Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 51 

EPA-APPROVED NORTH CAROLINA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Provision State 

effective date 

EPA approval 

date Federal Register citation Explanation 

*******

Supplement Maintenance Plan for the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC 1997 8-hour Ozone Maintenance Area and RVP Standard.3/27/2013 1/2/14 [Insert citation of publication].

[FR Doc. 2013–31250 Filed 12–31–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2010–0333; FRL–9904–72– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; 

Reasonable Further Progress Plan, 

Contingency Measures, Motor Vehicle 

Emission Budgets, and a Vehicle Miles 

Traveled Offset Analysis for the 

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 1997 

8-Hour Severe Ozone Nonattainment 

Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving two State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the State of Texas on April 

1, 2010, and revised on May 6, 2013, 

containing a reasonable further progress 

(RFP) plan, RFP contingency measures 

demonstration, motor vehicle emission 

budgets (MVEBs), and a vehicle miles 

traveled (VMT) offset analysis for the 

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) 1997 

8-hour ozone severe nonattainment area. 

EPA is approving SIP revisions in 

accordance with the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA 

regulations. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

February 3, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA established a docket 

for this action under Docket ID Number 

EPA–R06–OAR–2010–0333. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the electronic 

docket, some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy for public inspection during 

normal business hours at the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, 

Dallas, Texas. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Carl Young, Air Planning Section (6PD– 

L), Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, telephone 

(214) 665–6645; email address 

young.carl@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Throughout this document, whenever 

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

EPA. On September 9, 2013 (78 FR 

55029), EPA published a proposed 

approval of the 2010 RFP plan, RFP 

contingency measures, MVEBs, and 

VMT offset analysis for the HGB severe 

1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. 

The SIP revisions for this action were 

formally submitted by the State of Texas 

on April 1, 2010, and revised on May 6, 

2013. The SIP revisions address the RFP 

and RFP contingency measures 

requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, and establish MVEBs for 2013. 

The revision also provides a VMT offset 

analysis demonstration, a severe area 

requirement, which shows the area does 

not need any additional transportation 

control measures (TCMs) or 

transportation control strategies (TCSs) 

to keep mobile source emissions below 

the established emissions ceiling. EPA’s 

rationale for our proposed action is 

explained in the September 9, 2013 

proposed rulemaking as well as a more 

detailed description of the two 

submittals, and will not be restated 

here. EPA is approving the SIP revisions 

because they satisfy the RFP, RFP 

contingency measures, and 

transportation conformity requirements 

for MVEBs of section 110 and part D of 

the CAA and associated EPA 

regulations, and section 182(d)(1)(A) of 

the CAA. 

II. Response to Comments 

We received several comments from 

the Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality. In addition to 

supporting our proposed approval, the 

state asked for clarification to support 

consistency across TCEQ and EPA 

documents for a number of items. 

Comment 1. Table 1: Revisions to the 

2002 RFP Base Year Emissions 

Inventory on Page 55031 is not the 

original 2002 RFP Base Year. It is an 

attainment demonstration base year 

table. Table 2: RFP 2002 Baseline 

Emissions Inventory Summary is the 

revised RFP Base Year Emissions 

Inventory and is correct. Table 1 needs 

to be updated to contain the original 

base year information. 

Response 1: EPA acknowledges that 

some confusion may have occurred with 

the labeling of the base year columns in 

this table due to the fact that there were 

multiple submittals with one partial 

submittal, and with multiple references 

to base years. We have clarified Table 1 

by re-labeling the base year columns 

and republishing it below to better 

reflect the years for which the values 

were calculated. The values in the 

columns remain unchanged. 

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

[Tons/day] 

Source type NOX VOC 

Submittal date Previously 

approved 

Revised 

inventory * 

Previously 

approved 

Revised 

inventory * 

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

52 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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

[Tons/day] 

Source type NOX VOC 

Submittal date Previously 

approved 

Revised 

inventory * 

Previously 

approved 

Revised 

inventory * 

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

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

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

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

* Submitted by the State on May 6, 2013. 

Comment 2: In the center column on 

Page 55031, there are several incorrect 

references to a 15% reduction for HGB 

between 2002 and 2008. The correct 

reduction for HGB between 2002 and 

2008 is 18%. The references to the 

required reduction for HGB between 

2002 and 2008 may need to be updated 

to be 18% throughout the whole 

document, as appropriate. 

Response 2: EPA approved the HGB 

moderate area RFP for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard which included a 15% 

plan as well as contingency measures 

and associated MVEBs on April 22, 

2009 (76 FR 18298). In that action, EPA 

recognized that the state had requested, 

and EPA had granted, a reclassification 

of the HGB area from moderate to severe 

on October 1, 2008 (73 FR 56983). With 

that reclassification the state was 

required to provide an RFP with 

emission reductions for VOC and/or 

NOX of 18% for the six-year period, plus 

3% per year for all remaining three-year 

periods after the first six-year period out 

to the attainment date as prescribed in 

40 CFR 51.910(a)(1)(ii)(B). We agree that 

the correct RFP reduction for the HGB 

area between 2002 and 2008 is 18%. 

Comment 3: The EPA’s RFP 

demonstration summary and the 

associated Table 6 on Page 55033 only 

discuss an RFP demonstration for 2018. 

There are RFP demonstrations for 2008, 

2011, 2014, 2017, and 2018. The 

summaries of the RFP controls (Tables 

4 and 5) have all five years but the RFP 

demonstration table only has 2018. The 

RFP demonstration discussion may 

need to be updated to include all five 

RFP demonstration years. 

Response 3: The efficacy of providing 

only the 2018 RFP demonstration table 

as an example of the state meeting RFP 

was done that way because the 2018 

table was built upon all the other RFP 

demonstration tables which also 

showed the milestone RFP targets were 

met. We are providing a summary table 

here as Table 6–1 to show how all the 

RFP milestones were met. 

TABLE 6–1—UPDATE SUMMARY OF RFP DEMONSTRATION FOR HGB 

Inventory description 2008 2011 2014 2017 2018 

Forecast NOX Emissions ......................................................................... 642.55 635.68 571.88 528.37 522.17 

NOX Target .............................................................................................. 816.10 754.15 667.70 580.60 555.22 

Forecast VOC Emissions ......................................................................... 883.13 875.72 886.17 896.41 901.62 

VOC Target .............................................................................................. 923.82 927.98 919.19 912.54 907.50 

Targets Met? ............................................................................................ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Comment 4: The last column on Page 

55033 indicates that the RFP 

contingency may be met by including a 

demonstration of 27% Volatile Organic 

Compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) reductions in the RFP plan. On 

Page 55034, the 27% is stated as being 

calculated by adding 15 and 12%. The 

RFP contingency is met by including a 

cumulative demonstration of 51%, 

which is the sum of the VOC and NOX

reductions requirement, from 2002 base 

year, with 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017 

milestone years, 2018 attainment year, 

and 2019 contingency year 

(18+9+9+9+3+3). Either the amount 

needs to be changed to 51% or a further 

explanation of the 27%, 15%, and 12% 

reductions is suggested for clarification. 

Response 4: EPA acknowledges this 

misstatement and corrects the 

percentage here in this final action to 

reflect that the actual achievement 

shown in the RFP is 51% and not the 

27% as stated in the proposal. This 

change does not alter the final outcome 

of our analysis. 

Comment 5: In the first full paragraph 

of the middle column on Page 55036, 

the description of the values in Table 9: 

RFP Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

for HGB are referred to as the total 

projected transportation emissions for 

milestone years 2008 to 2018. In 

actuality, the values are the MVEBs, 

which are the projected emissions 

adjusted with transportation conformity 

safety margins. The description may be 

more accurate if it is modified: (a) To 

indicate the safety margin adjustment; 

or (b) to refer to values as the MVEBs 

rather than projected emissions. 

Response 5: EPA agrees that the 

values in Table 9 show the total 

projected transportation emissions for 

milestone years 2008 through 2018 plus 

safety margins. We modify here our 

description preceding Table 9 to include 

this clarifying phrase: ‘‘Table 9 shows 

the total projected transportation 

emissions plus safety margins for 

milestone years 2008–2018 as submitted 

in Tables 7–43 through 7–47 of the 2013 

SIP Submittal.’’ 

Comment 6: Clarification is needed to 

support consistency across TCEQ and 

EPA documents. As EPA notes in the 

technical support document (TSD), 

there was an error in the spreadsheet 

calculation that lowered the VOC values 

in Tables 7–29 through 7–31 by 19.82 

tons per 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 

per day. EPA should clarify in the final 

approval notice that this surplus is 

appropriate for the HGB area, and that 

TCEQ will address this error in the next 

SIP submittal, without penalty. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 53 

Response 6: For the purposes of the 

proposal, EPA did not see the need to 

mention the particulars of this error in 

the proposed approval. However, in this 

final action we are acknowledging that 

the excess emissions of VOC available to 

the TCEQ for future SIP submittals is 

actually 19.82 ton per day more than the 

5.88 tons per day shown in Table 7–31 

of the 2013 submittal. This provides the 

state with 25.60 tons per day of excess 

VOC emissions available for future 

planning purposes. We are not 

modifying any tables in this final action 

to reflect this because the tables show 

what was in the 2013 submittal. 

III. Final Action 

The EPA is approving the 2010 RFP 

plan; RFP contingency measures; 2013 

MVEBs; and the VMT offset analysis for 

the HGB 1997 8-hour severe ozone 

nonattainment area. The SIP revision 

satisfies requirements for 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS nonattainment areas 

classified as severe and demonstrates 

reasonable further progress in reducing 

ozone precursors. The VMT offset 

analysis demonstrates that the credited 

TCSs and TCMs for the attainment year 

are sufficient to offset the anticipated 

increase in VMT over time, and 

therefore no additional TCSs or TCMs 

are needed to attain the NAAQS. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

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

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 

generally provides that before a rule 

may take effect, the agency 

promulgating the rule must submit a 

rule report, which includes a copy of 

the rule, to each House of the Congress 

and to the Comptroller General of the 

United States. EPA will submit a report 

containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by March 3, 2014. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: December 16, 2013. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart SS—Texas 

■ 2. In § 52.2270, the second table in 

paragraph (e) entitled ‘‘EPA Approved 

Nonregulatory Provisions and QuasiRegulatory Measures in the Texas SIP’’ 

is amended by adding, at the end of the 

table, entries for ‘‘Reasonable Further 

Progress Plan (RFP), RFP Contingency 

Measures’’; ‘‘RFP Transportation 

Conformity Motor Vehicle Emission 

Budgets (2008, 2011, 2014, 2017 and 

2018)’’ and ‘‘Vehicle Miles Traveled 

(VMT) Offset Analysis’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2270 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

54 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 1 / Thursday, January 2, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA-APPROVED NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES IN THE TEXAS SIP 

Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State 

submittal/ 

effective date 

EPA-approval date Comments 

*******

Reasonable Further 

Progress Plan (RFP), 

RFP Contingency Measures.

Houston-GalvestonBrazoria, TX.4/1/2010, 5/6/2013 ............ [Insert page number where 

the document begins].

RFP Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (2008, 

2011, 2014, 2017 and 

2018).

Houston-GalvestonBrazoria, TX.5/6/2013 ............................ [Insert page number where 

the document begins].

Vehicle miles traveled offset analysis.Houston-GalvestonBrazoria, TX.5/6/2013 ............................ [Insert page number where 

the document begins].

[FR Doc. 2013–30876 Filed 12–31–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0854; FRL–9904–50– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Pennsylvania; Approval of the 2002 

Base Year Emissions Inventory for the 

Liberty-Clairton Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: As a revision to the 

Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan 

(SIP), Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) is approving the 2002 base year 

emissions inventory for the LibertyClairton nonattainment area for the 1997 

annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS or standard) (hereafter ‘‘the 

Liberty-Clairton Area’’ or ‘‘the Area’’). 

EPA is also approving revisions to the 

Allegheny County Health Department 

(ACHD) regulations, which were 

submitted by Pennsylvania Department 

of Environmental Protection (PADEP). 

These regulatory revisions included the 

following amendments to ACHD 

regulations, which became effective on 

May 24, 2010: The addition of the levels 

of the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard and 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, and 

the related references to the list of 

standards and the addition of the 

definition of ‘‘PM2.5’’. These actions are 

being taken under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective on February 3, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0854. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the electronic docket, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for 

public inspection during normal 

business hours at the Air Protection 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Allegheny County 

Health Department, Bureau of 

Environmental Quality, Division of Air 

Quality, 301 39th Street, Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania 15201. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Emlyn Ve ́lez-Rosa, (215) 814–2038, or 

by email at velez-rosa.emlyn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Summary of State Submittal 

III. Effects of Recent Court Decisions 

IV. Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

The formal SIP revision submittal, 

prepared by ACHD, was submitted by 

PADEP on June 17, 2011. The SIP 

revision included the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS attainment plan for the LibertyClairton Area, a 2002 base year 

emissions inventory for purposes of 

meeting the requirement of section 

172(c)(3) of the CAA, the transportation 

conformity motor vehicle emissions 

budgets (MVEBs), and certain revisions 

to ACHD regulations. This SIP revision 

is described in further detail in section 

II of this rulemaking action. 

On November 7, 2011 (76 FR 68699), 

EPA published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) for the 

Commonwealth in Pennsylvania. In the 

NPR, EPA proposed conditional 

approval of the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS attainment plan for the LibertyClairton Area (the ‘‘attainment plan’’). 

EPA proposed conditional approval 

because the attainment plan included 

air quality modeling that relied on 

emissions reductions from the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR), which was 

problematic because at the time CAIR 

was no longer in place. EPA had 

promulgated the Cross State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR) on August 8, 

2011 (76 FR 48208) to replace CAIR. As 

part of this NPR, EPA also proposed to 

approve the amendments to ACHD 

regulations included in the June 17, 

2011 SIP revision, which added the 

definition of PM2.5 and the level of the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. No public comments were 

received on this NPR. 

On October 25, 2013 (78 FR 63881), 

EPA determined that the LibertyClairton Area had attained the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS, based on qualityassured and certified ambient air quality 

data for the 2009–2011 and 2010–2012 

monitoring periods. This ‘‘clean data 

determination’’ suspended the 

requirement for the Liberty-Clairton 

Area to submit an attainment 

demonstration, reasonably available 

control measures (RACM), reasonable 

further progress (RFP), and contingency 

measures related to attainment of the 

1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, for so long 

as the Area continues to attain the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

On November 18, 2013, PADEP 

submitted a letter requesting to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES