tion C. Reasonable Available Control Measures D. Contingency Measures E. Motor Vehicle Emission Budget (MVEB) F . General Air Quality Definitions IV. 110(l) Evaluation V. EPA Guidance Documents V I

. Appendices

I. Summary

This Technical Support Document (TSD) supports rulemaking to propose approv al of the HGB area attainment demonstration SIP for the 1997 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS )

. Specifically, it supports proposed approval of the following Texas SIP submittals for the HGB area:

• Attainment demonstration for the 1997 ozone NAAQS

• Revisions to the MECT air pollution control program

• Revisions to the HECT air pollution control program

• VMEP measures and TCMs

• A 2018 year MVEB

• Demonstration of Reasonable Available Control Measure ( RACM ) implementation

• Failure to attain contingency measures plan in the event of failure to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date

Proposed a pproval is based on requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for ozone nona ttainment areas.II. Background

A. The 1997 ozone NAAQS and the HGB Ozone Nonattainment Area

Ground level ozone is formed when NOx and volatile organic compounds (VOC) react in the presence of sunlight. These two pollutants, referred to as ozone precursors, are emitted by many types of pollution sources, including on

- road and non

- road motor vehicl es and engines, power plants and industrial facilities, and smaller area sources such as lawn and garden equipment and paints. See 77 FR 30088 30089 (May 21, 2012). Breathing ozone can trigger a variety of health problems including chest pain, coughing, th roat irritation, and congestion. It can worsen bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma. Ground level ozone also can reduce lung function and inflame the linings of the lungs. Repeated exposure may permanently scar lung tissue. See 77 FR 30088 30089, May 21, 2012 . For more information on ground level ozone please see htpp://epa.gov/airquality/ozonepollution

. In 1979, under section 109 of the CAA, EPA established primary and secondary national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or standard) for ozone at 0.12 pa rts per million (ppm) averaged over a 1

- hour period. See 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). Primary standards are set to protect human health while secondary standards are set to protect public welfare. On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the primary and secondary N AAQS for ozone to set the acceptable level of ozone in the ambient air at 0.08 ppm, averaged over an 8

- hour period. See 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997). EPA set the 8

- hour ozone standard based on scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone causes adverse heal th effects at lower 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. 1

In 2004, we classified the HGB area (Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery and Waller counties) as a moderate ozone nonattain ment area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS (69 FR 23858, April 30, 2004). In 2007, at the request of the State, and under CAA section 181(b)(3), we reclassified the HGB area to severe calling for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no later than June 15 , 2019 (73 FR 56983, October 1, 2008). Since 2018 is the first full year before the attainment deadline, we will judge attainment based on data through the end of 2018 and therefore, we refer to 2018 as the attainment year.

B. CAA and Regulatory Requireme nts for Ozone Nonattainment SIP

States must implement the 1997 8

- hour ozone standard under Title 1, Part D of the CAA, which includes section 172, “Nonattainment plan provisions,” and subpart 2, “Additional Provisions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas” (secti ons 181

– 185). We promulgated a regulation to implement the 1997 ozone NAAQS at 40 CFR 51, subpart X (Provisions for Implementation of 8

- hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard). The regulation addresses the requirements for modeling and attainment demonstrations, reasonably available control technology and measures (RACT and RACM), reasonable further progress (RFP), contingency measures, and new source review.

1 In 2008 we lowered the 8

- hour ozone NAAQS to 0.075 ppm ( 73 FR 16436

, March 27, 2008 ) and in 2012 we classified the Houston area as a marginal nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS ( 77 FR 30088 30089, May 21, 2012 ). This rulemaking does not address the 2008 ozone NAAQS.When we reclassified the HGB area, we also identified the SIP requirements for the area . The

requirements being addressed in this notice are: (1) an attainment demonstration (40 CFR 51.908), (2) provisions for RACM (40 CFR 51.912), and (3) contingency measures to be implemented in the event of failure to attain the standard by the applicable attainment date (CAA 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9)). In order to approve the attainment demonstration for the area we must also approve: (1) the measures relied on as necessary to demonstrate attainment, and (2) an attainment MVEB for transportation conformity purposes, and (3) the RFP plan and the RFP contingency measures. See Sierra Club v. EPA , 294 F.3d 155, 163, ( D.C. Cir. 2002). Some measures, relied upon as necessary for attainment, have been previously approved (section II.B.5). We are proposing to approv e additional measures relied on as necessary to demonstrate attainment, and an attainment MVEB for 2018. In a separate proposal we are addressing the RFP and RFP contingency measures requirements (please see docket EPA

- R06

- OAR

2010

- 0333 in www.regulations. gov ). Current information on the status of HGB area SIP requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS can be found at: http://epa.gov/air/urbanair/sipstatus

. CAA section 172(c)(6) requires the attainment demonstration to include enforceable emission limitations, and such other control measures, means or techniques as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary to provide for attainment by the applicable attainment date. In order to be considered in the modeling, the measures must be perman ent, enforceable and quantifiable. Please see 57 FR 13498, 13567, April 16, 1992.

CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 110(l) require a state to provide reasonable public notice and opportunity for public hearing prior to the adoption and submission of a S IP or SIP revision. To meet this requirement, every SIP submittal should include evidence that adequate public notice was given and an opportunity for a public hearing was provided consistent with EPA’s implementing regulations in 40 CFR 51.102.

Below is a t able of the HGB SIP requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS . Some requirements have been previously implemented as Houston was classified as a severe ozone nonattainment area for the 1979 1

- hour ozone NAAQS.Table 1. HGB SIP requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS

SIP Requirement (CAA section) Comments Emissions Inventory (182(a)(1)) Approved April 22, 2009 (74 FR 18298) Emissions Statement (182(a)(3)(B)) Approved August 26, 1994 (59 FR 44036) Provisions for reasonably available control technology (RACT) (182(b)(2)) Partially addressed with April 2, 2013 approval (78 FR 19599). Remainder to be addressed in other rulemaking

. Enhanced Ambient monitoring (182(c)(1)) Approved October 4, 1994 (59 FR 50502) Enhanced vehicle inspection and m aintenance program (182(c)(3)) Approved August 22, 1994 (59 FR 43046)

Clean fuel vehicle program or an approved substitute (182(c)(4)) Substitute program approved 2001 ( 66 FR 9203 ). Re peal of a portion of the substitute program (Texas

c lean f uel v ehicle p rogram regulations ) submitted May 15, 2006, to be addressed in future rulemaking

. A Texas c lean f

uel v ehicle p rogram e quivalency d emonstration was approved for the Beaumont/Port Arthur SIP on October 20, 2010 ( 75 FR 64675 ). Gasoline vapor recovery for motor vehicle refueling emissions (182(b)(3)) Approved April 15, 1994 (59 FR 17940)

Attainment demonstration (182(c)(2)) and failure to attain contingency measures (172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9)) Being proposed

Provisions for reasonably available control measures (RACM) (172(c)(1)) Being proposed

Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) to reduce emissions (182(c)(2)) and RFP milestone failure contingency measures (CAA 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9)) Proposal (see docket EPA

- R06

- OAR

- 2010

- 03 33 in www.regulations.gov )

Transportation controls to offset emissions from growth in vehicle miles traveled (CAA 182(d)(1)(A)) Proposal (see docket EPA

- R06

- OAR

- 2010

- 0333 in www.regulations.gov )

Severe Area New Source Review emission offsets (182(d)(2 )) Approved September 27, 1995 (60 FR 49781)

Severe/Extreme Area Failure to Attain Fee Program (Section 185) At this time the required SIP element does not have a deadline for submittal. See http://epa.gov/air/urbanair/sipstatus/blankdates.html.

C

. State SIP submittals

On April 6, 2010, Texas submitted for the HGB area: (1) an attainment demonstration, (2) revisions to the MECT program to protect the integrity of the oxides of nitrogen (NO x ) cap in the HGB area, (3) revisions to the HECT program to reduce the HRVOC cap by 25% in Harris County and provide for a more equitable distribution of the HECT allowances, and (4) revisions to the General Air Quality definitions applicable to the entire Texas SIP.On May 6, 2013, Texas submitted an update to the attainment demonstration. The update included: (1)

revised on

- road mobile source emissions inventories and MVEBs using the more recent EPA MOVES mobile source emissions estimation model, (2) an update of the contingency measures analysis, and (3) updat ed discussions of emissions inventory, photochemical modeling, control strategies and required elements, and weight of evidence that the area will attain by its attainment date.

In addition to the revisions submitted on April 6, 2010, Texas previously sub mitted SIP revisions to the General Air Quality Definitions (30 TAC 101.1) on August 16, 2007. Texas later submitted additional revisions to 30 TAC 101.1 on March 11, 2011.

Each of the above identified submittals was given proper hearing and public notic e by Texas as required by 40 CFR 51.102 . E vidence of this was provided in the SIP submittal and is summarized below:

• June 10, 2005 submittal: notices in Austin American

- Statesman (February 11, 2005), Fort Worth Star

- Telegram (February 14, 2005) and Houston Chronicle (February 12, 2005); hearing on March 17, 2005 (Austin)

• August 16, 2007 submittal: notices in Austin American

- Statesman, Fort Worth Star

- Telegram, and Houston Chronicle February (February 12, 2007); hearing on March 20,2007 (Austin)

• April 6, 2010 submittal: notices in Austin American

- Statesman and Houston Chronicle (September 28, 2009); hearings on October 28, 2009 (Houston) and October 29, 2009 (Austin)

• March 11, 2011 submittal: notices in Austin American

- Statesman, Fort Worth Star

- Telegram, and Houston Chronicle (August 13, 2010); hearing on September 20, 2010 (Austin)

• May 6, 2013 submittal: notice s in Austin American

- Statesman and Houston Chronicle (October 19, 2012) ; hearing on November 19, 2012 (Houston)

III. Evaluation of Components for the Attainment Demonstration

A. Attainment Demonstration Modeling and Weight of Evidence

Review of all the photochemical modeling and Weight of Evidence provide by TCEQ in support of this attainment demonstration is voluminous and covered in a separa te document that is attached ( Appendix A

– Technical Support Document For Houston Galveston Brazoria Modeling and Other Analyses Attai nment Demonstration (HGB

- MOAAD), fur ther referred to as “HGB

- MOAAD”). EPA’s detailed review and conclusions of TCEQ’s modelin g and WOE are included in the HGB

- MOAAD document.

In summary, TCEQ’s modeling projects significant improvement in air quality and all but three of the monitors are projected to attain the standard and the three monitors not demonstrating attainment to the standard are projected to be only slightly above the standard.

TCEQ provided numerous pieces of evidence as part of the WOE in support of the attainment demonstration. Of these evidence items, t he strongest parts of the WOE analysis are the most recent 8

- hour ozone monitoring trends and the continued reductions expected from vehicle fleet turnover. Ozone Design Value trends at most of the monitors in the HGB area show significant decreases over time and many of the monitors are currently attaining the 19 97 8

- hour ozone standard. Furthermore, the ozone precursor trends are mostly showing a decrease that supports the HGB area’s impact on ozone levels that exceed the standard are continuing to decrease. Houston’s most recent design value is 88 ppb through 20 12. With 6 more years of cleaner cars and off /non road equipment coming into the fleet, EPA believes that the additional 4 ppb of reduction necessary from 2012 monitored levels to reach attainment supports the proposed finding that HGB will attain by its a ttainment yearThis modeling evidence taken toget her with the WOE , especially ambient data trends, demonstrates that

HGB will reach attainment of the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS by the end of the ozone season of 2018. Our full evaluation of each modeling and WOE elements of the attainment demonstration submitted by TCEQ in this SIP revision is included in HGB

- MOAAD (Appendix A of this document)

. Our review confirms that TCEQ’s modeling and WOE conform to 40 CFR §51.908, § 51.112, Appendix W of Part 51, EPA’s guidance and methodologies.

B. Control Measures Relied Upon in the Attainment Demonstration

1. Mass Emissions Cap and Trade (MECT) program

The MECT is a portion of the SIP

- approved control strategy for the HGB area stationary sources that caps NO x emissions beginning January 1, 2002, with a final reduction to the cap occurring in 2007 . The cap represents a reduction in NO x emissions of 80% fr om the applicable stationary sources. Facilities are required to demonstrate compliance with the MECT on an annual basis by having sufficient allowances, or other credits as provided in the SIP, to equal the annual NOX emissions from the previous year. EPA published a final rule approving the MECT program on November 14, 2001 (66 FR 57252). We have subsequently approved revisions to the MECT on September 6, 2006 and July 16, 2009. See 71 FR 52698 and 74 FR 34503.

The April 6, 2010 submittal included revisions to the MECT program to protect the integrity of the NO X cap in the HGB area. Appendix B discusses our review of the MECT program revisions

.

2. H ighly R eactive V olatile O rganic C ompound (HRVOC) emissions cap and trade (HECT) program

The HECT program is a mandatory cap and trade program of HRVOCs for covered facilities including vent gas streams, flares, and cooling tower heat exchange systems that emit HR VOCs, as defined in 30 TAC Section 115.10, and that ar e located at a site subject to Chapter 115, Subchapter H. Facilities are required to meet HRVOC allowances on an annual basis. Facilities may purchase, bank or sell their allowances for use in the following control period. EPA published final approval of t he HECT program on September 6, 2006, as an integral component of the HGB attainment demonstration. See 71 FR 52659.

The April 6, 2010 submittal included revisions to the HECT program to reduce the HRVOC cap in Harris County by 25%, a step taken as a resu lt of photochemical modeling in support of the HGB 8

- hour ozone attainment demonstration. The revisions also change the allocation methodology to promote equitable distribution of allowances as a result of comment and add necessary definitions to implement the allocation methodology changes

. The TCEQ also adopted non

- substantive revisions throughout to correct typographical errors and Texas Register formatting requirements. Appendix B discusses our review of the HE CT program revisions

.3. Voluntary Mobile Emissions Program (VMEP) Measures and Transportation Control Measures

(TCMs)

VMEP Measures

What is EPA’s Voluntary Mobile Emission reduction Program (VMEP)? A VMEP is an overall control strategy that attempts to complement existing regulatory programs through voluntary, non

- regulatory changes in local transportation activities or changes in in

- use vehicle and engine composition

. EPA supports innovative methods in achieving air quality goals and the creation of viable voluntary mobile source air quality programs

. The increasing cost of technological improvements to produce incrementally smaller reductions in grams per mile or grams per kilowatt

- hour emission in the entire fleet of vehicles and engines suggests th at supplemental or alternative approaches for reducing mobile source air pollution are necessary.

The Clean Air Act (Act) allows State Implementation Plan (SIP) credit for new approaches to reducing mobile source emissions

. This approach is primarily fou nded in section 110 of the Act, and the economic incentive provisions in sections 182(g)(4)(A) and 108 of the Act. In interpreting 110(a)(2) of the Act, EPA issued a guidance document entitled, “Guidance on Incorporating Voluntary Mobile Source Emission Re duction Programs in State Implementation Plans (SIPs)”, Memorandum from Richard D. Wilson, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 24, 1997, which allows for SIP credit for voluntary measures. 2 The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld, as a reasonable interpretation of the Act, EPA’s VMEP policy and allowed States to consider estimated emissions reductions from a VMEP in the attainment demonstration. See BCCA Appeal Group v. EPA

, 355 F.3d 817, 825 (5th Cir. 2003).

The EPA's VME P Guidance provides a detailed framework for states to obtain SIP emissions reduction credit for such voluntary emissions reductions

. EPA guidance allows a state to take credit for a maximum of 3% of the total future year emissions reductions required to a ttain the appropriate NAAQS

. In addition, states must identify and describe the voluntary measures in a VMEP and include supportable projections of emissions reductions associated with the measures

. The state must also make an enforceable commitment to mon itor, assess, and report on the implementation and emissions effects of the VMEPs, as well as to remedy timely any shortfall in emissions reductions that do not meet the projected levels. More specifically, the guidance outlines the following criteria for approval of voluntary emissions reduction credits

. The credits should be:

1

. Quantifiable

- VMEP emission reductions must be quantifiable

. The level of uncertainty in achieving emission reductions must be quantified, and this uncertainty must be reflect ed in the projected emission reductions claimed by the VMEP

. VMEPs must also contain procedures designed to both evaluate program implementation and to report program results as described in the “Technical Support for VMEPs” portion of the guidance. 2

. Sur plus

- VMEP emission reductions may not be substituted for mandatory, required emission reductions

. States may submit to EPA for approval any program that will result in emission reductions in

2 While this guidance was later incorporated into another EPA guidance, “Implementing Bundled Measures into a State Implementation Plan (SIP),” the VMEP demonstration is based on the former and the mobile source portion of the latter.addition to those already credited in a relevant attainment or maintenance plan, or used for purposes of

SIP demonstrations such as conformity, rate of progress, or emission credit trading programs. 3

. Enforceable

- VMEPs must be enforceable at the State and Federal levels

. A State can adopt a measure into the SIP such that the State is obligated only to track, assess and report on the implementation of voluntary actions and the emission reductions achieved from the voluntary actions

. The State is not responsible, necessarily, for implementing a program depending on voluntary actions

. The State must commit to conducting program evaluations and reporting the results to EPA within an appropriate time

- frame. 4

. Permanent

- VMEP emission reductions must continue at least for as long as the time period in which they are used by the applicable SIP demonstration. 5

. Adequately Supported

- VMEPs must demonstrate adequate personnel and program resources to implement the program

. 6

. Consistent

- VMEPs must be consistent with attainment of the standard and with and Rate of Progress requirements

. Further, VMEPs cannot interfere with the other requirements of the Clean Air Act.

What is the Background for the HGB VMEP Program? The State first established the VMEP program in the December 2000 1

- hour ozone attainment demonstration for the HGB nonattainment area approved by EPA on November 14, 2001, 66 FR 57160

. In that initial action we approved VMEP emission reductions of 23 tons per day ( tpd ) of NOx (up to 3% of the total needed for attainment) because the state was able to demonstrate that the HGB area’s ozone SIP VMEP met the criteria for credit in the SIP. The State showed that the credits were quantifiable, surplus, enforceable, permanent, adequately supported, and consistent with the SIP and the Act. The State, through the Houston

- Galveston Area Council (H

- GAC) implemented the VMEP program in the HGB area, and committed to evaluate each program to validate estimated credits, and report the emission reductions to the TCEQ

. The State continues to be responsible for verifying the reported emissions and timely remedy any shortfall

. The Fifth Circuit found that while the state did not make a separate specific commitment to remedy any s hortfall in the VMEPs, it believed that the existing enforceable commitment regarding adoption of additional NOx controls also applied to any shortfall in reductions from VMEPs. See Footnote 40 of BCCA Appeal Group v. EPA , 355 F.3d 817, 825 (5th Cir. 2003). As part of reinforcing its commitment to VMEPs the state revised its SIP

. EPA approved the state’s clarification of its enforceable commitment for VMEP. See Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans, 67 Fed. Reg. 68,941 (EPA Nov. 14, 2002) ( final rule).

The VMEP program has been revised with substitute measures or additional measures as SIP revisions. In the mid

- course SIP review submitted December 1, 2004, we approved revisions to the VMEP program, which revised credit taken for this progr am to 7 tpd

. In that revision, certain mobile emission credits were recalculated using MOBILE6

. In the earlier SIP submittal these credits were calculated using MOBILE5a. EPA approved those VMEP measures. 71 FR 52670 (September 6, 2006). In a June 13, 2007 SIP submittal, adopted May 23, 2007, the State revised it VMEP measures as part of the Houston

- Galveston

- Brazoria State Implementation Plan

. This submittal built upon the VMEP program established in previous SIP revisions as noted above

. The additional co mmitments reduced NOx by an estimated 2.82 tons per day. EPA approved those VMEP measures. 78 FR 19599 (April 2, 2013).

What did the State submit? The state submitted several general program descriptions (Table 2 ) that projected reductions attributable
to each specific program as part of the Houston

- Galveston

- Brazoria attainment demonstration State Implementation Plan submitted on March 10, 2010

. This submittal builds upon the VMEP programestablished in previous SIP revisions as noted above

. The H

- GAC, as the regional metropolitan

transportation planning agency for the HGA area, will implement these programs in the HGA area, commits to evaluating each program to validate estimated credits, and will report the emissions to TCEQ. All VMEP measures will be in place to be relied on for purposes of attainment by 2018.

Table 2

. Voluntary Mobile Emission Reduction Programs and Credits Claimed in Tons per Day

Program Type NOx Benefits (tons/day) Alternative Commuting

- Bicycle and Pedestrian Actions

- Cleaner Diesel Fuel/Alternative Fuels

- Subscription Bus Service

- Public Transit Improvements

- Compressed Work Week

- Internet Ridematching Services

- Vanpooling 0.20

Regional Traffic Flow Improvements

- Local Intersection Signal Improvements 0.05

Vehicle Retrofit and Rep lacement

- Public and Private Sector Clean Fuel Fleets

- Dedicated Funding for School Bus Replacement

- Electric Vehicles/Increased Use of Hybrid Buses 1.30

Off

- road Measures

- Voluntary Non

- road Replacement and Retrofit Programs

- Rail Efficiency Measures 0.70

Total Benefits 2.25

EPA’s Analysis Consistent with EPA policy, the NOX benefits claimed and attributed to the VMEP program amount to less than 3% of the total future year emissions reductions required to attain the appropriate NAAQS. Overall the VMEP projects are consistent with the SIP. EPA’s detailed analysis below shows the VMEP measures are quantifiable. The reductions are surplus by not being substitutes for mandatory, required emissions reductions and they are not being counted i n any other control strategy

. The programs do not interfere with nor are they mandated by other Act requirements. As in past commitments, we interpret that the VMEP portion of the SIP to be enforceable because the State, through the H

- GAC, has committed to fill any shortfall in credit, thus any enforcement will be against the State. The H

- GAC, as the regional metropolitan transportation planning agency for the HGA area, has committed to implement the projects and/or programs outlined in the HGA VMEP submitt al. The H

- GAC will be responsible for monitoring and reporting the emissions reductions to the TCEQ. The State, through the H

- GAC has committed to cover any VMEP shortfall (of the 2.25 tpd of NOx committed).The State, through the H

GAC, will remedy any VME P shortfall that might occur in the VMEP program.

The emissions benefits for the measures are calculated for 2018 and are permanent as the H

- GAC is responsible to monitor, assess, report on future emissions reductions from the measures and remedy any shortfall. All VMEP measure must be fully in place in o rder to be relied on for purposes of attainment by 2018.As detailed in the measures below, each measure will be adequately supported by personnel and

program resources for implementation.

Consistent with the State’s commitment in the Decem ber 2000 SIP and forward, that assures that any shortfall in VMEP credits would be made up with other measures not already in the SIP, the measures are enforceable

. This SIP submittal reiterates the commitment “to remedy in a timely manner any SIP credit shortfall if the VMEP program does not achieve projected emission reductions.” 3 The VMEP measures will be in place for the life of the SIP, until 2018, which makes them permanent

. Our analysis below further shows that each program is also quantifiable and adequately supported

. Therefore all criteria for the VMEP have been met. Descriptions of these measures are found in Appendix H of the April 10, 2010 submittal, Voluntary Mobile Emission Reduction Program for the HGB Attainment Demonstration SIP Revision for the 1997 Eight

- Hour Ozone Standard

.

1. Alternative Commuting

a. Bicycle and Pedestrian Actions This measure encourages construction of new bicycle lanes, new bikeway plans, and greater use of existing lanes instead of vehicle use

. H

- GAC analysis shows that there is greater bicycle use in the Texas Medical Center area of Houston and at the University of Texas at Galveston than previously thought

. It is anticipat ed that bicycle commuters would increase to 21,978 people per day by 2018 and reduce VMT by 153,845 miles of travel per day, if they were previously driving

. Emission reductions were calculated using MOSERs methodology. 4 Total emission savings from NOx and VOC combined is 25.6 tons per year (0.03 tpd of NOx and 0.04 tpd of VOC). Cost effectiveness is $390,625 per ton

. Cost of the projects is covered by the H

- GAC Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) and local governments’ Capital Improvement Programs

. This measure is quantifiable and adequately supported

.

b. Cleaner Diesel Fuel/Alternative Fuels This measure would change TxLED diesel fuel to either cetane additive enhanced (CAE) or Fischer

- Tropsch (FT) diesel fuel

. This would not be a mandatory change but likely a demonstration project on specific Class 8b Heavy Duty Truck fleets or in a local area

. Because of distribution challenges, this measure was evaluated as a targeted measure, consisting of replacing TxLED fuel in 10% of the heavy

- duty truck fleet wi th either FT or CAE fuel

. MOBILE6 was used to estimate emissions from three classes of vehicles: HDD class 8a, HDD class 8b, and busses

. In evaluating for only the HDD class 8b trucks, the emission reductions are expected to range from 1.3% for CAE to 12% for FT. This results in 0.02

- 0.25 tpd emission reductions of NOx for HDD class 8b trucks

. If it were applied to all classes evaluated, the reductions would be 0.25

- 2.36 tpd of NOx

. The cost of implementation would be borne by the fleet which is anticipated to obtain grant funding to offset some of the cost

. Therefore, this measure is quantifiable and adequately supported.

c. Subscription Bus Service This program would be designed to remove obstacles to transit use by providing more personalized services between underserved residential areas and underserved employment areas

. This might include on

- line transit planning, subscription bus service, and feeder shuttles from major transit

3 Appendix F. Evaluation of mobile source control strategies for the Houston

- Galveston

- Brazoria State Implementation Plan (With Detailed Strategies). Prepared for Houston

- Galveston Area Council, Prepared by ENVIRON International Corporation. Page F

- 1.
4 Mobile Source Emission Reduction Strategies. http://moser.tamu.edu/stops to work centers

. Buses and vans equipped with wireless Internet conn ections and accommodate

working in transit with fold

- down tables would attract white collar workers who commute from Katy to the Texas Medical Center, for example.

C alculation of emission reductions is by MOSERs methodology 5 that relied on the following key variables:

• 100 buses seating 35 people operating four round trips (per person) per day; at 80% capacity this is equivalent to 11,200 people per work day;

• 100 shuttle buses seating 15 people operating 6 round trips (per person) per day; at 80% capacity this is equivalent to 7,200 people per work day.

• 100% of shuttle use is due to new transit users who did not previously use transit because it did not provide a viable way to their place of employment or their home.

• average work trip distance is 40 miles round trip

• business buses travel 40 miles for each round trip, or 160 miles each day per bus; new emissions due to these buses is therefore based upon an average weekday mileage of 16,000 miles.

• shuttle buses are assumed to travel 10 miles per round trip, or 60 miles per day per shuttle; new emissions due to the shuttles is therefore based upon an average weekday shuttle mileage of 6,000 miles.

• Average light duty vehicle composite emission factor for NOx for same day is 0.471grams per mil e

• Average light duty vehicle composite emission factor for VOC for same day is 0.489 grams per mile.

• Average shuttle bus emissions are represented by the MOBILE6 category LDDT12 and are 2.68 grams per mile of NOx and 2.56 grams per mile of VOC.

• Avera ge transit bus emissions are represented by the MOBILE6 HDDBS category and are 9.83 grams per mile NOx and .57 grams per mile VOC.

The cost of the program is estimated at over $45.6 million/year (in 2005

- 2006 $) not including marketing and administration

. Riders will pay $2 to $5 per round trip

. Selling ad space inside the vehicles will also be considered as a way to help pay for the service

. Combined NOx and VOC reduction benefits are 59.8 tons, with cost effectiveness at $456,500/ton

. The analysis shows that this measure is quantifiable and could be adequately supported.

d. Public Transit Improvements There are three measures related to transit options in the list of measures that could generate measurable emissions reductions: Electrified buses, Light rail expansion, and Hybrid buses

. The electrified buses or light rail require infrastructure improvements (overhead catenary or rail construction), but would result in an elimination of the engine emissions on those routes served. The planned and potential exp ansion of the current light rail network could be up to an order of magnitude increase by 2018, and could include commuter rail as well as light rail. Hybrid buses usually recover enough energy during braking and allow the engine to operate at peak efficie ncy to effect a 25% reduction in fuel consumption and emissions. It is not clear how the infrastructure for expanded rain and electric buses would be financed, but the hybrid buses, which seem more practical, could be partially funded by the savings in fue l expenditures

. Electrification of rail and buses could provide 0.012

- 0.12 tpd of NOx reductions, while the hybrid buses could potentially provide 0.23 tpd of NOx reductions

. These numbers were generated using known emission values of trips replaced by cle aner technologies

. The

5 The MOSERs manual was issued in 2002. It was reviewed by EPA, TxDOT, TTI, TCEQ and FHWA. It was funded by TxDOT and largely authored by the transportation engineers at TTI. Its purpose is to standardize how emissions reductions credits for similar projects are calculated. FHWA cited it as an example of best prac tices used by the Texas transportation community; it has been used in transportation conformity since 2002.TCEQ commitment for implementation by HGAC ensures adequate support for any portion of this

project

. Therefore, the measures are quantifiable and adequately supported.

e. Compressed Work Week Compressed work weeks are already part of the Commute Solutions program utilized by many employers in the Houston area

. A program specifically aimed at increasing the amount of compressed work weeks through a mandatory program is not currently in place but could be implemented as a part of the ove rall ozone attainment plan.

There are a number of variables important for evaluating the emission benefits of this measure. These are as follows:

• Total employment projected by H

- GAC for 2018 is 3,183,000. The above

- cited figure of 20% would be 636,600 employees.

• The average round trip work distance for Houston area employees is 40 miles; therefore daily VMT reduction on a compressed work week day is 25,464,000 and on an average day (1/7 th of the miles) would be 3,637,714 miles per day.

• Average light duty vehicle composite emission factor for NOx in 2018 is 0.171 grams per mile

• Average light duty vehicle composite emission factor for VOC in 2018 is 0.231 grams per mile

The emissions analysis utilized the basic process suggested by the MOSERs method ology,

Costs to employers are minimal with benefits due to employee retention possibly offsetting costs

. The emission reductions are estimated at 0.93 tpd of VOC and 0.69 tpd of NOx

. These measures are quantifiable and adequately supported.

f. Internet Ride matching Services This program is described as an H

- GAC ridesharing program that uses computer

- based methods to match riders for carpooling

. The consultant is NuRide

. It was started in August 2005, and had a big expansion in 2007 and 2008

. This program offers incentives to participate by offering gift cards and points redeemable at popular retailers to participants based on the number of times they sign up for a carpool

. If the program increased in ridership at the same rate between 2005

- 2008, there woul d be 376,757 regular riders in 2018

. It is assumed carpools average 2.7 people per vehicle and those carpoolers rideshare an average of twice per week at an average trip distance of 15 miles. This program is available seven days a week, and so can provide additional reductions that other commuter programs would not ordinarily do

. The VMT reductions are calculated with MOSERs methodology using the number of ridesharers, miles of carpooling, miles driven by the carpool driver, and frequency of ridesharing

. It is expected that well before 2018 the costs of the program will be limited to reporting costs. Conservatively they estimate the combined reporting and administrative costs to H

- GAC to be $100,000 in 2018

. The benefits are 0.52 tpd of VOC and 0.38 tpd of N Ox emissions reduced. The analysis shows that this measure is quantifiable and could be adequately supported.

g. Vanpooling The ongoing vanpooling program is anchored by METRO (the local transit agency), and consists of standard vanpools and a newer effort called “miniPOOL”

. This popular program is heavily subsidized, and whatever funding is provided for the program is assumed to go forward in the future

. This measure calculates the benefit based on the current vanpool program as it would be in 2018. Total

s ingle driver emissions based on individual VMT are subtracted from vanpool emissions to showemission reductions. The program is projected to reduce NOx by 0.07 tpd and VOC by 0.1 tpd

. The

analysis shows that this measure is quantifiable and could be adequ ately supported.

2. Regional Traffic Flow Improvements

a. Local Intersection Signal Improvements Local intersection signal improvements are part of the on

- going H

- GAC Plan and Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) that are funded accordingly. This project shows the emission reduction benefit from improving signal synchronization or addition, and constructing other improvements to intersections, e.g., turn lanes. The primary measure of the benefit of the project is improvements in the average speeds. The default estimate is to use the assumption that the average speed will improve from 30

- MPH to 35

- MPH on Freeways and 20

- MPH to 25

- MPH on Arterials

. Moving traffic reduces idling time

. The idling emissions were determined using the idling emission factor in kilo

- gra ms/hour (The idling emission factor is determined using the grams/mile for 2.50

- MPH idling speed multiplied by 2.50

- MPH.) and the delay reduction in vehicle

- hours

. The difference in emission factors (grams/mile) multiplied by vehicles

- miles of travel (VMT) will give emission benefits in kilograms/day

. For this summary, it was assumed that twice the money and benefit would be available during the period of 2015

– 2017. Emission reduction benefits are 2.0 tpd for VOC and 1.8tpd of NOx. The analysis shows that this measure is quantifiable and could be adequately supported.

3. Vehicle Retrofit and Replacement

a. Public and Private Sector Clean Fuel Fleets This measure seeks to reduce on

- road vehicle emissions by rapid turnover to newer lower emitting engines, retrofit of existing engines with approved devices, or new lower emission technologies. These programs have been mandated or voluntarily implemented with federal incentives or state funding from programs like TERP. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CM AQ) funds are distributed to replace and retrofit lower emitting heavy

- duty vehicles

. This measure would address heavy

- duty diesel, heavy

- duty gasoline vehicles, and buses

. Replacing two thousand older vehicles expected to be in use in 2018 with those meet ing 2010 or later emissions standards would result in about 1 to 2.5 tpd emission reductions of NOx

. These calculations were made using input files used in HGB MOBILE modeling

. Program funding would come from TERP, and CMAQ through the Clean Cities
program

. This measure is quantifiable and adequately supported.

b. Dedicated Funding for School Bus Replacement This measure accelerates the replacement of older buses in school district fleets through a fund dedicated to helping meet the costs of purchasing new bu ses to replace the older buses. Buses that are replaced should be scrapped

. Funding would come from a TERP block grant

. Assuming that normal turnover from 2010 onwards would remove almost all of the remainder of these buses by 2018 (each ISD replacing an a verage of 10.5 buses per year), a dedicated school bus fund could aim to accelerate the replacement of 25% of the fleet

. Because of the TERP requirement to meet the $15,000/ton of NOx reduced threshold, schools could receive only about 1/3 the cost of a ne w bus

. Calculation of emissions reduced relies on engine emission standards and known conversion factors for TxLED and engine conversions

. The NOx emission reductions/day from replacing 665 buses (using a 250 day year) is 0.774 tpd

. This measure is quantif iable and adequately supported.

c. Electric Vehicles/Increased Use of Hybrid Buses The electric vehicle control measure consists of the voluntary inclusion of a greater percentage of zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) or zero emitting travel through the use of plug

- in hybrids or other vehicles. This could occur through new purchases or a replacement program for existing vehicles

.Hybrid buses have an advantage over all

- electric (catenary) buses because no new infrastructure is

required to implement their use

. Em ission reductions from hybrid buses are 25% lower because the engines they use are low emission bus engines

. Therefore fewer emission reductions are gained from switching to hybrid buses

. This measure could affect about 40 tpd of VOC and 30 tpd of NOx 20 18 on

- road light

- duty emissions in the eight

- county HGB ozone nonattainment area

. This is based on emission standards for the various model year vehicles and the estimated VMT for each during the time period being evaluated

. The most likely vehicle types to be replaced by zero emitting activity are the smaller passenger cars

. Therefore the emission reduction benefit is estimated to be 0.04 tpd of VOC and 0.02 tpd of NOx

. There is an extensive discussion of the cost to implement, which is quite high

. The pr ogram could target specific niches to partially achieve emission reductions. Options include targeting public or private sector fleets as demonstration programs for the implementation of ZEV technology and providing the infrastructure

. Though the submittal indicates that H

- GAC would be the implementer of the VMEP measures, there is no indication where the funding for vehicle replacements and charging infrastructure would come from

. This measure is quantifiable, but it is questionable whether it would be ade quately supported

. Should it not be funded, the anticipated reductions would be mitigated by either substituting another measure in a SIP revision or perhaps from excess reductions from another measure

. Both options are permissible.

4. Off

- road Measures This category makes use of the state’s TERP program to fund most of these eligible non

- road projects

. Although they suggest that additional funds could come from EPA’s DERA funds through the Blue Skyways Collaborative, the suggestion that this funding would be annually available through 2018 is optimistic at best, but unlikely, considering the continuing economic slump and enormous national debt

. To be funded by a TERP grant or a DERA grant, emission reductions must be demonstrated using acceptable methodologie s recognized by the State and EPA and spelled out in their respective guidance documents

. Therefore, all measures funded by TERP or DERA in this category are considered quantifiable

. And if funded by TERP, DERA, or other similar funding mechanism, they are also considered adequately supported.

a. Voluntary Non

- road Replacement and Retrofit Programs This measure considers emission reductions from 10 categories of non

- road equipment, some of which may be covered in other measures under Off

- Road Measures

. The main evaluation performed under this measure was replacement or retrofit of switcher locomotives

. This evaluation was based on work funded by the Houston Ad vanced Research Center (HARC), ERG and Starcrest being the
contractors

. Data includes that collected by HARC and the major railroads operating in the HGB area

. Emission estimates for short lines and switching yards is based on fuel consumption

. From this analysis, emission reductions are estimated to be 2

- 3.5 tpd of NOx and VOC

. The TERP project for mar ine vessels has focused on harbor craft, which include tugs, excursion, and supply vessels because these vessel are more likely to spend most of their time within the area. Nearly all of the projects involve repowering propulsion and/or auxiliary engines w ith those meeting lower emission standards. Comparing the Tier 3 with the Tier 1 emission rates provides a potential 45% reduction is possible or 4 tons per day of NOx as an upper limit. Arbitrarily half of this maximum penetration rate was chosen as a low er limit of what could be achieved

. Emission reduction values rely on emission standards for the various model year engines replaced or retrofitted

. Emission reductions are projected to be 2

- 4 tpd of NOx and VOC in 2018.The potential for construction and off

- road engine replacement projects funded under TERP and/or other funding mechanisms is 2.5 tpd of NOx and VOC

. This would include various types of non

- road equipment including forklifts.

b. Government Construction Incentives An incentive program or a req uirement for publicly

- funded (including just captive state, county, and municipal fleets of off

- road equipment) or all construction projects could affect emission reductions by encouraging fleet turnover to those meeting lower emission standards. A TxDOT p lan provides an example of an incentive program. There are two basic methods, a voluntary or incentive approach and a fixed requirement for clean equipment. The incentive approach raises the cost to the State or local government contracts by offering a mon etary incentive, and the requirement raises the cost on the construction firm to maintain a clean fleet that would likely be passed on to the cost of the project

. In the TxDOT example, the incentive was additional funds for using cleaner equipment based on the horsepower and the engine tier utilized. The incentive of Tier 4 engines is required to demonstrate significant emission reductions compared to the average fleet age distribution in 2018. By 2018, half of the equipment in use could meet Tier 4 final s tandards under normal turnover. The emission benefit for public and publicly funded contracts is limited to 1.4 tpd (with TxLED benefit applied) of NOx emissions.

c. Promote Cleaner Lawn and Garden Equipment This program would use rebates or other incentives to replace the gasoline powered equipment with electric models

. In many cases the gasoline equipment is exchanged for the rebate/incentive and so is taken out of service. Replacement of 6000 lawnmowers with electric models results in 0.04 tpd VOC benefit

. Replacing leaf blowers would bring additional benefits

. Unlike the previously discussed non

road programs, this program would have to be funded by H

- GAC because this equipment is not eligible for TERP funding

.

d. Reduced Idling Idling is an inefficient operation that can produce unwanted air pollutants. Idling however also occurs during normal work and when work is performed intermittently

. Restarting an engine may be considered an annoying delay

. But idle reduction programs are interesting because the c osts are typically low and may be a net savings to the owner/operator of the equipment while also reducing air emissions

. Timed automatic shut

- off devices are used widely in the on

- road and parts of the non

- road arenas

. Savings in fuel would pay back the c ost of the device in a relatively fast timeframe

. An even less expensive (but potentially less reliable) method is operator training

. Calculating emission reductions would be based on the amount of fuel saved

. No estimates are given for this measure, altho ugh reductions in NOx would be expected.

e. Development of Clean Air Action Plans for Regional Port and Marine Operations The focus of this project is larger ocean

- going vessel (OGV) strategies because smaller commercial marine and shoreside (nonroad, locomo tive, and trucking) port initiatives are described in another VMEP measure. Most OGV are foreign flagged creating potential legal obstacles, inter

- port competition (higher fees may be a competitive disadvantage), and other concerns with operating a port

un der unique costs or operating restrictions. The administration of the program would fall to the ports or the state, and the methods used to enforce the program would still need to be defined

. Overall enforcement of the VMEP Off

- Road Measures in terms of ob taining emission reductions claimed falls to the State

.Examples of measures that could be applied to Large Ocean

- Going Vessels (OGV):

o OGV Vessel Speed Reduction (VSR)

o Reduction of At

- Berth OGV Emissions

o OGV Auxiliary Engine & Main Engine Fuel Standards

o OGV Main and Auxiliary Engine Emissions Improvements

The international standards include provisions for low sulfur fuel and engine emission controls worldwide with additional controls near regions defined by nations as sensitive to OGV polluti on. The United States championed by EPA is applying to define the U.S. as a sensitive region requiring such emissions controls. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has agreed to proposed amendments to the MARPOL Annex VI regulations to reduce NOx emissions from engines beginning in 2011 with a 14.4 g/kW

- hr and 3.4 g/kW

- hr in an Emission Control Area (ECA) in 2016 compared with 17 g/kW

- hr starting with vessels built in 2000.

At very low engine loads, the emissions per mile is a function of the ve ssel speed squared, so slowing the vessel speeds by 30% will reduce emission by half. Unlike California ports that are on the shore, Galveston Bay vessels speeds are already low

. Therefore the vessel speed reduction would affect emissions well out in the G ulf and may not affect local air quality as much as might be expected

. (But considering the on

- shore/off

- shore meteorology of the Houston area, this may still have a worthy benefit in reducing ozone

. )

At the dock, auxiliary engines are used for on

- board p ower needs

. These engines frequently are uncontrolled diesel engines

. Solutions are to provide plug

- in shore power, or use a hood or bonnet that routes the exhaust to a scrubber system that is either barge mounted or shore

- based.

Switching to lighter, low er sulfur fuels has been suggested primarily to reduce sulfur and particulate matter emissions, but would have some benefit for NOx emissions as well.

A large NOx emission reduction benefit could be effectuated by using engine controls either designed into the engine or as an aftertreatment device that could be used only near sensitive air quality areas. This would result in about a 12.5% emission reduct ion in 2018.

The projected emission reduction benefits for these measures range from 0.2 tpd of VOC to up to 4 tpd of NOx depending on the method utilized

. Cost of funding these measures will fall to the shipping company and the Port of Houston and its t enants

. The Port and its tenants could apply to TERP for possible funding for shore power electrification

. Ocean

- going vessels that come to the Port would not be eligible for TERP funds for modification of the ship’s engines, shore power conversion equipme nt, fuel switching or other modifications dedicated to the ship itself.

f. Rail Efficiency Measures This strategy suggests projects that might improve rail efficiency requiring less activity from line

- haul locomotives. Some measures to effect this improvemen t could be public/private partnerships while others might be implemented by the railroads. New technologies that have improved rail efficiency include wheel and rail lubrication, better bearings, more efficient engines, and perhaps other technologies yet t o be identified. The operational changes include idle reduction, improved aerodynamics, longer trains, and improved training and evaluation of engineers to reduce braking, idling, and other inefficient operations. This measure was assumed to primarily affe ct the mainline railoperations and therefore the line

- haul locomotives

. Short line and switch engine efficiencies are covered

by another VMEP program. Rail efficiency is measured in terms of freight moved per gallon of fuel consumed. Future changes could include rail network improvements to avoid congestion (such as double

- tracking where locomotives would otherwise need to brake and idle while awaiting other trains), free flow operations to avoid closing local roadways (such as through grade separation pro jects), re

grading or straightening routes (to reduce mileage and fuel consumption), or other projects

. Emission reductions are projected to be 0.8

– 1.6 tpd of NOx

. Project proponents would include the rail operators (railroads), and local, state, and fed eral transportation planners each of whom may provide funding and see benefits beyond air quality

. Any project under this category would be adequately supported by the project partners.

Conclusion T he HGB 8

- Hour Attainment Demonstration SIP revision VMEP meets the criteria for credit in the SIP

. The State has shown that the credits are quantifiable, surplus, enforceable, permanent, adequately supported, and consistent with the SIP and the Act

. We recommend to propose approval of the VMEP portion of the HGB 8

- hour Attainment Demonstration SIP

.

TCMs

TCMs are transportation related projects or activities designed to reduce on

- road mobile source emissions. Section 108 of the CAA outlines allowable types of TCMs. Federal regulations at 40 CFR 93.101 define a T CM as any measure that is specifically identified and committed to in the applicable implementation plan that is either one of the types listed in section 108 of the Act, or any other measure for the purposes of reducing emissions or concentrations of air pollutants from transportation sources by reducing vehicle use or changing traffic flow or congestion conditions. In September 1990 EPA issued “Transportation Control Measure: State Implementation Plan Guidance” (www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/policy/tran sp/tcms/state_plan_guidance.pdf). TCMs used as an emissions reductions control strategy must be specific, permanent, enforceable and quantifiable . TCMs in the SIP must include an identification of each project, location, length of each project (if applicab le), a brief project description, implementation date, and emissions reductions for NO x and VOC.

EPA approved the Texas TCM rule as a revision to the SIP on December 5, 2002 (67 FR 72379).

The SIP included 6 projects identified by the Houston

- Galveston Area Council (H

- GAC) to reduce mobile source emissions by enhancing pedestrian and bicycle pathways. The projects are listed in Appendix G of the April 6, 2010 SIP submittal and summarized in table 3 . The emission reductions estimated from these projects a re 0.015 tons/day of NOx. In an August 1, 2013 email, H

- GAC stated that the projects are completed or are anticipated to be implemented by the end of 2013

. Because these projects are specific, permanent, enforceable and quantifiable and would reduce NOx emissions by facilitating non

- automobile travel we propose to approve them.Table 3 . Pedestrian and Bicycle TCM Projects in the HGB SIP

Project # Description NOx Reductions (tons / day) Project Update from H

- GAC

0912

- 72

- 145 Holman Street

Pedestrian Improvements 0.0001862 TRANSIT ENHANCEMENTS (BUS). RFP/IFB Issued: 9/30/2010. Contract Award: 10/14/2010. Contract Complete: 1/7/2013. 0912

- 72

- 146 Pedestrian

Improvements for Elgin, Ennis, and Alabama Streets 0.0004562

0912

- 72

- 147 Pedestrian/Trans

it Improvement Program for Westheimer Road 0.0137628 Uptown Westheimer project, including streetscape improvements. Pedestrian improvements have been completed on Westheimer Ph1, Uptown Park Blvd and Skylark. as of Dec 2012 Jerdon contract has started work

on Westheimer Ph2 and it is about 40% complete. Work

on Westheimer and Richmond approx. 50% complete for both streets (Jerdon Contract). Anticipated completion by end of 2013. 0912

- 71

- 544 Columbia Tap

Rail to Trail Bikeway 0.0002721 The Columbia Tap Trail now connects the area east of the George R. Brown Convention Center (Polk St) to the Third Ward (Dixie Drive). The completed portions of the bikeway project are over 4 miles in length. An additional segment (MacGregor to E of SH 288) is anticipated to be completed in 2013. http://offcite.org/2009/03/12/rail

‐ to

‐ trail

‐ celebratingcolu mbia

‐ tap 0912

- 71

- 801 Columbia Tap

Union Station Trail Shared Use Path with Bike Lane 0.0005840 Completed. TxDOT completion date: Dec

‐ 2008

0912

- 71

- 655 Phase 2 W

.

Houston On

Street Bikeway Network (Terry Hershey Park) 0.0001653 Completed. TxDOT completion date: Aug

‐ 2009

Total 0.0154266

4

. Previously Approved State Measures and Federal Measures

Texas also identified State ozone control measures which we have previously approved and Federal measures applicable to the HGB area (Table 4

- 1 of the April 6, 2010 submittal) . The se State control

measures were approved by EPA for (1) the 1

- hour ozone NAAQS (71 FR 52670, September 6, 2006)and (2) additional VOC emission control fr om storage tanks, transport vessels and marine vessels in the

HGB area (75 FR 15348, March 29, 2010). Electronic dockets for the 2006 and 2010 approvals are available through www. egulations.gov (EPA

- R06

- OAR

- 2005

- TX

- 0018 and EPA

- R06

- OAR

- 2007

- 0526 ).

The Federal measures are regulations on vehicle emissions and fuel.

As we have already approved the State measures and promulgated Federal measures to reduce ozone levels it is appropriate that they are relied upon in the att ainment demonstration.

5 . Summary Regarding Control Measures Relied Upon in the Attainment Demonstration

W e must approve the measures relied on as necessary to demonstrate attainment in order to approve the attainment demonstration. These measures must be permanent, enforceable, quantifiable, and surplus. Our review of the control measures not yet approved fou nd that they meet these criteria. We propose to approve these measures and to find that the SIP has sufficient measures to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the HGB area as expeditiously as practicable but no l ater than the end of 2018 . Table 4 summarizes the measures relied upon for attainment.

Table 4 . Summary of Measures Relied Upon in the Attainment Demonstration

Measure Comments 1

- hour ozone NAAQS measures Approved (71 FR 52670, September 6, 2006) VOC emission controls for storage tanks, transport ve ssels and marine vessels Approved (75 FR 15348, March 29, 2010)

Federal measures Federal regulations affecting vehicle emissions Revisions to the MECT Proposed for approval Revisions to the HECT Proposed for approval VMEP and Transportation Control Measures Proposed for approval

C. Reasonable Available Control Measures

The RACM requirement applies to all nonattainment areas that are required to submit an attainment demonstration

. Section 172(c)(1) of the Act requires SIPs to provide for the implementation of all RACM as “expeditiously as practicable” and for attainment of the standard. We interpreted the RACM requirements of 172(c)(1) in the “ General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 ” (General Preamble) as imposing a duty on States to consider all available control measures and to adopt and implement such measures as are reasonably available for implementation in the particular nonattainment ar ea (April 16, 1992

, 57 FR 13498 13560). In addition, measures available for implementation in the nonattainment area that could not be implemented on a schedule that would advance the attainment date in the area would not be considered by us as reasonable to require for implementation. We indicated that a State could reject certain measures as not reasonably available for various reasons related to local conditions

. A State could include area

- specific reasons for rejecting a measure as RACM, such as the me asure would not advance the attainment date, or was not technologically and economically feasible.EPA also issued a memorandum reaffirming its position on this topic, “Guidance on the Reasonably

Available Control Measures (RACM) Requirement and Attainmen t Demonstration Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas,” John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, dated November 30, 199 9. 6 In the memorandum, EPA states that in order to determine whether a state has adopted all RACM neces sary for attainment and as expeditiously as practicable, the state will need to provide a justification as to why measures within the arena of potential reasonable measures have not been adopted

. The justification would need to support that a measure was not reasonably available for that area and could be based on technological or economic grounds

. If technologically or economically infeasible, the State does not need to consider it RACM.

To summarize our interpretation of the RACM requirement: 1) A control measure is necessary under the RACM requirement if it:

• is technologically feasible

• is economically feasible

• does not cause “substantial widespread and long

- term adverse impacts”

• is not absurd, unenforceable, or impracticable

• can advance the atta inment date 2 ) States need to:

• consider all available control measures

• provide justification to support that a measure was not reasonably available

• a dopt and implement RACM measures

Texas submitted a RACM demonstration with the April 6 , 2010 attainment demonstration (section 4.5 and appendix E of the April 6 , 2010 submittal)

. To meet the RACM requirement Texas :

• identified potentially available control measures with input from stakeholders

• analyzed whether the measure would be considered a RACM measure

Table s E

- 1 and E

- 2 in Appendix E of the April 2010 submittal list the potential s tationary and mobile source measures, respectively

, and the RACM determination for each measure. Texas evaluated each potential control measure and determined that only one, reduction of the HRVOC cap for Harris County, should be adopted to meet the RACM requirement. Texas then adopted a rule to implement the measure

. Texas determined that the other potential control measures did not meet the RACM criteria listed above.

We l ooked at tables E

- 1 and E

- 2 and did not identify any additional control measures we think are RACM . We agree that the other measures do not meet the RACM criteria listed above. Our review of the Texas ’ RACM process and analysis found that they considered all available control measures, provided justification to support that a measure was not reasonably available and adopted and implement ed the measure it identified as RACM.

D. Contingency Measures

CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) require contingency measures to be implemented in the event of failure to attain the standard by the applicable attainment date. These contingency measures must be fully adopted rules or measures which are ready for imp lementation quickly upon failure to meet

6 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/revracm.pdfattainment. Implementation of the contingency measures would provide additional emissions reductions

of up to three percent of the adjusted base year inventory. 7

The 1992 General Preamble stated that: “ States must show that their contingency measures can be implemented with minimal further action on their part and with no additional rulemaking actions such as public hearings or legislative review. ” (57 FR 13498 13512). In our November 29, 2005 Phase 2 rule for impl ementing the 1997 ozone NAAQS we noted that we had approved numerous SIPs that use as contingency measures one or more Federal measures that are in place and provide reductions that are in excess to the attainment demonstration (70 FR 71612 71651 )

. We furt her noted a court ruling which upheld contingency measures that were previously required and implemented where they were in excess of the attainment demonstration and RFP SIP. See LEAN v. EPA , 382 F. 3d 575 5th Circuit, 2004.

In the May 6, 2013 SIP submittal Texas provided a demonstration that the contingency measures requirement would be met through Federal rules aff ecting mobile emissions. Table 5 summarizes the contingency measure analysis provided by Texas with a recalculation of the contingency excess for NOx emissions

.

Table 5 . 2019 Contingency Demonstration for the HGB Area

Description NOx Emissions (tons per day) VOC Emissions

(tons per day) Adjusted 2018 Base Year Emissions Inventory 1003.92 935.59 Percent for Contingency Calculation (total of 3%) 2.00 1.00 2018 to 2019 Required Contingency Reductions 20.08 9.36 Federal On

- Road Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) 6.80

- 0.25 Federal On

- Road Mobile New Vehicle Certification Standards 22.28 9.50

State Inspection and Maintenance and Anti

- Tam pering Programs - 0.67

- 0.26

Texas Low Emission Diesel (TxLED) **

- 0. 20 0 Federal Non

- Road Mobile New Vehicle Certification Standards 3.56 1.78

Non

- Road RFG Gasoline 0.00 0.03 Federal Tier I and II Locomotive Standards 0.68 0.01 Federal Tier 2 Marine Diesel Standard 0.55 0.02 Total Contingency Reductions 33.20 10.83 Contingency Excess (+) or Shortfall (

- ) +1 2

. 9 2 +1.47 * The reason for negative numbers for the RFG

, Inspection and Maintenance/Anti

- Tampering and TxLED programs is that there is a slightly higher benefit in 2018 than in 2019. ** T able 4

- 3 in the May 6, 2013 submittal included this measure in the calculation, but did not list it in the table

. The Texas analysis documents that Federal measures can serve a s contingency measures and provid e additional emissions reductions that are in excess to those needed to satisfy the contingency requirement for the year 2019 in the event that the area fails to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS at the end of 2018.

7 The adjusted base year inventory is that inventory specified by CAA section 182(b)(1)(B).EPA finds tha t the F ederal measures identified above are fully in place and adopted and provide for

reduction in excess to the attainment demonstration of at least 3% of the baseline year, therefore we approve into the SIP the contingency measures identified by Texas.

E. Motor Vehicle Emission Budget (MVEB)

A MVEB is that portion of the total allowable emissions allocated to highway and transit vehicles in the SIP for a certain date for the purpose of meeting reasonable further progress milestones or demonstrating attainm ent or maintenance of the NAAQS (40 CFR 93.101). CAA section 176(c) and our transportation conformity rules at 40 CFR 93 require that transportation plans and related projects result in emissions that do not exceed the MVEB established in the SIP. This is to ensur e that the effects of emissions from all on

- road sources are consistent with the SIP

. The SIP included an attainment MVEB for 2018 (table 6 ). The MVEB represents the maximum level of on

- road emissions of NOx and VOC that can be produced in 2018, wh en considered with emissions from all other sources, which demonstrate attainment of the 1997 8

- hour ozone NAAQS. The attainment MVEB submitted on April 6, 2010 was updated in the May 6, 2013 submittal using a more recent EPA mobile source emissions estima tion model (MOVES). Previously we determined that the updated 2018 MVEB was “adequate” for transportation conformity purposes and must be used for future conformity determinations in the HGB area ( August 2, 2013, 78 FR 46947 ). All future transportation improvement programs, projects and plans developed, funded, or approved under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Laws for the HGB area will need to show that they do not result in emissions which exceed the MVEB (40 CFR 93. 118).

Table 6 . 2018 HGB Attainment MVEB

Pollutant Summer Weekday Emissions

(tons per day) NOx 103.34 VOC 50.13

Our review of the MVEB for adequacy found that it met the criteria found in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), specifically that:

• The submitted plan revision was endorsed by the Governor ’s designee and was su bject to a State public hearing

• Before the plan was submitted to EPA, consultation among federal, State, and local agencies occurred; full implementation plan documentation was provided to EPA; and EPA's stated concerns, if any, were addressed

• The MVEB is clearly iden tified and precisely quantified

• The MVEB , when considered together with all other emissions sources, is consistent with applicable requirements for attainment

• The MVEB is consistent wit h and clearly related to the emissions inventory and the control measures in the submitted plan revision

• Revisions to previously submitted plans explain and document any changes to previously submitted budgets and control measures; impacts on point and ar ea source emissions; any changes to established safety margins; and reasons for the changes We incorporate our analysis in the above adequacy determination and based upon it we propose to approve the 2018 MVEB into the SIP.F. General Air Quality Definitions

The General Air Quality definitions found in 30 TAC Section 101.1 are applicable to the entirety of the Texas SIP . R evisions to the General Air Quality Definitions were submitted on June 10, 2005, August 16, 2007, April 6, 2010 and March 11, 2 011 . Our analysis of these revisions are found in Appendix C of the TSD. In summary, our analysis demonstrates that the revisions are consistent with the CAA and EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR P art 51, therefore we propose approval of the revisions to 30 TAC 101.1 submitted on June 10, 2005, August 16, 2007, April 6, 2010 and March 11, 2011.

IV. 110(l) Evaluation

CAA section 110(l) prohibits EPA from approving any SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Because the SIP revisions provide fo r the area to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable and meet other CAA requirements, approval of the SIP revisions would not interfere with any applicable CAA requirement.

V. EPA Guidance Documents

Relevant EPA Guidance Documents fo r this rulemaking are as follows:

Transportation Control Measures: State Implementation Plan Guidance, September 1990 (EPA 450/2

– 89

– 020), http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/policy/transp/tcms/state_plan_guidance.pdf

Early Implementation of Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas, Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/CO Programs Branch, August 13, 1993 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/20789continmeas.pdf

Clarification of Issues Regarding the Co ntingency Measures that are due on November 15, 1993 for Moderate and Above Ozone Nonattainment Areas, Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, November 8, 1993 Document number EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2003

- 0079

- 0839 in regulation s.gov

Guidance on the Post 1996 Rate

- of

- Progress Plan (ROP) and Attainment Demonstration, (EPA

- 452/R

93

- 015), January 1994 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/aqmguide/collection/cp2_old/19940218_oaqps_post

1996_rop_guidance_corrected.pdf Document number EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2003

- 0079

- 0838 in www.regulations.gov

Guidance on the Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Requirement and Attainment Demonstration Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas, John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standard s, November 30, 1999 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/revracm.pdf

Memorandum dated December 14, 2000, from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, “Additional Submission on RACM From States With Severe One

- Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area SIPs.” http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/121400_racmmemfin.pdfImproving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs, January 2001, (EPA

- 452/R

- 01

- 001)

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/eipfin.pdf Guidance on Incorporat ing Voluntary Mobile Source Emission Reduction Programs in State Implementation Plans (SIPs)”, Memorandum from Richard D. Wilson, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 24, 1997 http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/policy/general/v mep

- gud.pdf

Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, April 2007 http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/final

- 03

- pm

- rh

- guidance.pdf

VI. Appendices

Appendix A

. Technical Support Document For Houston Galveston Brazoria Modeling and Other Analyses Attainment Demonstration (HGB

- MOAAD)

Appendix B

. Evaluation of MECT and HECT Program Revisions

Appendix C

. Evaluation of General Air Quality Definition Revisions