Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 55037 

• are not a significant regulatory 

action subject to Executive Order 13211 

(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• are not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• do not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Ozone, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: August 28, 2013. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

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

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2013–0387; FRL–9900–80– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Texas; 

Attainment Demonstration for the 

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 1997 8- 

Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submittals from the State of Texas for 

the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 1997 8- 

hour ozone nonattainment area (HGB 

area). EPA is proposing approval of the 

following SIP Clean Air Act required 

elements from Texas for the HGB area: 

The attainment demonstration for the 

1997 ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS), the 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM) demonstration for the NAAQS, 

the contingency measures plan in the 

event of failure to attain the NAAQS by 

the applicable attainment date, and a 

Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget 

(MVEB) for 2018, which is the 

attainment year for the area. EPA is also 

proposing to approve revisions to the air 

pollution control measures and General 

Air Quality Definitions in the Texas SIP. 

The revisions to the air pollution 

control measures include revisions to 

the Mass Emissions Cap and Trade 

(MECT) program for nitrogen oxides 

(NOX), revisions to the highly reactive 

volatile organic compound (HRVOC) 

emissions cap and trade (HECT) 

program, Voluntary Mobile Emissions 

Program (VMEP) measures, and 

Transportation Control Measures 

(TCMs). EPA is proposing these actions 

in accordance with section 110 and part 

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

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before October 9, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2013–0387, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions. 

• Email: r6air_hgbozone@epa.gov. 

Please also send a copy by email to the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section below. 

• Mail or delivery: Mr. Guy 

Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section 

(6PD–L), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–2013–0387. 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information through 

www.regulations.gov or email that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected. The www.regulations.gov 

Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ 

system, which means EPA will not 

know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send an 

email comment directly to EPA without 

going through www.regulations.gov your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. Contact the person listed 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT paragraph below to make an 

appointment. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl 

Young, Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

telephone (214) 665–6645, email 

young.carl@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

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

the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. The 1997 Ozone NAAQS and the HGB 

Area 

B. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for 

Ozone Nonattainment SIPs 

C. State SIP Submittals 

II. EPA’s Evaluation 

A. Attainment Demonstration Modeling 

and Weight-of-Evidence 

1. Attainment Demonstration General 

2. Photochemical Grid Modeling 

3. Modeling Episodes 

4. Modeling Emissions Inventory 

5. Model Performance 

6. Future Year Modeling 

7. Results of 2018 Future Year Modeling 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
55038 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1Subsequently, we lowered the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS to 0.075 ppm and classified the Houston 

area as a marginal nonattainment area for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008); 

77 FR 30088, 30089 (May 21, 2012). This 

rulemaking does not address the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. 

2See docket EPA–R06–OAR–2010–0333 in 

www.regulations.gov. 

8. Additional Evidence 

9. Attainment Demonstration Evaluation 

B. Control Measures Relied Upon in the 

Attainment Demonstration 

1. MECT 

2. HECT 

3. VMEP Measures and TCMs 

4. Previously Approved State Measures 

and Federal Measures 

5. Summary Regarding Control Measures 

Relied Upon in the Attainment 

Demonstration 

C. RACM 

D. Contingency Measures 

E. MVEB 

F. General Air Quality Definitions 

III. Proposed Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. The 1997 Ozone NAAQS and the 

HGB 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 onroad and non-road motor vehicles 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, throat 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 http://epa.gov/airquality/

ozonepollution. 

In 1979, under section 109 of the 

CAA, EPA established primary and 

secondary NAAQS for ozone at 0.12 

parts 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 NAAQS 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 health 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 nonattainment area for the 1997 

ozone NAAQS. See 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. See 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 Requirements 

for Ozone Nonattainment SIPs 

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’’ 

(sections 181–185). We promulgated a 

regulation to implement the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS at 40 CFR part 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. 

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, (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 approve 

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.2 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 permanent, 

enforceable and quantifiable. 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 SIP 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. 

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 NOX 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 onroad 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) updated discussions of 

emissions inventory, photochemical 

modeling, control strategies and 

required elements, and weight-ofevidence that the area will attain by its 

attainment date. 

In addition to the revisions submitted 

on April 6, 2010, Texas previously 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 55039 

submitted 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 notice by Texas as required by 40 

CFR 51.102 and evidence of this was 

provided in the SIP submittal. Please 

see the submittals found in the 

electronic docket and our technical 

support document (TSD). 

II. EPA’s Evaluation 

We have prepared a TSD for this 

rulemaking which details our 

evaluation. Our TSD may be accessed 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–2013–0387. 

A. Attainment Demonstration Modeling 

and Weight-of-Evidence 

Below, we briefly discuss the steps 

necessary to build an attainment 

demonstration, including 

photochemical modeling and 

supplemental weight of evidence and 

our evaluation of Texas’ performance of 

these steps. Please see the TSD for this 

action for our full evaluation and 

conclusions. 

1. Attainment Demonstration General. 

CAA 182 (c)(2)(A), and 40 CFR 51.908, 

51.112, and Part 51 Appendix W— 

Guideline on Air Quality Models 

require that attainment demonstrations 

for ozone nonattainment areas classified 

as moderate or higher (severe in this 

case) be conducted with photochemical 

grid modeling or an equivalent 

technique approved by EPA. The CAA 

and regulations (including Appendix W) 

do not prescribe a specific 

photochemical grid model, but allow for 

EPA to judge the suitability of a model 

by considering multiple factors. These 

factors include choice of episode(s), 

emissions and meteorological inputs, 

model formulation, databases used, and 

how the model is used in the attainment 

test. Texas used the Comprehensive Air 

Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx) 

photochemical grid model in its 

demonstration that the control strategies 

for the HGB area will achieve 

attainment by 2018. The Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality 

(TCEQ) also included a TSD, a number 

of appendices, and numerous electronic 

files that document model formulation, 

databases used, assumptions, 

judgements, evaluations of control 

strategy impacts, etc. EPA reviewed the 

available information and concluded 

that the use of CAMx is acceptable and 

TCEQ’s modeling and documentation 

meets the photochemical modeling 

demonstration requirements of the CAA 

and 40 CFR 51.908, 51.112, and Part 51 

Appendix W. Also, as allowed under 

EPA policy, TCEQ has introduced other 

evidence, referred to as weight of 

evidence, to supplement the modeling 

analysis. 

2. Photochemical Grid Modeling. 

Photochemical grid models are the stateof-the-art method for predicting the 

effectiveness of control strategies in 

reducing ozone levels. The model uses 

a three-dimensional grid to represent 

conditions in the area of interest. In this 

case, TCEQ has developed a grid system 

that stretches from beyond Austin to the 

West, to the Atlantic Ocean to the East, 

to southern Canada to the North and 

into the Gulf of Mexico to the South. 

The model uses nested grid cells of 36 

kilometers (km) on the outer portions, 

12 km in east Texas and portions of 

nearby States, a 4 km grid cell covering 

the HGB and Beaumont Port Arthur 

(BPA) areas and a refined 2 km grid 

covering the HGB area. For more 

information on the modeling domain, 

please see Appendix A of the TSD. The 

model simulates the movement of air 

and emissions into and out of the threedimensional grid cells (advection and 

dispersion); mixes pollutants upward 

and downward among layers; injects 

new emissions from sources such as 

point, area, mobile (both on-road and 

non-road), and biogenic into each cell; 

and uses chemical reaction equations to 

calculate ozone concentrations based on 

the concentration of ozone precursors 

and incoming solar radiation within 

each cell. Running the model requires 

large amounts of data regarding the 

emissions and meteorological 

conditions during an episode. Air 

quality planners choose historical 

episodes with high ozone levels to test 

the model. Modeling to duplicate 

conditions during a historical episode is 

referred to as the base case modeling 

and is used to verify that the model 

system can predict the historical ozone 

levels with an acceptable degree of 

accuracy. If the model can predict the 

ozone levels in the base case, it can then 

be used to project future ozone levels 

and the response of future ozone levels 

to proposed emission control strategies. 

3. Modeling Episodes. Texas chose six 

recent historical episodes (2005: 5/19–6/ 

3, 6/17–6/30, and 7/26–8/8; 2006: 5/31– 

6/15, 8/13–9/15, 9/16–10/11) that 

encompassed much of the time period 

of the Texas Air Quality Study (TexAQS 

II) 2005/6. During this study period, 

researchers from around the country 

participated in an intensive study of 

ozone formation in the HGB area, 

collecting additional meteorological and 

chemical data with the last two episodes 

occurring when the intensive field 

campaign occurred. This study provided 

a wealth of information to test the 

assumptions in the model. EPA believes 

that these episodes are acceptable 

episodes for development of the 1997 8- 

hour attainment plan. The episodes 

encompass a large number of 

exceedance days (55 days) and contain 

a variety of meteorological conditions 

which resulted in high concentrations of 

ozone in the area as measured on both 

a 1-hour and 8-hour basis. Day specific 

evaluation of these episode days 

confirms that overall, these episodes are 

representative of the conceptual model 

for high ozone in the HGB area. In 

summary, these episodes include most 

meteorological conditions that occur 

when ozone exceedances are monitored 

in HGB and the modeling and analyses 

were enhanced by having the TexAQS 

II field study data. 

4. Modeling Emissions Inventory. 

TCEQ followed acceptable procedures 

for the development of the basecase 

inventory, following or building upon 

EPA guidance. They also included 

emissions during upsets and other day 

specific emissions. Despite these efforts, 

one of the original findings of the 

TexAQS 2000 study was that observed 

concentrations of certain compounds, 

especially light olefins such as ethylene 

and propylene, were much larger than 

represented in the reported emission 

inventory. As a result, TCEQ created an 

‘imputed’ inventory (approximately 5.8 

times the reported levels for these 

HRVOC species) in its 1-hour ozone 

attainment SIP. TCEQ also instituted 

rules to better regulate the industrial 

point sources that emit these 

compounds with ‘‘HRVOC rules’’ in a 

2004 SIP modification approved by EPA 

(71 FR 52656, September 6, 2006). The 

more recent 2005/6 field study 

confirmed that these measures resulted 

in lower levels of these pollutants 

(approximately 42% lower on average 

than 2000 levels) but the HRVOC levels 

were still under reported with ambient 

measurements indicating that actual 

emissions were an average of 2–3 times 

reported levels. Field study data also 

confirmed that emission inventory 

estimates of other VOCs, in addition to 

the HRVOCs, were also under estimated, 

but these VOCs are harder to attribute to 

a specific category as they could be 

emitted from mobile, area, and non-road 

categories in addition to industrial point 

sources. As a result, TCEQ adjusted the 

estimates of the HRVOCs in the 2005/6 

basecase emission inventories. This 

reconciliation with ambient data was 

performed using a combination of wind 

data and measurements from the Auto 

Gas Chromatographs that measure 56 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
55040 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

different VOC species. The 

reconciliation resulted in upward 

adjustments of facility HRVOC 

emissions better match the ambient 

data. The adjustments ranged from less 

than two times greater than reported to 

more than ten times greater than 

reported in some cases. 

We believe that the method TCEQ has 

used to reconcile ambient HRVOC 

emissions data with reported emissions 

is a reasonable approach to addressing 

the concern that reported emissions, 

despite being based on accepted 

estimation technologies, do not result in 

emission estimates that are consistent 

with ambient measurements. In 

addition, the ‘‘reconciliation’’ approach 

is more sophisticated and more accurate 

than the ‘‘imputed’’ approach used in 

past SIP revisions for the HGB area. The 

inventory, based on this reconciliation 

technique, also improved model 

performance. We continue to encourage 

TCEQ to find and resolve the issues that 

are resulting in these discrepancies 

between reported and actual emissions. 

As TCEQ works on attaining the 2008 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS, resolving these 

underestimated emissions of HRVOCs 

and other VOCs will continue to be very 

important. 

5. Model Performance. Model 

performance is a term used to describe 

how well the basecase model predicts 

the ozone levels in a historical 

episode(s). As models have to make 

numerous simplifying assumptions and 

the system being modeled is very 

complex, model predictions will never 

be perfect. EPA and TCEQ evaluate a 

number of times series, diagnostic, and 

statistical metrics for the meteorological 

analysis that is used in the 

photochemical modeling analysis. EPA 

has developed various diagnostic, 

statistical and graphical analyses that 

TCEQ employed to evaluate the model’s 

performance and determine if the model 

is working adequately to test control 

strategies. Overall the modeling overpredicted some maxima on lower ozone 

days and under-estimated some maxima 

on the higher ozone days. In addition, 

modeled ozone values at night do not 

drop as much as monitored ozone 

levels. EPA notes that the model’s 

general tendency to under-predict on 

high days and over-predict on low days 

raises some uncertainty in the control 

strategy modeling. While the model had 

some problems with predicting the 

maxima in the HGB area, overall, the 

performance was adequate for moving 

forward using 37 of the initial 55 

exceedance days in the control strategy 

analysis. 

6. Future Year Modeling. Once the 

basecase/baseline modeling of historical 

episodes has been completed, the 

periods (days) with acceptable model 

performance can then be used to project 

future year ozone levels by replacing the 

basecase/baseline emissions with 

emissions estimates for future years. 

TCEQ developed a 2018 emission 

inventory using recent emission data 

information and projection tools. TCEQ 

used the meteorology files from the 

basecase episodes for the 2018 modeling 

estimates. Using meteorology from 

historical episodes allows one to assess 

whether the lower projected 2018 

emission levels would be expected to 

result in attainment of the standard if 

the same meteorology occurs. For 

further details about 2018 emissions 

estimates and how they were generated, 

see our TSD and TCEQ’s materials 

supporting this action. 

7. Results of 2018 Future Year 

Modeling. The results of 2018 modeling 

are shown in Table 1. In estimating if 

the modeling is predicting attainment or 

nonattainment in the future year, we use 

a ratio that is based on the average of the 

8-hour daily maximums predicted 

around a monitor in the future divided 

by the average of the 8-hour daily 

maximum predicted in the basecase. 

This ratio is called a Relative Response 

Factor (RRF). The RRF for a monitor is 

multiplied by the basecase 5-year 

average Design Value (DV) to obtain a 

future 5-year average DV. 

Table 1 shows that all of the 

regulatory monitors except Deer Park 

and Bayland Park are predicted to have 

2018 DVs below the 1997 8-hour 

NAAQS. For a full explanation of how 

these projections were calculated, see 

our TSD. Table 1 also shows that the 

Wallisville Rd. monitor that TCEQ has 

labeled as non-regulatory is also 

projected to be above the 1997 8-hour 

NAAQS in 2018 modeled DV 

projections. We have evaluated TCEQ’s 

DV projections and confirm that they 

followed EPA’s attainment 

demonstration guidance and methods as 

required by 40 CFR 51.112 and 

Appendix W of Part 51. 

TABLE 1—FUTURE YEAR (2018) PROJECTED DESIGN VALUES

[Using the RRFs from the modeling] 

Monitor designation Site code 2006 DVB

(ppb) ** RRF 2018 DVF(ppb) ** 

Houston East (CAMS 1) .................................................................................. HOEA 80.3 0.942 75.6 

Aldine (CAMS 8) .............................................................................................. HALC 85.0 0.916 77.9 

Channelview (CAMS 15) ................................................................................. HCHV 82.7 0.937 77.5 

Northwest Harris County (CAMS 26) .............................................................. HNWA 89.0 0.877 78.1 

Galveston Airport (CAMS 34) .......................................................................... GALC 81.7 0.927 75.7 

Deer Park (CAMS 35) ...................................................................................... DRPK 92.0 0.936 86.1 

Seabrook Friendship Park (CAMS 45) ............................................................ SBFP 85.3 0.924 78.8 

Bayland Park (CAMS 53) ................................................................................ BAYP 96.7 0.899 87.0 

Conroe Relocated (CAMS 78) ......................................................................... CNR2 83.0 0.877 72.8 

Houston Regional Office (CAMS 81) ............................................................... HROC 79.7 0.949 75.6 

Manvel Croix Park (CAMS 84) ........................................................................ MACP 90.7 0.890 80.7 

Clinton (CAMS 403) ......................................................................................... C35C 79.0 0.947 74.8

North Wayside (CAMS 405) ............................................................................ HWAA 76.3 0.932 71.2 

Swiss and Monroe (CAMS 406) ...................................................................... HSMA 90.3 0.917 82.9 

Lang (CAMS 408) ............................................................................................ HLAA 77.7 0.897 69.6

Croquet (CAMS 409) ....................................................................................... HCQA 87.0 0.897 78.1 

Shell Westhollow (CAMS 410) ........................................................................ SHWH 92.3 0.868 80.1 

Houston Texas Avenue (CAMS 411) .............................................................. HTCA 79.3 0.937 74.3 

Haden Road (CAMS 603) * ............................................................................. H03H 84.0 0.943 79.2 

Wallisville Road (CAMS 617) * ........................................................................ WALV 92.0 0.935 86.0 

Danciger (CAMS 618) * ................................................................................... DNCG 80.3 0.881 70.8 

Mustang Bayou (CAMS 619) * ......................................................................... MSTG 84.7 0.901 76.2 

Texas City (CAMS 620) * ................................................................................. TXCT 84.3 0.921 77.7 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 55041 

TABLE 1—FUTURE YEAR (2018) PROJECTED DESIGN VALUES—Continued 

[Using the RRFs from the modeling] 

Monitor designation Site code 2006 DVB

(ppb) ** RRF 2018 DVF(ppb) ** 

Lynchburg Ferry (CAMS 1015) ....................................................................... LYNF 81.7 0.942 76.9 

Lake Jackson (CAMS 1016) ............................................................................ LKJK 77.0 0.891 68.6 

* Non-regulatory, industry-sponsored monitor. 

** Values 85 parts per billion (ppb) or greater are shown in bold. The 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS is 0.08 ppm, which equates to 84 ppb when 

rounding is considered. 

EPA’s 2007 Modeling Guidance also 

recommends that areas not near 

monitoring locations (unmonitored 

areas) in a nonattainment area be 

analyzed in an ‘‘unmonitored area 

(UMA) analysis’’ to determine if these 

areas would be expected to reach 

attainment. The standard attainment test 

(results in the table above) only applies 

at monitor locations, and the UMA 

analysis is intended to identify any 

areas not near a monitoring location that 

are at risk of not reaching attainment. 

The TCEQ chose to use its own 

procedure to conduct the UMA analysis 

instead of using EPA’s Modeled 

Attainment Test Software (MATS). 

TCEQ’s analysis uses similar 

approaches and we propose to accept its 

use for this SIP. TCEQ’s UMA indicates 

that there are no areas in the HGB 

nonattainment area outside of the 

specific areas evaluated in the monitor 

based attainment test analysis that are at 

risk of not reaching attainment. In 

summary, EPA finds that TCEQ’s 

photochemical modeling analysis 

indicates that all the monitors in HGB 

area will either be attaining or near 

attainment levels in 2018, all HGB 

unmonitored areas will be attainment, 

and TCEQ’s evaluations conform with 

EPA’s regulations and guidance. 

8. Additional Evidence. The EPA’s 

1996 guidance entitled ‘‘Guidance on 

Use of Modeled Results to Demonstrate 

Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS’’ 

allows for the use of alternative 

analyses, called weight-of-evidence 

(WOE), to provide additional evidence 

that the proposed control strategy, 

although not modeling attainment, is 

nonetheless expected to achieve 

attainment by the attainment date. EPA 

continued to support WOE analyses in 

the 2007 Modeling Guidance. The intent 

of these guidance documents was to be 

cognizant of the fact that, under the 

structure of the standard some 

exceedances of the ozone NAAQS are 

allowed each year. Thus, even though 

the specific control strategy modeling 

may predict some areas to be above the 

NAAQS, this does not necessarily mean 

that with the implementation of the 

control strategy monitored attainment 

will not be achieved. In addition, as 

with other predictive tools, there are 

inherent uncertainties associated with 

modeling and its results. For example, 

there are uncertainties in the 

meteorological and emissions inputs 

and in the methodology used to assess 

the severity of an exceedance at 

individual sites. The EPA’s guidance 

recognizes these limitations and 

provides a means for considering other 

evidence to help assess whether 

attainment of the NAAQS is likely. 

Since the future control case modeling 

in the Texas SIP revision predicts some 

areas still exceeding the ozone NAAQS, 

the TCEQ followed EPA Modeling 

Guidance to supplement the control 

strategy modeling with WOE analyses. 

The 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 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. Furthermore, the ozone 

precursor trends are generally showing 

a decrease that supports the HGB area’s 

impact on ozone levels that exceed the 

standard is continuing to decrease. 

The HGB area’s most recent design 

value is 88 ppb through 2012. 

Additional reductions of precursor 

emissions are expected with six more 

years of fleet turnover bringing cleaner 

cars and off road equipment into the 

fleet. EPA believes that these reductions 

will bring about the additional 4 ppb of 

reduction necessary from 2012 

monitored levels to reach attainment— 

supporting the proposed finding that 

HGB will attain by its attainment year. 

To further support its WOE argument 

Texas submitted many additional 

analyses, which are discussed in the 

TSD for this action. These include: 

Corroborative analysis of the modeling, 

process analysis, application of source 

apportionment tools, highly detailed 

model performance evaluations, and 

analysis of model response to simulated 

emission reductions. Texas also 

provided an analysis of air quality data 

including: Ozone design value trends, 

trends in strength of ozone gradients, 

impact of Hurricane Ike on ozone levels, 

NOX and VOC monitored trends, 

geographic patterns in HRVOC 

monitored values, meteorological 

adjusted trends, regional and Texas 

background ozone trends, and transport/ 

surface wind trajectories. 

Finally, to support the finding that the 

area would attain the standard, Texas 

documented additional control 

programs that were not included in the 

model but will provide emission 

reductions that will contribute to lower 

ozone levels. These include: Improved 

international marine diesel and fuel 

standards, SmartWay transport 

initiatives, car allowance rebates, 

improved control of VOCs from storage 

tanks, energy efficiency and renewable 

energy measures, Texas Emission 

Reduction Plan, Low Income Vehicle 

Repair Assistance/Retirement program, 

Clean School Bus program, Best 

Management Practices for barge 

emissions, and other local initiatives. In 

general, these measures are expected to 

reduce ozone concentrations but are 

difficult to quantify and therefore were 

not modeled. EPA agrees that these 

measures contribute to the evidence that 

the area will attain the standard by its 

attainment date. 

One area of uncertainty in the 

attainment demonstration is the 

treatment of flare emissions in the 

modeling. The destruction efficiencies 

are projected to be high, with values 

from 98% to 99% depending on the 

compound. It is likely that flares not 

achieving these destruction efficiencies 

are one source of the documented 

under-estimation of the emissions 

inventory and the need to impute 

emissions based on ambient air 

concentrations for the base case/

baseline emission inventory. We note 

that TCEQ has been working with 

industry on flare best management 

practices to try to insure good flare 

performance. These efforts should result 

in reduced flare emissions compared to 

current levels, but it is uncertain that all 

flares will achieve the projected 

destruction efficiencies in 2018 as 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
55042 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

assumed in the modeling. How 

successful TCEQ’s initiative is in 

reducing emissions of flares will likely 

have a significant impact on the success 

of the HGB area in continued ozone 

improvement. The details of our review 

of the WOE analysis and data can be 

reviewed in our TSD Appendix A—HGB 

MOAAD, Chapter 6. In accordance with 

40 CFR 51.908, 51.112, and Appendix 

W of Part 51, the WOE analysis supports 

our proposed finding of attainment for 

HGB by its attainment date. 

9. Attainment Demonstration 

Evaluation. EPA believes that the 

combination of photochemical modeling 

and other evidence (WOE) indicates that 

the HGB area will attain the NAAQS by 

2018. This SIP revision represents a 

significant improvement over past 

efforts to model the HGB area. Texas has 

greatly improved the representation of 

the area’s complex meteorology. In 

addition they have a much more refined 

emission inventory because of the better 

reconciliation of HRVOC emissions with 

ambient data. The 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. 

This modeling evidence taken together 

with the WOE discussed above, 

demonstrates that HGB will reach 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour NAAQS 

by the end of the ozone season of 2018. 

In reaching this conclusion, we have 

considered the uncertainties presented 

by discrepancies between reported 

emissions and ambient measurements 

and uncertainties regarding the 

performance of flares. We have also 

considered the significant 

improvements in ozone levels 

documented by ambient ozone data and 

the expected future reductions 

including those that were not modeled. 

In summary, our analysis of TCEQs 

photochemical modeling and WOE 

concludes that the area will reach 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS by the end of 2018. 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. Our full evaluation 

of each modeling and WOE elements of 

the attainment demonstration submitted 

by TCEQ in this SIP revision is included 

in our TSD for this notice. 

B. Control Measures Relied Upon in the 

Attainment Demonstration 

1. MECT. The MECT is a portion of 

the SIP-approved control strategy for the 

HGB area that caps NOX emissions 

beginning January 1, 2002, with a final 

reduction to the cap occurring in 2007 

for stationary sources. The cap 

represents an approximate reduction in 

NOX emissions of 80% from the 

applicable stationary sources (with 

some sources reducing more and some 

reducing less). 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 in 66 FR 57252 

(November 14, 2001). We have 

subsequently approved revisions to the 

MECT on September 6, 2006 and July 

16, 2009. See 71 FR 52698 and 74 FR 

34503. 

On March 10, 2010, TCEQ adopted 

revisions to the MECT Program at 30 

TAC Chapter 101, Subchapter H, 

Division 3, Sections 101.350, 101.351, 

and 101.353. These revisions amend the 

SIP-approved MECT program to protect 

the integrity of the NOX cap in HGB. 

Specifically, the TCEQ adopted 

revisions to 30 TAC 101.350 to revise 

the definition of ‘‘uncontrolled design 

capacity’’ to ‘‘uncontrolled design 

capacity to emit’’ to allow more 

flexibility for stationary diesel engines 

to determine how to comply with NOX

emission requirements in Chapter 117— 

either through participation in the 

MECT or through purchasing banked 

emission credits. The adopted revisions 

also revise the applicability of the 

MECT program at 30 TAC 101.351 to 

require subject sites to first determine 

the status as a major or minor source 

under 30 TAC Chapter 117. If the source 

is major, then it must participate in the 

MECT. If the source is minor then it can 

choose to participate under the MECT or 

meet reduction requirements through 

the purchase and retirement of banked 

emission credits. Finally, the adopted 

revisions modify the allocation of 

allowance requirements at 30 TAC 

101.353 to discontinue the acceptance 

of late Level of Activity certification 

forms that could have inflated the cap. 

The TCEQ also adopted non-substantive 

revisions throughout to correct 

typographical errors and Texas Register 

formatting requirements. 

EPA’s complete evaluation of the 

revisions to the MECT adopted on 

March 10, 2010 and submitted April 6, 

2010, is available in our TSD. In 

summary, we find that the revisions to 

the MECT will continue to achieve the 

reduction in stationary source NOX

emissions relied upon in the attainment 

demonstration. 

2. HECT. 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 

HRVOCs, as defined in 30 TAC Section 

115.10, and that are 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 the HECT program on 

September 6, 2006, as an integral 

component of the HGB 1-hour ozone 

attainment demonstration. See 71 FR 

52659. 

On March 10, 2010, the TCEQ 

adopted revisions to HECT Program at 

30 TAC Chapter 101, Subchapter H, 

Division 6, Sections 101.390–101.394, 

101.396 and 101.399–101.401. These 

revisions reduce the HRVOC cap in 

Harris County by 25%—a step taken to 

achieve the reductions shown necessary 

by the photochemical modeling for HGB 

8-hour ozone attainment demonstration 

discussed in section II. 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. 

EPA’s complete evaluation of the 

revisions to the HECT adopted on 

March 10, 2010 and submitted April 6, 

2010, is available in our TSD. In 

summary, we find that the revisions to 

the HECT to implement the reduction in 

the Harris County HRVOC cap by 25% 

will reduce ozone levels and achieve the 

reductions relied upon in the 

photochemical modeling for the 

attainment demonstration. 

3. VMEP Measures and TCMs. The 

SIP included VMEP measures to reduce 

mobile source emissions of ozone 

precursors. VMEP measures consist of 

voluntary mobile source strategies that 

complement existing regulatory 

programs through voluntary, nonregulatory changes in local 

transportation activities or changes in 

in-use vehicle and engine composition. 

The types of HGB VMEP measures and 

NOX emission reductions are listed in 

Table 2 and are expected to reduce NOX

emissions by 2.25 tons per day. 

TABLE 2—VMEP TYPES AND NOX

EMISSION REDUCTIONS

Program type NOX reductions 

(tons per day) 

Alternative Commuting ..... 0.20 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 55043 

3The 1997 guidance is available at http://

www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/policy/general/

vmep-gud.pdf . 

4 Id. 

5Transportation 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. 

TABLE 2—VMEP TYPES AND NOX

EMISSION REDUCTIONS—Continued 

Program type NOX reductions 

(tons per day) 

Regional Traffic Flow Improvements ................... 0.05 

Vehicle Retrofit and Replacement ...................... 1.30 

Off-road Measures ............ 0.70 

Total .............................. 2.25 

Authority for our approval of VMEP 

measures is primarily grounded in 

section 110(a)(2) of the CAA, as well as 

sections 182(g)(4)(A) and 108. Section 

110(a)(2) establishes that a SIP must 

include ‘‘enforceable emissions limits 

and other control measures, means or 

techniques . . . as well as schedules 

and timetables for compliance, as may 

be necessary or appropriate to meet the 

applicable requirements of this 

chapter.’’ In interpreting 110(a)(2) of the 

CAA, EPA issued a guidance document 

entitled, ‘‘Guidance on Incorporating 

Voluntary Mobile Source Emission 

Reduction 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.3 The Fifth Circuit 

Court of Appeals upheld, as a 

reasonable interpretation of the Act, 

EPA’s VMEP policy and allowed the 

State to consider estimated emissions 

reductions from a VMEP in the HGB 

area 1-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration. See BCCA Appeal Group 

v. EPA, 355 F.3d 817, 825 (5th Cir. 

2003). 

Generally, to obtain credit for a 

VMEP, the SIP: (1) Identifies and 

describes a VMEP, (2) Contains 

projections of emission reductions 

attributable to the program, along with 

any relevant technical support 

documentation, (3) Commits to 

evaluation and reporting on program 

implementation and results, and (4) 

Commits to the timely remedy of any 

credit shortfall should the VMEP not 

achieve the anticipated emission 

reductions. The VMEP emission 

reduction credits should be quantifiable, 

surplus (i.e., they are not credited 

twice), enforceable, permanent, and 

adequately supported.4 In addition, the 

VMEP must be consistent with 

attainment of the standard and with the 

reasonable further progress 

requirements and not interfere with 

other CAA requirements. The VMEP for 

an area can be revised by a SIP revision 

that substitutes or adds other VMEP 

measures if needed. 

As in past commitments, we interpret 

the VMEP portion of the SIP to be 

enforceable because the State, through 

the Houston-Galveston Area Council 

(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 submittal. 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 VMEP shortfall 

that might occur in the VMEP program. 

A detailed analysis of all the VMEP 

measures can be found in our TSD. Each 

creditable VMEP measure was found to 

be quantifiable. The VMEP emission 

reductions are surplus because they are 

not substitutes for mandatory, required 

emission reductions. The commitment 

to monitor, assess and timely remedy 

any shortfall from implementation of 

the measures is enforceable against the 

State. The reductions will continue at 

least for as long as the time in which 

they are used by this SIP demonstration, 

so they are considered permanent. 

There is a commitment that each 

measure is adequately supported by 

personnel and program resources for 

implementation. 

The HGB area’s ozone SIP 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 CAA. 

We propose to approve the VMEP 

portion of the Texas SIP. 

TCMs are transportation related 

projects or activities designed to reduce 

on-road mobile source emissions. TCMs 

used as a control measure in the 

attainment demonstration must be 

specific, permanent, enforceable and 

quantifiable.5 We approved the Texas 

rule for implementing TCMs in the SIP 

(30 TAC 114.270) in 67 FR 72379 

(December 5, 2002). The SIP included 

six projects identified by the HoustonGalveston Area Council to reduce 

mobile source emissions by enhancing 

pedestrian and bicycle pathways (table 

3). The emission reductions estimated 

from these projects are 0.015 tons per 

day of NOX . These projects would 

reduce NOX emissions by facilitating 

non-automobile travel. As the TCMs are 

part of the SIP, the commitment to 

implement the TCMs is enforceable 

through the SIP. Because these projects 

are specific, permanent, enforceable, 

and quantifiable we propose to approve 

them. 

TABLE 3—PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE TCM PROJECTS IN THE HGB SIP 

Project No. Description NOX Reductions 

(tons per day) 

0912–72–145 ............. Holman Street Pedestrian Improvements ............................................................................................... 0.0001862 

0912–72–146 ............. Pedestrian Improvements for Elgin, Ennis, and Alabama Streets .......................................................... 0.0004562 

0912–72–147 ............. Pedestrian/Transit Improvement Program for Westheimer Road ........................................................... 0.0137628 

0912–71–544 ............. Columbia Tap Rail to Trail Bikeway ........................................................................................................ 0.0002721 

0912–71–801 ............. Columbia Tap Union Station Trail Shared Use Path with Bike Lane ..................................................... 0.0005840 

0912–71–655 ............. Phase 2 West Houston On-Street Bikeway Network (Terry Hershey Park) ........................................... 0.0001653 

Total ................... .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.0154266 

4. Previously Approved State 

Measures and Federal Measures. Texas 

also identified other previously 

approved State ozone control measures 

and Federal measures applicable to the 

HGB area which achieved reductions 

that are relied upon in this attainment 

demonstration. The State control 

measures included those approved by 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
55044 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

6The adjusted base year inventory is that 

inventory specified by CAA section 182(b)(1)(B). 

EPA for: (1) The 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

(71 FR 52670, September 6, 2006) and 

(2) additional VOC emission controls for 

storage tanks, transport vessels and 

marine vessels in the HGB area (75 FR 

15348, March 29, 2010). 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 attainment 

demonstration. 

5. Summary Regarding Control 

Measures Relied Upon in the 

Attainment Demonstration. As noted 

earlier we 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. 

BCCA Appeal Group, 355 F.3d at 825. 

Our review of the control measures not 

yet approved found 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 later 

than June 15, 2019. 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 vessels 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, Transportation Control Measures .......................................................................... Proposed for approval. 

C. RACM 

Texas submitted a demonstration that 

the HGB area has adopted all RACM 

necessary to demonstrate attainment as 

expeditiously as practicable with the 

attainment demonstration as required by 

CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 

51.912(d). We consider a control 

measure to be necessary under the 

RACM requirement if it: (1) Is 

technologically feasible, (2) is 

economically feasible, (3) does not 

cause ‘‘substantial widespread and longterm adverse impacts’’, (4) is not absurd, 

unenforceable, or impracticable and (5) 

can advance the attainment date. 

To demonstrate that the area meets 

the RACM requirement Texas (1) 

identified potentially available control 

measures with input from stakeholders 

and (2) analyzed whether the measure 

would be considered a RACM measure. 

Texas determined that only one 

potential control measure, reduction of 

the HRVOC cap for Harris County, 

should be adopted to meet the RACM 

requirement. As discussed above, Texas 

has adopted a rule to reduce the HRVOC 

cap for Harris County and we are 

proposing to approve that rule. We 

reviewed Texas’ RACM process and 

analysis and believe that Texas has 

shown that the HGB area has met the 

CAA RACM requirement. Therefore we 

propose to approve the demonstration of 

RACM implementation. For more 

information please see our TSD. 

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 

implementation quickly upon failure to 

meet attainment. Implementation of the 

contingency measures would provide 

additional emissions reductions of up to 

three percent of the adjusted base year 

inventory.6 For more information on 

contingency measures, please see the 

April 16, 1992 General Preamble (57 FR 

13498, 13510) and the November 29, 

2005 Phase 2 8-hour ozone standard 

implementation rule (70 FR 71612, 

71650). As noted in the November 29, 

2005 rule, contingency measures could 

include Federal measures already 

scheduled for implementation. In the 

May 6, 2013 SIP submittal, Texas 

provided a demonstration that the 

contingency measures requirement 

would be met through Federal rules 

affecting mobile emissions. Table 5 

summarizes the contingency measure 

analysis provided by Texas. We 

reviewed the analysis provided in the 

SIP and found the contingency 

measures provide the necessary 

reductions in ozone precursor emissions 

for the year 2019 in the event that the 

area fails to attain the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS at the end of 2018. Therefore 

we propose to approve the failure to 

attain contingency measures plan as 

meeting the contingency measures 

requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) 

and 182(c)(9). For more information 

please see our TSD. 

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-Tampering 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 55045 

TABLE 5—2019 CONTINGENCY DEMONSTRATION FOR THE HGB AREA *—Continued 

Description NOX Emissions 

(tons per day) 

VOC Emissions 

(tons per day) 

Federal Tier 2 Marine Diesel Standard ........................................................................................................... 0.55 0.02 

Total Contingency Reductions ..................................................................................................................... 33.20 10.83 

Contingency Excess (+) or Shortfall (Ø) .................................................................................................... +12.92 +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. 

E. MVEB 

The SIP included an attainment 

MVEB for 2018 (table 6). The MVEB 

represents the maximum level of onroad emissions of NOX and VOC that 

can be produced in 2018—when 

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 estimation 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 (78 FR 

46947, August 2, 2013). 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). We propose to approve 

the 2018 MVEB into the SIP. 

TABLE 6—2018 HGB ATTAINMENT

MVEB 

Pollutant 

Summer weekday emissions 

(tons per day) 

NOX .................................. 103.34 

VOC .................................. 50.13 

F. General Air Quality Definitions 

The April 6, 2010, SIP submittal 

included revisions to the General Air 

Quality Definitions at 30 TAC Section 

101.1. The General Air Quality 

definitions are applicable to the entirety 

of the Texas SIP. While reviewing the 

April 6, 2010 SIP submittal, we also 

reviewed other pending revisions to the 

General Air Quality definitions at 30 

TAC 101.1 submitted on June 10, 2005, 

August 16, 2007, and March 11, 2011. 

The revisions to the definitions were 

minor and non-controversial. Our 

complete evaluation of these pending 

revisions is available in our TSD. In 

summary, our analysis demonstrates 

that the revisions are consistent with the 

CAA and EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 

part 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. 

Please see Appendix C of our TSD for 

our analysis. 

III. Proposed Action 

We are proposing to approve SIP 

submittals from the State of Texas for 

the HGB ozone nonattainment area 

submitted on April 6, 2010, and May 6, 

2013. Specifically, we are proposing to 

approve 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 RACM 

implementation 

• Failure to attain contingency 

measures plan in the event of failure 

to attain the NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date 

We are also proposing to approve SIP 

revisions to the General Air Quality 

Definitions submitted by the State on 

June 10, 2005, August 16, 2007, April 6, 

2010 and March 11, 2011. We are 

proposing these actions in accordance 

with section 110 and part D of the CAA. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, 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 proposes to approve 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 proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

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


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
55046 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 174 / Monday, September 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Dated: August 28, 2013. 

Samuel Coleman, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2013–21886 Filed 9–6–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2013–0102; 

FXES11130900000C6–123–FF09E32000] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a 

Petition To Delist or Reclassify From 

Endangered to Threatened Five 

Southwest Species 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition 

finding and initiation of status review. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

90-day finding on a petition to delist the 

Eriogonum gypsophilum (gypsum wildbuckwheat), and downlist the blackcapped vireo (Vireo atricapilla), lesser 

long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris curasoae 

yerbabuenae), Echinocereus fendleri 

var. kuenzleri (Kuenzler hedgehog 

cactus), and Sclerocactus brevihamatus 

ssp. tobuschii (Tobusch fishhook cactus) 

from endangered to threatened under 

the Endangered Species Act. Based on 

our review, we find that the petition 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned actions may be 

warranted. Therefore, with the 

publication of this notice, we are 

initiating a review of the status of these 

species to determine if the respective 

actions of delisting and reclassifying are 

warranted. Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act 

also requires a status review of listed 

species at least once every 5 years. We 

are, therefore, electing to conduct each 

of these 5-year reviews simultaneously 

with the corresponding 12-month 

finding. To ensure that this status 

review is comprehensive, we are 

requesting scientific and commercial 

data and other information regarding 

these species. Based on the status 

review, we will issue a 12-month 

finding on the petition, which will 

address whether the petitioned action is 

warranted, as provided in section 

4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. 

DATES: We request that we receive 

information to consider for the status 

review on or before November 8, 2013. 

The deadline for submitting information 

using the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

(see ADDRESSES section below) is 11:59 

p.m. Eastern Time on this date. After 

November 8, 2013, you must submit 

information directly to the Division of 

Policy and Directives Management (see 

ADDRESSES section below). Please note 

that we might not be able to address or 

incorporate information that we receive 

after the above requested date. 

ADDRESSES: Document availability: You 

may obtain copies of the July 11, 2012, 

petition and the 5-year reviews for 

petitioned species on the internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov at Docket 

No. FWS–R2–ES–2013–0102. 

Written comments: You may submit 

information by one of the following 

methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Search for FWS– 

R2–ES–2013–0102, which is the docket 

number for this action. You may submit 

information for the status review by 

clicking on ‘‘Comment Now!’’ 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

or hand-delivery to: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–R2–ES–2013– 

0102; Division of Policy and Directives 

Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 

2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will not accept emails or faxes. 

We will post all information we receive 

on http://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide us 

(see the Request for Information section 

below for more details). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michelle Shaughnessy, Assistant 

Regional Director, Southwest Regional 

Ecological Services Office, 500 Gold 

Avenue SW., Albuquerque, NM 87102; 

telephone 505/248–6920; facsimile 505/ 

248–6788. If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), please call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)) requires that we 

make a finding on whether a petition to 

list, delist, or reclassify a species 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

We are to base this finding on 

information provided in the petition, 

supporting information submitted with 

the petition, and information otherwise 

available in our files. To the maximum 

extent practicable, we are to make this 

finding within 90 days of our receipt of 

the petition and publish our notice of 

the finding promptly in the Federal 

Register. 

Our standard for substantial scientific 

or commercial information with regard 

to a 90-day petition finding is ‘‘that 

amount of information that would lead 

a reasonable person to believe that the 

measure proposed in the petition may 

be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we 

find that substantial scientific or 

commercial information was presented, 

we are required to promptly initiate a 

species status review, which we 

subsequently summarize in our 12- 

month finding. 

Section 3(6) of the Act defines an 

‘‘endangered species’’ as any species 

which is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. A ‘‘threatened species’’ is any 

species that is likely to become an 

endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. Under 

the Act, we maintain a List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants at 50 CFR 17.11 (for animals) 

and 17.12 (for plants) (List). We amend 

the List by publishing final rules in the 

Federal Register. Section 4(c)(2)(A) of 

the Act requires that we conduct a 

review of listed species at least once 

every 5 years (5-year review). Section 

4(c)(2)(B) requires that we determine: (1) 

Whether a species no longer meets the 

definition of threatened or endangered 

and should be removed from the List 

(delisted); (2) whether a species listed as 

endangered more properly meets the 

definition of threatened and should be 

reclassified to threatened (downlisted); 

or (3) whether a species listed as 

threatened more properly meets the 

definition of endangered and should be 

reclassified to endangered (uplisted). 

Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.21 

require that we publish a notice in the 

Federal Register announcing those 

species currently under active review. 

Petition History 

On July 16, 2012, we received a 

petition dated July 11, 2012, from The 

Pacific Legal Foundation, Jim Chilton, 

the New Mexico Cattle Growers’ 

Association, New Mexico Farm & 

Livestock Bureau, New Mexico Federal 

Lands Council, and Texas Farm Bureau 

requesting that the Eriogonum 

gypsophilum (gypsum wild-buckwheat) 

be delisted, and the black-capped vireo 

(Vireo atricapilla), lesser long-nosed bat 

(Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae), 

Echinocereus fendleri var. kuenzleri 

(Kuenzler hedgehog cactus), and 

Ancistrocactus tobuschii (an accepted 

synonym for Sclerocactus brevihamatus 

ssp. tobuschii—Tobusch fishhook 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS