[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 19 (Monday, January 29, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2751-2760]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1543]



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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[TX43-1-6275; FRL-5403-7]


Clean Air Act Limited Approval and Limited Disapproval of 15 
Percent Rate of Progress and Contingency Plans for Texas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes a limited approval and limited disapproval of 
the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of 
Texas to meet the 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plan requirements of the 
Clean Air Act. The EPA is proposing a limited approval because the 15 
Percent Plans, submitted by Texas, will result in significant emission 
reductions from the 1990 baseline and thus, will improve air quality. 
Simultaneously, the EPA is proposing a limited disapproval of the 15 
Percent Plans because they fail to demonstrate sufficient reductions of 
area-wide Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) to meet the 15 Percent Rate 
of Progress requirements. Also, the EPA is proposing a limited approval 
of the contingency plans because these plans, if implemented, will 
result in emission reductions that will improve air quality. 
Simultaneously, the EPA is proposing a limited disapproval of the 
contingency plans because they fail to demonstrate that the required 
three percent reduction of VOC emissions will be achieved if the plans 
are implemented.
    The EPA is also proposing a limited approval of the specific 
control measures in the 15 Percent and Contingency Plans because these 
rules will strengthen the SIP. A final action on these control measures 
will incorporate these rules into the Federally approved SIP.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be post marked by March 
29, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to Mr. 
Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section, at the EPA Regional 
Office listed below. Copies of the documents relevant to this action 
are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the 
following locations. Persons interested in examining these documents 
should make an appointment with the appropriate office at least 24 
hours before the visiting day.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Planning Section 
(6PD-L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 72202-2733.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, 12100 Park 35 Circle, 
Austin, Texas 78711-3087.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Guy R. Donaldson, Air Planning 
Section (6PD-L), USEPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-
2733, telephone (214) 665-7242.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background:

    Section 182(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended in 1990, 
requires ozone nonattainment areas with classifications of moderate and 
above to develop plans to reduce area-wide VOC emissions by 15 percent 
from a 1990 baseline. The plans were to be submitted by November 15, 
1993 and the reductions were required to be achieved within 6 years of 
enactment or November 15, 1996. The Clean Air Act also sets limitations 
on the creditability of certain types of reductions. Specifically, 
States cannot take credit for reductions achieved by Federal Motor 
Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) measures (new car emissions standards) 
promulgated prior to 1990 or for reductions resulting from requirements 
to lower the Reid Vapor Pressure of gasoline promulgated prior to 1990. 
Furthermore, the CAA does not allow credit for corrections to Vehicle 
Inspection and Maintenance Programs (I/M) or corrections to Reasonably 
Available Control Technology (RACT) rules as these programs were 
required prior to 1990.
    In addition, section 172(c)(9) of the Clean Air Act requires that 
contingency measures be included in the plan revision to be implemented 
if reasonable further progress is not achieved or if the standard is 
not attained.
    In Texas, four moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas are 
subject to the 15 Percent Rate of Progress requirements. These are the 
Beaumont/Port Arthur (serious), Dallas/Fort Worth (moderate), El Paso 
(serious), and the Houston/Galveston (severe) areas. Texas adopted 
measures for the 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plans and the required 
contingency measures in two phases. Phase I was submitted to the EPA on 
November 13, 1993, and contained measures achieving the bulk of the 
required reductions in each of the nonattainment areas. Phase II was 
submitted May 9, 1994. The Phase II submittal was to make up the 
shortfall in reductions not achieved in the Phase I measures. The 
combination of the Phase I and Phase II measures was ruled complete by 
the EPA on May 12, 1994.
    On August 3, 1994, Texas submitted rules for the review and 
processing of Alternate Means of Control (AMOC). These revisions 
provide for the EPA review and approval of AMOC plans. On November 9, 
1994, Texas submitted a narrative explanation and justification of the 
AMOC process with their plan to reduce emissions an additional 9 
percent in the Houston/Galveston and Beaumont/Port Arthur Areas.
    The EPA has analyzed the November 13, 1993, submittal; May 9, 1994, 
submittal; August 3, 1994 submittal; and the AMOC narrative portion of 
the November 9, 1994, submittal; and believes that these proposed 15 
Percent Plans and Contingency Plans can be given limited approval 
because they overall would strengthen the SIP by achieving reductions 
in VOC emissions. The 15 Percent Plan and Contingency Plans do not, 
however, achieve the total required percentage of reductions. 
Therefore, the EPA is proposing a limited disapproval of the plans. 
Also, the control measures in the four 15 Percent Plans and Contingency 
Plans cannot be completely approved, because they do not meet all of 
the underlying conditions of the Clean Air Act. Therefore, the EPA is 
only proposing limited approval of the control measures in the 15 
Percent Plans and the Contingency Plans as a strengthening of the SIP. 
The EPA is not taking any action on whether the control measures 
included in these plans comply with the 

[[Page 2752]]
RACT requirements of CAA section 182(b)(2), or any other underlying CAA 
requirement. In addition, the EPA is proposing limited approval of only 
the AMOC portion of the November 9, 1994, submittal as a strengthening 
of the SIP. The EPA is taking no action on any other portion of the 
November 9, 1994, submittal. For a complete discussion of EPA's 
analysis of the State submittals, please refer to the Technical Support 
Document for this action. A summary of the EPA's findings follows.

Analysis

Emission Inventory

    The base from which States determine the required reductions in the 
15 Percent Plan is the 1990 emission inventory. The EPA approved the 
Texas 1990 base year inventory on November 8, 1994 (59 FR 55586). The 
inventory approved by the EPA and the one used in the 15 Percent Rate 
of Progress plans are the same except for some minor differences. The 
inventory used in the 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plans is slightly 
larger than the approved inventory. So it results in slightly more 
required reductions. It is, therefore, a somewhat conservative 
approach.

Calculation of Target Level Emissions

    Texas subtracted the non-creditable reductions from the FMVCP and 
Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) program from the 1990 inventory. This 
subtraction results in the 1990 adjusted inventory. The total emission 
reduction required to meet the 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plan 
requirements equals the sum of 15 percent of the adjusted inventory, 
plus reductions to offset any growth that takes place between 1990 and 
1996, plus any reductions that result from corrections to the I/M or 
VOC RACT rules. Table 1 summarizes the calculations for the 
nonattainment areas in Texas.

                             Table 1.--Calculation of Required Reductions (tons/day)                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Dallas/Fort                Beaumont/     Houston/ 
                                                                 Worth       El Paso    Port Arthur   Galveston 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 Emission Inventory.....................................       644.93        87.24       342.63      1179.27
1990 Adjusted...............................................       542.68        73.97       331.16      1090.94
15% of adjusted.............................................        81.40        11.10        49.67       163.64
RACT and I/M Corr...........................................          .99         1.57         4.28        11.83
1996 Target.................................................       460.29        61.30       277.21       915.47
1996 1 Projection...........................................       606.22        82.68       324.89      1147.71
Required Reduction..........................................       145.93        21.38        47.68      232.24 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 1996 forecasted emissions with growth and pre-1990 controls.                                                  

Measures Achieving the Projected Reductions

    For each of the four nonattainment areas, Texas provided a plan to 
achieve the required reductions. The specific measures adopted in each 
of the areas vary with the combination of sources in each area. The 
following is a concise description of each control measure Texas used 
to achieve reductions credit in the plan. The EPA is proposing limited 
approval of the following control measures as a strengthening of the 
SIP and agrees with the emission reductions projected in the State 
submittals for these measures.

Stage II Vapor Recovery

    This measure requires the installation and operation of vapor 
recovery equipment on gasoline pumps to reduce the emissions during 
refueling. The rules of the program are contained in 30 TAC Chapter 
115.241-259. The EPA approved these rules in the Federal Register on 
April 15, 1994, (59 FR 17940). The EPA agrees with the reductions 
projected for this measure in the Beaumont/Port Arthur, Dallas/Fort 
Worth and Houston areas. In the El Paso area, the EPA believes that too 
much credit has been claimed in the proposed SIP revision. (see 
noncreditable reductions).

Bakeries

    Texas made revisions to its vent gas control rules (30 TAC 115.121-
129) to require controls on commercial bakeries. These bakeries can be 
significant sources of VOC emissions in the form of ethanol produced by 
yeast in the leavening process. The ethanol is liberated primarily when 
the bread is baked in the oven. These rules apply to major source 
bakeries in the Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston/Galveston areas. Major 
sources are defined as those emitting more than 100 tons/year in the 
Dallas/Fort Worth area and more than 25 tons/year in the Houston area. 
These rules require that the bakeries reduce emissions by 30 percent 
from the levels reported in the 1990 emissions inventory. Each of the 
affected bakeries has submitted control plans to achieve the required 
reductions. Upon the EPA's approval of these rules, these control plans 
will become Federally enforceable. The control plans all rely on some 
form of incineration and should easily achieve the expected reductions. 
The EPA proposes to approve these rules as a strengthening of the SIP 
and agrees with the associated projected emission reductions.

Offset Lithography:

    These rules, contained in 30 TAC 115.442-449, regulate emissions 
from offset printing operations in the El Paso area. This control 
measure was also adopted as a contingency measure in the Houston/
Galveston and Beaumont/Port Arthur areas. These operations produce a 
wide variety of products such as magazines, newspapers and books. The 
rules regulate emissions from the fountain solution, clean up solvent, 
and dryer exhaust. The EPA believes that these rules will result in 
enforceable emission reductions. The EPA is proposing to approve these 
rules as a strengthening of the SIP and agrees with the associated 
projected emission reductions.

Consumer Products

    Under section 183(e)(9) of the Clean Air Act, states may develop 
and submit to the Administrator a procedure under state law to regulate 
consumer and commercial products, provided they consult with the EPA 
regarding other State and local regulations for consumer and commercial 
product rules. Throughout the process of regulating consumer and 
commercial products, Texas has consulted the EPA and other states to 
utilize the collective expertise of other regulatory bodies in drafting 
and adopting their regulation. The rule applies to any person offering 
a consumer or commercial product for sale, supply, distribution, 
manufacture or use in Texas. Consumer and 

[[Page 2753]]
commercial products include all VOC-emitting products used in homes, 
businesses, institutions, and a multitude of commercial manufacturing 
operations. The Texas rules, found at 30 TAC 115.600-625 apply 
standards for the VOC content of the products in 26 categories.
    The rules allow the Executive Director of the Texas Natural 
Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) to grant Innovative Product 
Waivers to exempt products from the VOC content requirements of this 
rule; if the Executive Director determines the innovative product 
emits, equal to or less than, the emissions from a representative 
consumer product that is in compliance. In general, the EPA can grant 
approval of a rule that allows the State discretion to grant variances 
or exemptions without a full SIP revision, only if the rule contains 
specific conditions and a replicable procedure for the granting of the 
waivers. The EPA does not believe that the Texas consumer/commercial 
product rule contains such a replicable procedure that the EPA could 
use to verify a waiver was merited. The EPA believes it is appropriate 
to approve the rule as a strengthening of the SIP in this specific 
case, because EPA intends to promulgate national rules for the 
regulation of consumer and commercial products under section 183 of the 
CAA in the near future. Thus, requiring the state to develop a 
replicable waiver procedure now would duplicate efforts that will also 
occur through promulgation of the national rules. The EPA is proposing 
to approve these rules as a strengthening of the SIP and agrees with 
the projected emission reductions.

Automobile Refinishing:

    Texas has adopted measures to reduce emissions from repainting cars 
at auto body repair shops. Reductions are achieved through two 
mechanisms. First, limits on the VOC content of paints and primers have 
been set. Second, the application equipment must be High Volume Low 
Pressure equipment or equivalent. This equipment tends to increase the 
transfer efficiency, or the percentage of paint that actually adheres 
to the vehicle. By getting a higher percentage of the paint on the car, 
less paint is used and less VOC is emitted to the atmosphere. The rules 
also require special equipment be used for equipment cleaning which 
will result in lower solvent emissions. These requirements contained at 
30 TAC 115.421-422 have been adopted for all four nonattainment areas.
    In addition to the State rules, the EPA intends to promulgate a 
national rule that will further limit the VOC content of coatings. The 
EPA believes the combination of the emission reductions from the State 
rules and creditable emission reductions from future national rules 
will result in the levels projected in the State's submittal. The EPA 
is proposing to approve these State rules as a strengthening of the 
SIP.

RACT Catch Up

    Section 182(b)(2)(B) of the Clean Air Act requires that moderate 
and above ozone nonattainment areas adopt rules to require RACT for all 
VOC sources in the area covered by any Control Technique Guideline 
(CTG) issued before the date of the enactment of the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990. In practice, this required areas that were 
considered rural under pre-amendment guidance to ``catch up'' by 
adopting the same requirements as urban nonattainment areas. Newly 
designated nonattainment areas were required to adopt rules based on 
the pre-amendment CTG's. Also, RACT was to be applied to smaller 
sources of emissions in some instances because the amount of emissions 
defining a major source in serious and above nonattainment areas was 
reduced by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
    In Texas, Beaumont/Port Arthur was a rural nonattainment area prior 
to the 1990 amendments. Also, the following counties were added to the 
nonattainment areas based on the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990; 
Collin, Denton, Fort Bend, Liberty, Montgomery, Waller, Chambers and 
Hardin. Texas submitted rules to meet the RACT catch up requirements. 
The EPA approved these submittals on May 8, 1995 (60 FR 12438). 
Emission reductions from these rule changes are creditable toward the 
Rate of Progress requirement. The EPA agrees with the reductions 
projected in the 15 Percent Rate of Progress plans due to RACT catch up 
rule changes.

Rule Effectiveness Improvements

    Rule Effectiveness (RE)is an adjustment to an emission reduction 
calculation that compensates for the fact that facilities are not fully 
in compliance with a given rule 100 percent of the time. Texas expects 
that compliance will improve from 1990 levels for various reasons, the 
most important of which is a large projected increase in State 
enforcement staff. To insure that real emission reductions have 
occurred, the State must commit to performing a study to confirm that 
the rule has achieved the expected effectiveness. Texas has committed 
to conducting detailed inspections of in-use control efficiency during 
annual inspections and to revising the State's upset/maintenance rule 
to require more record keeping. These confirmation studies will be 
expected to be submitted with the State's Milestone Compliance 
Demonstration. The EPA believes the projected emission reductions are 
appropriate.

Wood Parts and Products Coatings

    These rules, found at 30 TAC 115.421(a)(13), limit the VOC content 
of wood coatings. The rules apply to wood part and product 
manufacturers in the Houston, El Paso and Dallas/Fort Worth areas. 
Texas has projected a 20 percent reduction in emissions due to the 
rules, which the EPA believes is appropriate. The EPA is proposing to 
approve these rules as a strengthening of the SIP. The EPA also agrees 
with the projected reductions.

Fugitive Emission Control

    115.352-115.357 These rules, contained at 30 TAC 115.352-115.357, 
tighten leak detection and repair requirements in petroleum refining 
and petrochemical processes. Texas changed the leak detection minimum 
from 10,000 ppm to 500 ppm for valves. The EPA is proposing to approve 
these rules as a strengthening of the SIP. The EPA also agrees with the 
projected reductions.

Municipal Waste Landfills

    These rules, contained at 30 TAC 115.152-115.159, limit emissions 
from municipal waste landfills. The decomposition of municipal waste 
generates large amounts of methane and significant amounts of VOC's. 
These emissions can be captured and recycled or flared. The EPA has 
proposed a New Source Performance Standard for new landfills, and also 
proposed requirements which States will be required to adopt for 
existing landfills under section 111(d) of the CAA. Texas has proceeded 
with rules in advance of final national rules so the reductions can be 
achieved by 1996. The EPA is proposing to approve these rules as a 
strengthening of the SIP. The EPA also agrees with the projected 
reductions.

SOCMI Reactor and Distillation

    These rules require control of emissions from reactor and 
distillation vents in the synthetic organic chemical manufacturing 
industry. These rules were based on a draft CTG that has since been 
finalized. The EPA is proposing approval of these rules as a 
strengthening of the SIP. The EPA also agrees with the projected 
emission reductions. 

[[Page 2754]]


Carswell Fire Training

    This emission reduction is included in the Rate of Progress plan 
because Carswell Air Force Base no longer conducts fire training 
exercises. A letter of commitment from the Air Force Base, adopted into 
the Dallas/Fort Worth 15 percent plan, documents that these training 
exercises are no longer conducted at the base and will not be conducted 
in the future. The EPA also agrees with the projected emission 
reductions.

Degassing or Cleaning of Vessels (115.541-115.549)

    These rules require the control of emissions that occur during the 
degassing or cleaning of stationary or transport vessels by the capture 
and either recovery or destruction of the resulting emissions. The EPA 
is proposing to approve these rules as a strengthening of the SIP. The 
EPA also agrees with the projected reductions.

Outdoor Burning

    Texas has calculated the reduction in VOC emissions that have 
occurred due to the more stringent outdoor burning restrictions that 
have been implemented in the El Paso area as required by the El Paso 
PM-10 SIP approved on January 18, 1994 (59 FR 2532). The EPA also 
agrees with the projected emission reductions.

Gasoline Terminals

    Texas projected emission reductions from tightening the control 
requirements contained in 30 TAC 115.211-219 for vapor recovery devices 
on gasoline terminals used by gasoline powered transport trucks. 
Various other changes have also been made to strengthen these rules. 
The EPA is proposing to approve these revisions to the State rules as a 
strengthening of the SIP. The EPA also agrees with the emission 
reductions associated with these measures.

Reformulated Gasoline

    Section 211(k) of the CAA requires that after January 1, 1995, in 
severe and above ozone nonattainment areas, only reformulated gasoline 
be sold or dispensed. This gasoline is reformulated to burn cleaner and 
produce fewer evaporative emissions. As a severe area, Houston will 
benefit from these emission reductions. The EPA agrees with the 
emission reductions that the State has projected for the Houston area.
    Section 211(k)(6) allows other nonattainment areas to ``opt in'' to 
the program. On June 11, 1992, the Governor of Texas asked that the 
Dallas/Fort Worth area also participate in the program. This request 
was approved in the Federal Register on October 8, 1992 (57 FR 46317). 
These emission reductions are fully creditable toward the Dallas/Fort 
Worth Plan. The EPA agrees with the reductions that have been projected 
due to the introduction of reformulated gasoline in the Dallas/Fort 
Worth area.

Reid Vapor Pressure Control

    Texas has enacted rules (30 TAC 115.252-115.259) lowering the 
allowed RVP of gasoline sold in the El Paso nonattainment area. RVP is 
a measure of the tendency of gasoline to evaporate. Lowering the RVP 
results in lower VOC emissions and the reductions can be credited to 
the plan. The rules require the gasoline sold in El Paso between June 1 
and September 15 of each year to have an RVP of no greater than 7.0 
psi.
    State governments are generally preempted under section 
211(c)(4)(A) of the CAA from requiring gasoline sold in any area in a 
State to meet an RVP standard different from the federal standard. 
However, under 211(c)(4)(C) a State can require a more stringent RVP 
standard in its SIP if the more stringent standard is necessary to 
achieve the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) in a 
particular nonattainment area. The State can make this demonstration of 
necessity by providing evidence that no other measures exist that would 
bring about timely attainment, or that such measures exist, are 
technically possible to implement, but are unreasonable or 
impracticable. Economic consequences may be considered in this 
demonstration. If a State makes this demonstration, it can lower the 
volatility to whatever standard is necessary for the nonattainment 
area.
    In addition to the control measures mandated by the CAA, Texas has 
compiled a Control Measure Catalog for each of its nonattainment areas 
and has graded each measure on its viability for use in these 15 
Percent Plans. The grade was based on six criteria; cost of 
implementation, reactivity, emission reductions potential, technical 
feasibility, toxicity, and enforceability. The Catalog identified 
fourteen control measures for the El Paso area; the El Paso 15 Percent 
Plan contained all of these measures and an additional ten for a total 
of twenty-four. The EPA believes the State has considered all of the 
reasonably available control measures.
    Included among these control measures was control of VOC's from 
fuel. In the absence of fuel controls, it was projected there would be 
insufficient VOC reductions to achieve the 15 percent SIP target and 
there may ultimately be insufficient VOC reductions to achieve 
attainment of the NAAQS. The State considered two fuel control 
measures: opting into the federal reformulated gasoline program (RFG) 
or implementing a Low RVP (7.0 psi) Program. The State, with help and 
input from local area refineries, determined the two programs would 
generate the same VOC emission reductions in the El Paso ozone 
nonattainment area. However, as explained below, El Paso may receive 
additional VOC reductions from the Low RVP Program when the Juarez area 
is considered. The local area refineries expressed support for the Low 
RVP Program over an RFG Program because of economic reasons as outlined 
below.
    El Paso and Juarez, Mexico are essentially one air shed from an air 
quality standpoint. Modeling submitted by the State demonstrates El 
Paso is in attainment of the NAAQS for ozone but for emissions from 
Juarez and suggests that reduction of VOC emissions from Juarez will be 
needed for the El Paso area to attain the NAAQS for ozone. This 
modeling, in support of a 179B demonstration, has been submitted by the 
State and is pending before the EPA. Action on this submittal will be 
taken in a separate Federal Register notice.
    Currently, Juarez is receiving in excess of 80 percent of its 
gasoline from refineries located in El Paso. The local area refineries 
estimated the cost to produce low RVP gasoline would be about one cent 
per gallon over that of conventional gasoline. The capital investments 
and other costs necessary for the production of RFG was estimated to 
increase the cost of RFG by about four cents per gallon. The State 
concluded that the Juarez market would accept the small increase in the 
cost of low RVP gasoline and El Paso would be subjected to VOC 
emissions from Juarez based on gasoline with an RVP of slightly more 
than 7.0 psi. Contrarily, the State concluded that the higher cost of 
RFG would likely result in Juarez requesting conventional gasoline from 
the El Paso refineries, with an RVP of 9.0 psi or higher, rather than 
RFG. Because the low RVP gasoline is more likely to be accepted in 
Juarez, it is expected to generate additional reductions that will be 
needed for attainment of the NAAQS for ozone in El Paso beyond those 
reductions generated by an RFG program. In a letter to the Chairman of 
the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission from the Director of 
the EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, dated June 23, 
1995, the EPA indicated the State could, with conditions, use the 

[[Page 2755]]
expected emission reductions from Juarez to meet the requirements of 
the 15 Percent SIP. In a future submittal, Texas will need to 
substantiate and quantify the expected reductions from the Juarez area 
as a result of the Low RVP Program.
    El Paso is also a Carbon Monoxide nonattainment area and Texas has 
implemented an Oxygenated Fuel Program with a control period from 
September 1 of one year to March 31 of the next. The monitoring and 
enforcement of the program has been delegated to the El Paso City/
County Health and Environmental District (District). The District has 
dedicated resources, personnel and equipment, to this program. The 
State also intends to delegate the monitoring and enforcement of the 
Low RVP Program to the District. Since the Oxygenated Fuel Program is a 
winter program and the Low RVP Program is a summer program the District 
will be able to utilize the same resources in both programs resulting 
in a savings of administrative costs. Thus the State is implementing 
strategies specific to their pollution abatement needs; an Oxygenated 
Fuel Program in the winter months and a Low RVP Program during the high 
ozone period of the summer.
    For the reasons stated above, the EPA believes the State has 
satisfied the requirements of section 211(c)(4)(C) to demonstrate that 
the Low RVP Program is necessary to achieve the NAAQS for ozone in the 
El Paso area. The State has demonstrated that all other reasonable and 
available sources of VOC reductions have been considered and used; and 
that the only other alternative available for VOC emissions reductions, 
the RFG Program, will not yield VOC reductions in Juarez that will be 
needed for the eventual attainment of the NAAQS of ozone in the El Paso 
area. The EPA is proposing limited approval of the State's Low RVP 
Program. The EPA agrees with the projected emission reductions, in the 
El Paso area from the Low RVP program. However, if the State wishes to 
credit emission reductions occurring in the Jaurez area, due to the low 
RVP program, as outlined in the EPA's June 23, 1994 letter; Texas will, 
in future SIP revisions, need to substantiate and quantify the expected 
reductions from the Juarez area as a result of the Low RVP Program.

Tier I Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program

    The EPA promulgated standards for 1994 and later model year light-
duty vehicles and light-duty trucks (56 FR 25724, June 5, 1991). Since 
the standards were adopted after the CAA amendments of 1990, the 
resulting emission reductions are creditable toward the 15 percent 
reduction goal. The EPA agrees with the State's projected emission 
reductions.

Transportation Control Measures (TCM)

    The State has included several TCM's such as high occupancy vehicle 
lanes, traffic signal and intersection improvements in the plans that 
result in emission reductions in the Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, and El 
Paso nonattainment areas. The emission reductions from TCM's are 
approximately 6.94 tons/day for Dallas/Fort Worth, 0.30 tons/day for El 
Paso, and 0.10 tons/day for the Houston area. In addition, TNRCC has 
adopted a set of TCM rules which were submitted under separate cover as 
a SIP revision for the EPA's approval. The TCM rules will be 
supplementing the control strategy SIPs in order to assure 
implementation of the TCM's. The EPA has reviewed the TCM's included in 
the 15 Percent Rate of Progress plans and agrees with the projected 
reductions. The EPA is not, however, taking action at this time on the 
TCM rules. The EPA will be taking action on the TCM rules in a separate 
Federal Register notice.

Small Gas Utility Engines

    Texas calculated emission reductions that were expected to result 
from a State rule requiring that cleaner burning small gas utility 
engines be manufactured for sale in Texas. The State has since revised 
the rule to allow for a later compliance date. This could have resulted 
in a loss of projected emission reductions. The EPA, however, believes 
that the expected emission reductions still occurred during 1994 and 
1995 and will occur during 1996, as a result of small engine 
modifications made by the industry's major manufacturers. These 
reductions are the result of actions taken by the industry in advance 
of the Federal Emission Standards for New Non-road Spark-Engines at or 
below 25 Horsepower (Phase I) that will take effect in the 1997 model 
year. To demonstrate that reductions have occurred, the industry has 
provided sufficient Texas specific sales data and engine specification 
information to the EPA demonstrating that significant emission 
reductions are expected to occur during the 1994, 1995, and 1996 
calendar years. The EPA agrees these emission reductions will occur. 
The EPA is taking no action on Texas' small engine rule because it now 
largely duplicates already promulgated Federal requirements.

Off-Road Reformulated Gasoline

    The use of reformulated gasoline will also result in reduced 
emissions from off-road engines such as outboard motors for boats and 
lawn mower engines. The EPA agrees with the reductions projected in the 
plans for off-road engines utilizing reformulated gasoline.

Tier III Jet Engine Standards

    Aircraft are required by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 
rules to have engines that meet Tier III standards. These standards 
result in engines designed to be both quieter and less polluting. These 
rules contain a phase in schedule with full compliance required by the 
year 2000. The EPA agrees with the projected emission reductions 
contained in the State submittal.

Benzene National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
(NESHAPS)

    In January 1993, the EPA promulgated 40 CFR 61 subpart FF, National 
Emission Standard for Benzene Waste Operations. Texas has quantified 
the VOC reductions that will result from these rules in the Beaumont 
area. The EPA agrees that these reductions will occur.

Measures Achieving Less Than the Projected Emission Reductions

    For the following control measures, the EPA believes that the 
amount of emission reduction that has been claimed in the State 
submittals is not appropriate or is inadequately documented. The EPA 
does not agree with the projected emission reductions that are in 
excess of those which the EPA believes will actually occur.

Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings (AIM)

    Emission reductions have been projected for AIM coatings due to the 
expected promulgation by the EPA of a national rule. In a memo dated 
March 22, 1995, the EPA provided guidance on the expected reductions 
from the national rule. It is expected that emissions would be reduced 
by 20 percent. Texas has taken 25 percent reduction credit in its plan. 
This was based on previous guidance from the EPA that 25 percent 
reductions would occur. Since the 20 percent more accurately reflects 
the emission reductions that will occur in practice, the EPA does not 
agree with the reductions projected in excess of 20 percent. 

[[Page 2756]]


Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M)

    The plans in each of the four areas relied on revised vehicle I/M 
programs that were developed by the State of Texas and submitted to the 
EPA on November 12, 1993, and on March 9, 1994. The EPA evaluated these 
programs and approved them into the SIP on August 22, 1994. Texas began 
implementing these programs in January, 1995. The Texas legislature 
enacted a bill on May 1, 1995, giving the governor authority to develop 
a revised program. During the interim, the legislation reinstated the 
I/M programs in existence prior to January 1, 1995. In June 1995, the 
TNRCC adopted emergency rules to reinstate the pre-1995 programs. As a 
result of these actions, the emission reductions that were expected to 
result cannot be expected to be achieved. Thus, the EPA cannot agree 
with the projected emission reductions for vehicle inspection and 
maintenance.

Employee Commute Options

    On March 7, 1995 (60 FR 12442), the EPA approved a revision to the 
Texas SIP incorporating an Employee Commute Options/Employer Trip 
Reduction Program. The program is required in all severe and extreme 
ozone nonattainment areas. For Texas, this affects the Houston/
Galveston nonattainment area. On April 18, 1995, the Governor of Texas 
signed legislation which suspended the program for 180 days and allowed 
additional 45 day suspensions of the program at the discretion of the 
Governor. The TNRCC is in the process of restructuring the program. Due 
to the suspension of the program, the 1.81 tons per day of emission 
reductions claimed for the Houston/Galveston nonattainment area cannot 
be expected to be achieved. Thus, the EPA cannot agree with the 
emission reductions projected for this program in the Houston/Galveston 
15 Percent Rate of Progress Plan.

Marine Vessel Loading

    These rules are designed to reduce emissions that result from the 
loading of VOC's into marine vessels in the Houston area. The rules 
control sources that emit more than 100 tons/year. The EPA believes 
that the rules will result in enforceable emission reductions toward 
the 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plan for Houston. The EPA is therefore, 
proposing to approve these rules as a strengthening of the SIP.
    Texas, however, projected reductions from both points (defined as 
greater than 25 tons per year) and area (less than 25 tons per year) 
sources, when the rule only applies to 100 ton/year or greater sources. 
The smaller area sources, those that emit less than 25 tons per year, 
would remain uncontrolled. The EPA cannot ascertain what portion of the 
emission reductions claimed from the point source inventory are from 
sources that emit between 25 and 100 tons/year but expects that this is 
a relatively small amount. Therefore, the EPA can agree with the 
emission reductions associated with marine vessel loading operations 
contained in the point source inventory only with the understanding 
that before a final action, the State will demonstrate that no emission 
reductions are being projected for sources in the 25-100 ton/year 
emissions range. The EPA cannot agree with the projected emission 
reductions associated with area source marine vessel loading 
operations.
    The EPA is aware that Texas now believes that all of the marine 
vessel loading emissions are covered in the point source inventory and 
that the area source inventory is zero. If this is the case, future SIP 
revisions should reflect this adjustment and the projected emission 
reductions should be adjusted accordingly.

Industrial Wastewater

    Texas has adopted rules for control of emissions from industrial 
wastewater. These rules were based on a draft Control Technique 
Guideline for the control of emissions from wastewater. The TNRCC rule 
applies to VOC emissions from wastewater from the organic chemicals, 
plastics, and synthetic fibers manufacturing industry (Standard 
Industrial Classification codes 2821, 2823, 2824, 2865 and 2869), 
pesticide manufacturing industry, petroleum refining industry, 
pharmaceutical manufacturing industry, and hazardous waste treatment, 
storage, and disposal facilities. The essential concept in the TNRCC 
rule is to suppress VOC emissions from all wastewater streams that have 
either greater than 10,000 ppm VOC at any flow rate or 1000 ppm VOC and 
a flow rate greater than 10 liters/minute. The rule encourages 
facilities to remove the VOC's from the stream before they are emitted 
to the air. The 15 Percent Rate of Progress plans claim a 90 percent 
overall control efficiency for this measure.
    In contrast, the EPA expects that the overall reductions expected 
from control of wastewater streams using the exemption cutoffs in the 
Texas rule are 43 percent for the organic, chemicals, plastics and 
synthetic fibers industry, and 41 percent control for the petroleum 
refining industry. This assumes that the State rule is based on a 
control program as effective as the wastewater emission control program 
in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
(NESHAP) for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (40 
CFR 63.100). This rule is generally referred to as the Hazardous 
Organic NESHAP (HON). The Texas rule, however, is not as stringent in 
its control requirements when compared to requirements expected in the 
draft CTG or the HON. Chief among the differences is that the Texas 
rule merely requires that streams be treated to remove VOC down to a 
concentration of 1000 ppm. In contrast, the HON requires that the VOC 
concentration in any stream with a concentration greater than 1000 ppm, 
must be reduced to the level that can be achieved by a steam stripper. 
This level can be far lower than 1000 ppm. Even if the Texas control 
program were similar to the program in the HON for the control of 
hazardous air pollutants, it would be expected to get less than the 90 
percent emission reductions projected by the State because of the 
exemption levels that were chosen.
    The EPA is proposing limited approval of the Texas rules for 
control of wastewater emissions as a strengthening of the SIP that will 
result in emission reductions. The EPA cannot agree with all of the 
emission reductions that have been projected. From the information 
provided, the EPA cannot ascertain what the actual emission reductions 
from this program will be. The EPA, perhaps, could agree to emission 
reductions based on a control efficiency of 42 percent drawn from an 
average of the petroleum refinery and Synthetic Organic Chemical 
Manufacturing Industry emission reduction estimates in the draft CTG. 
However, the Texas wastewater rules could result in less control than 
contemplated in the draft CTG. To assure creditable emissions 
reductions, before the EPA's final action, the State should document 
the actual emission reductions that can be expected from the State 
rule.

Other Coatings

    Reductions are projected in this category in the El Paso area but 
there are no rules or documentation in the plan. Therefore, EPA cannot 
agree with these projected emission reductions.

Acetone Substitution

    These rules are designed to limit emissions from cultured 
(synthetic) marble and fiber reinforced plastic (FRP) operations in the 
Dallas/Fort Worth, El Paso, and Houston areas. 

[[Page 2757]]
These operations typically used large quantities of acetone as a 
cleaning solvent. These rules limit the use of acetone or require the 
use of substitute materials with a low vapor pressure.
    The EPA added acetone to the list of non-reactive compounds on June 
16, 1995 (60 FR 31633). Therefore, the EPA will take no action on these 
rules. As a result, the EPA cannot agree with the use of these 
projected emission reductions toward the 15 Percent Rate of Progress 
Plan.

Stage II in El Paso

    In the SIP revision, Texas assumed an in-use efficiency of 88 
percent for Stage II in El Paso. In the other three areas, Texas 
assumed an 81 percent in-use efficiency. The EPA believes that 81 
percent in-use efficiency is appropriate based on the number of 
inspections being performed and the percentage of exempted stations. 
Therefore, the emission reductions from the higher in-use efficiency 
were not documented and cannot be credited toward the rate of progress 
plan for El Paso. The EPA can agree with emission reductions based on 
an 81 percent in-use efficiency. The EPA cannot agree with the emission 
reductions resulting from estimates of an in-use efficiency in excess 
of 81 percent.

Shortfall

    Tables 2 through 5 summarize the proposed creditable and 
noncreditable reductions.

 Table 2.--Summary of Creditable and Noncreditable Emission Reductions: 
                      Dallas/Fort Worth (tons/day)                      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Required Reduction............................................    145.93
                                                               ---------
Creditable Reductions:                                                  
  RACT Catch-up...............................................      4.19
  Stage II....................................................     18.19
  Aircraft Stage III..........................................      0.60
  Other VOC storage, transport................................      0.05
  FMVCP Tier I................................................      1.83
  Bakeries....................................................      0.12
  Auto Refinishing............................................      4.51
  Municipal Landfills.........................................      3.49
  Carswell Fire Training Pit Closure..........................      1.20
  RE Improvements.............................................      4.77
  Gas Utility Engines.........................................      6.53
Reform:                                                                 
  On-Road.....................................................     33.18
  Off-Road....................................................      3.17
TCM's.........................................................      6.94
Consumer/Commercial Products..................................      3.45
Gasoline Terminals............................................      2.17
Fugitives.....................................................      0.07
Wood Furniture................................................      1.35
AIM...........................................................      6.22
                                                               ---------
      Total...................................................    102.03
                                                               =========
Noncreditable Reductions:                                               
  AIM.........................................................      1.09
  Inspection & Maintenance....................................     43.79
  Acetone Replacement.........................................      0.29
                                                               ---------
      Total noncreditable.....................................     45.17
                                                               =========
Short fall....................................................     43.90
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table 3.--Summary of Creditable and Noncreditable Emission Reductions: 
                           El Paso (tons/day)                           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Required Reduction............................................     21.38
                                                               ---------
Creditable Reductions:                                                  
  RACT Catch-up...............................................      0.71
  Stage II....................................................      1.87
  Aircraft Stage III..........................................      0.02
  FMVCP Tier I................................................      0.25
  Auto Refinishing............................................      1.13
  Offset Printing.............................................      0.56
  Vessel Loading..............................................      0.32
  Fugitives...................................................      1.13
  RE Improvements.............................................      0.61
  Gas Utility Engines.........................................      0.84
  TCM's.......................................................      0.30
  Architectural Coatings......................................      1.05
  Consumer/Commercial Products................................      0.61
  Municipal Landfills.........................................      0.21
  Industrial Wastewater.......................................      0.27
  Bulk Gasoline Terminals.....................................      0.82
  Outdoor Burning.............................................      0.40
  Wood Furniture..............................................      0.04
  RVP (on-road)...............................................      2.61
  RVP (off-road)..............................................      0.09
                                                               ---------
      Total...................................................     13.84
                                                               =========
Noncreditable Reductions:                                               
  AIM.........................................................      0.37
  Inspection & Maintenance....................................      6.72
  Stage II....................................................      0.16
  Other Coatings..............................................      0.30
                                                               ---------
      Total Noncreditable.....................................      7.55
                                                               =========
Short fall....................................................      7.54
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table 4.--Summary of Creditable and Noncreditable Emission Reductions: 
                     Beaumont/Port Arthur (tons/day)                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Required Reduction............................................     47.68
                                                               ---------
Creditable Reductions:                                                  
  RACT Catch-up...............................................     18.84
  Benzene NESHAP..............................................       .28
  TSDF........................................................       .04
  Stage II....................................................      1.94
  FMVCP Tier I................................................       .22
  Vessel Cleaning/Degassing...................................      0.02
  Fugitive Controls...........................................     15.61
  RE Improvements.............................................      5.98
  Gas Utility Engines.........................................      1.05
  AIM.........................................................      0.59
  Consumer/Commercial Products................................      0.33
                                                               ---------
      Total...................................................     44.90
                                                               =========
Noncreditable Reductions:                                               
  AIM.........................................................      0.21
  Inspection & Maintenance....................................      3.16
                                                               ---------
      Total noncreditable.....................................      3.37
                                                               ---------
Short fall....................................................      2.78
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table 5.--Summary of Creditable and Noncreditable Emission Reductions: 
                      Houston/Galveston (tons/day)                      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Required Reduction............................................    232.24
                                                               ---------
Creditable Reductions:                                                  
  RACT Catch-up...............................................     27.09
  TSDF........................................................       .80
  Stage II....................................................     16.89
  VOC Storage, Transportation.................................      0.46
Reform Gas:                                                             
  On Road.....................................................     19.33
  Off Road....................................................      6.53
FMVCP Tier I..................................................      1.49
Auto Refinishing..............................................      7.15
Vessel Cleaning/Degassing.....................................      2.74
SOCMI Rct. & Dist.............................................      5.55
Fugitive Controls.............................................     34.61
RE Improvements...............................................      8.56
Gas Utility Engines...........................................      9.08
TCMs..........................................................       .10
Consumer/Commercial Products..................................      3.85
Marine Vessel loading.........................................  \1\ 13.7
                                                                       3
Gasoline Terminals............................................       .81
Wood Coating..................................................       .37
Bakeries......................................................       .23
AIM...........................................................      7.31
Industrial Wastewater.........................................  \2\ 6.20
                                                               ---------
      Total...................................................    171.88
                                                               =========
Noncreditable Reductions:                                               
  AIM.........................................................      1.83
  Indust. Wastewater..........................................      7.16
  Inspection & Maintenance....................................     34.49
  Marine Vessel Loading.......................................     13.64
  Acetone Replacement.........................................      1.43
  Employee Commute Options....................................      1.81
                                                               ---------
      Total Noncreditable.....................................     60.36
                                                               =========
Short fall....................................................    60.36 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Texas should demonstrate that emission reductions are not being     
  shown here for sources that emit less than 100 tons/year.             
\2\ EPA believes these emission reductions may be overstated. Texas     
  should show a control efficiency of 42 percent is appropriate in light
  of control that is less stringent than the HON. (See the Technical    
  Support Document).                                                    

Contingency Measures

    Ozone areas classified as moderate or above must include in their 
submittals, under section 172(c)(9) of the CAA, contingency measures to 
be implemented if Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) is not achieved or 
if the standard is not attained by the applicable date. The General 
Preamble to Title I, (57 FR 13498) states that the contingency measures 
should, at a minimum, ensure that an appropriate level of emissions 
reduction progress continues to be made if attainment or RFP is not 
achieved and additional 

[[Page 2758]]
planning by the State is needed. Therefore, the EPA interprets the CAA 
to require States with moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas to 
include sufficient contingency measures in the November 1993 submittal, 
so that upon implementation of such measures, additional emissions 
reductions of up to three percent of the adjusted base year inventory 
(or a lesser percentage that will make up the identified shortfall) 
would be achieved in the year after the failure has been identified. 
States must show that their contingency measures can be implemented 
with minimal further action on their part and with no additional 
rulemaking actions such as public hearings or legislative review .

Analysis of Specific Contingency Measures

    The following is a discussion of each of the contingency measures 
that have been included in the SIP submittals and an analysis of their 
acceptableness.

Degassing or Cleaning of Vessels

    As discussed previously, this measure was adopted as part of the 15 
percent rate of progress plans for the Houston and Beaumont areas. It 
was also adopted as a contingency rule in the El Paso and Dallas/Fort 
Worth areas. The EPA believes the reductions that have been projected 
if this measure is needed as a contingency measure are appropriate. The 
EPA proposes limited approval of these rules as a strengthening of the 
SIP.

Dry Cleaning Naphtha

    These rules adopted at 30 TAC 115.552 as a contingency measure 
would call for control of dry cleaners that use petroleum naphtha. This 
rule was adopted as a contingency measure in the Dallas/Fort Worth, El 
Paso, and Houston areas. The EPA has evaluated this rule and believes 
that it will achieve the projected reductions in the event it must be 
implemented. The EPA proposes to give limited approval to these rules 
as a strengthening of the SIP.

Offset Printing

    As discussed previously, regulation of emissions from offset 
printing was adopted as a 15 percent measure in the El Paso area. It 
was also adopted as a contingency measure in the Houston and Dallas/
Fort Worth areas. The EPA believes that the emission reductions that 
have been projected if it is necessary to implement these rules are 
appropriate. The EPA proposes limited approval of these rules as a 
strengthening of the SIP.

Commercial Bakeries

    As discussed previously, Texas adopted control measures for major 
source bakeries in Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston. Texas also adopted 
for Dallas, Houston and El Paso, a contingency measure for minor source 
bakeries to be controlled in the event a milestone demonstration or 
attainment date is missed. The EPA believes the reductions that are 
projected if these rules are implemented are appropriate. The EPA is 
proposing limited approval of these rules as a strengthening of the 
SIP.

Transportation Control Measures

    In Dallas/Fort Worth and El Paso, Texas has projected that 
additional emission reductions will come from transportation control 
measures that will be implemented in the 1997 time frame. These 
additional reductions serve as a contingency measure if these areas 
miss a milestone or fail to attain the standard. The EPA is proposing 
limited approval of these Transportation Control Measures as a 
strengthening of the SIP.

Gas Utility Engines

    Texas has relied on emission reductions from the State small 
utility engine rule toward the contingency plan from new, cleaner, 
engines placed in service during 1997. As discussed previously, the 
State rule has been revised to have a later compliance date. While the 
EPA believes that the data provided by the small engine manufacturers 
provides the needed reductions during 1994, 1995 and 1996; it is 
unclear whether the necessary reductions will occur during 1997 to be 
creditable in the contingency plans. Again, the EPA is taking no action 
on the State Small utility engine rule. Texas, in future submittals, 
will have to revise its emission reduction estimates to be consistent 
with the data provided by the small engine manufacturers and subsequent 
EPA policy.

Automobile Refinishing

    As discussed previously, regulations on emissions from automobile 
refinishing were adopted in Dallas/Fort Worth, El Paso and Houston. 
These same rules were adopted as contingency measures in the Beaumont/
Port Arthur area. The EPA believes that the projected emission 
reductions will occur if it is necessary to implement this rule. 
Therefore, the EPA is proposing limited approval of this rule as a 
strengthening of the SIP in the Beaumont area.

Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance

    All of the contingency plans relied to some extent on reductions 
from the previously planned vehicle inspection and maintenance program. 
As discussed previously, these reductions cannot be expected to occur. 
In addition, the State has combined the projected emission reductions 
from Tier I FMVCP with the projected I/M reductions. The EPA cannot 
determine what portion of the combined reductions are attributable to 
the Tier I program. Therefore, the EPA cannot agree with the projected 
reductions from the Tier I program.

Pesticide Application

    The contingency plan for El Paso includes reductions from the 
control of emissions during pesticide application. The plan does not 
include any supporting documentation for these reductions or rules for 
the control of emissions from pesticide application. Therefore, the EPA 
cannot agree with these reductions toward the contingency plan.
    Tables 6 through 9 summarize the reductions that the EPA agrees 
with and disagrees with in each of the contingency plans. Because Texas 
has submitted measures for each of the four nonattainment areas that 
will result in reductions in emissions if implemented, the EPA is 
proposing a limited approval of the four contingency plans because, 
overall, they would strengthen the SIP. However, none of the 
contingency plans will result in the required three percent reduction. 
Therefore, the EPA is also proposing a limited disapproval of the 
contingency plans. The EPA is proposing limited approval of the control 
measures in the contingency plans because they strengthen the SIP. The 
control measures cannot be completely approved because they do not meet 
all of the underlying Clean Air Act requirements.

  Table 6: Summary of Creditable and Noncreditable Contingency Measure  
                Reductions: Dallas/Fort Worth (tons/day)                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Required Contingency..........................................     16.28
                                                               =========
Creditable Contingency Reductions:                                      
  Vessel Cleaning.............................................      0.20
  Dry Cleaning Naphtha........................................      1.96
  Offset Printing.............................................      0.85
  Commercial Bakeries.........................................      0.15
  TCMs........................................................      2.03
  Gas Utility Engines.........................................  \1\ 6.65
                                                               ---------
      Total...................................................     11.84
                                                               =========
Noncreditable Contingency Reductions:                                   
  I/M Improvements............................................      3.83
  I/M and Tier I FMVCP........................................      6.65
                                                               ---------

[[Page 2759]]
                                                                        
      Total noncreditable.....................................     10.48
                                                               =========
Short fall....................................................     4.44 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These reductions will need to be reevaluated in light of the        
  emisssion reductions information provided by the small engine         
  manufacturers.                                                        



  Table 7.--Summary of Creditable and Noncreditable Contingency Measure 
                     Reductions: El Paso (tons/day)                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Required Contingency..........................................      2.22
                                                               ---------
Creditable Contingency Reductions:                                      
  Vessel Cleaning.............................................      0.09
  Dry Cleaning Naphtha........................................      0.28
  Commercial Bakeries.........................................      0.05
  TCMs........................................................      0.53
  Gas Utility Engines 1997....................................    1 0.79
                                                               ---------
      Total...................................................      1.74
                                                               =========
Noncreditable Contingency Reductions:                                   
  I/M & Tier I FMVCP..........................................      0.63
  Pesticides..................................................      0.08
                                                               ---------
      Total Noncreditable.....................................      0.71
                                                               =========
Short fall....................................................     0.48 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 These reductions will need to be reevaluated in light of the emisssion
  reductions information provided by the small engine manufacturers.    


  Table 8.--Summary of Creditable and Noncreditable Contingency Measure 
               Reductions: Beaumont/Port Arthur (tons/day)              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Required Contingency..........................................      9.93
                                                               =========
Creditable Contingency Reductions:                                      
  Gas Utility Engines.........................................    1 1.05
  Auto Refinishing............................................      0.68
                                                               ---------
      Total...................................................      1.73
                                                               =========
Noncreditable Contingency Reductions:                                   
  I/M & Tier I FMVCP..........................................      0.66
                                                               ---------
      Total Noncreditable.....................................      0.66
                                                               =========
Short fall....................................................      8.20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 These reductions will need to be reevaluated in light of the emission 
  reductions information provided by the small engine manufacturers.    


  Table 9--Summary of Creditable and Noncreditable Contingency Measure  
                Reductions: Houston/Galveston (tons/day)                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Required Contingency..........................................     32.73
                                                               ---------
Creditable Contingency Reductions:                                      
  Municipal Landfills.........................................      3.99
  Dry Cleaning-Naphtha........................................      1.77
  Offset Printing.............................................      2.21
  Utility Engines 1997........................................  ........
                                                                9.20 \1\
                                                               ---------
      Total...................................................     17.17
                                                               ---------
Noncreditable Contingency Reductions:                                   
  I/M & Tier I................................................      7.80
                                                               ---------
      Total Noncreditable.....................................      7.80
                                                               ---------
Short fall....................................................    15.56 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These reductions will need to be reevaluated in light of the        
  emisssion reductions information provided by the small engine         
  manufacturers.                                                        

Alternate Means of Control

    The EPA is approving Texas' AMOC rule contained in 115.901, 910, 
911-918 as a strengthening of the SIP.
    This rule establishes procedures for a facility to request use of 
an AMOC plan in lieu of complying with control requirements of Chapter 
115, relating to the control of air pollution from volatile organic 
compounds. The rule provides flexibility for a facility to identify 
alternative emission reductions. The intent is to allow the regulated 
community flexibility to control air pollution through less costly 
control strategies while achieving environmental standards.
    The rule contains the nine program elements required by the EPA's 
Economic Incentive Program (EIP) rules (59 FR 16690-16717). The program 
elements are a Statement of Purpose, Scope, Baseline, Quantification, 
Source Requirements, Uncertainty/Reconciliation, Implementation, 
Administrative System, and Enforcement. The EPA is proposing limited 
approval of the rule under the two-step process described in the EPA 
rule (59 FR 16694), which permits a State to submit a rule containing 
the general framework for the elements and a specific trade which 
provides the regulatory details for similar trades. Texas submitted the 
rule to the EPA Region 6 on August 3, 1994. A proposed AMOC plan from 
Du Pont was submitted to the EPA in a letter dated September 19, 1995. 
The EPA believes that this trade meets the requirements of the AMOC 
rule and the EIP rule. Having received the general framework and a 
specific trade providing the regulatory details, the EPA proposes 
limited approval of the AMOC provision as strengthening of the SIP.

Proposed Action

    The EPA has evaluated these submittals for consistency with the 
Act, EPA regulations, and EPA policy. The 15 Percent Plans in these SIP 
submittals will not achieve enough reductions to meet the 15 percent 
rate of progress requirements of section 182(b)(1) of the CAA. In 
addition, the contingency plans in these SIP submittals will not 
achieve enough emission reductions, if implemented, to meet the three 
percent reduction requirement under 172(c)(9) of the CAA. In light of 
this shortfall, the EPA cannot grant full approval of these plan 
revisions under Section 110(k)(3) and Part D. However, the EPA may 
grant a limited approval of the submitted plans under Section 110(k)(3) 
and section 301(a) since the 15 Percent Plans and the Contingency Plans 
will result in a certain percentage of VOC emission reductions. Thus, 
the EPA is proposing a limited approval of Texas' 15 Percent Plans and 
Contingency Plans under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the CAA. The 
EPA is also proposing a limited disapproval of the Texas submittals 
under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) because the submittals do not fully 
meet the requirements of section 182(b)(1) of the CAA for the 15 
Percent Rate of Progress Plans, and the plans do not achieve the 
required emission reductions. In addition, the plans do not meet the 
requirement of section 172(c)(9) for contingency measures because the 
plans will not achieve the required 3 percent emission reductions, if 
implemented.
    The EPA is aware that Texas has undertaken extensive efforts to 
improve the accuracy of the 1990 base year emission inventory and the 
accuracy of the emission projections being made for 1996. In addition, 
the State has expressed its intention to submit a revised vehicle I/M 
program during the 120 day time frame required by the recently adopted 
National Highway System Designation Act of 1995. The improved emission 
inventory and additional reductions from vehicle I/M may serve to 
correct the shortfall identified in this proposed Federal Register 
Action. To gain full approval, Texas will need to submit revised plans 
that document changes to the emissions inventory and the necessary 
enforceable reductions, such as those resulting from

[[Page 2760]]

a revised I/M program, to meet the 15 percent rate of progress 
requirements and include sufficient contingency measures to achieve a 3 
percent reduction.
    The EPA believes that approval of the control measures in these 
plans will strengthen the SIP. Therefore, the EPA is proposing limited 
approval of the control measures in the 15 Percent Plans and 
Contingency Plans. The EPA is not addressing whether these control 
measures, being approved as a strengthening of the SIP, meet any other 
underlying requirements of the Act such as the requirement for VOC RACT 
under 182(b)(2). The EPA will address these requirements in separate 
Federal Register notices.
    Under section 179(a)(2), if the Administrator disapproves a 
submission under section 110(k) for an area designated nonattainment 
based on the submission's failure to meet one or more of the elements 
required by the Act, the Administrator must apply one of the sanctions 
set forth in section 179(b) unless the deficiency has been corrected 
within 18 months of such disapproval. Section 179(b) provides two 
sanctions available to the Administrator: highway funding and the 
imposition of emission offset requirements. The 18-month period 
referred to in section 179(a) will begin on the effective date 
established in the final limited disapproval action. If the deficiency 
is not corrected within 6 months of the imposition of the first 
sanction, the second sanction will apply. This sanctions process is set 
forth at 59 FR 39832 (Aug. 4, 1994), to be codified at 40 CFR 52.31. 
Moreover, the final disapproval triggers the federal implementation 
plan (FIP) requirement under section 110(c).
    Also, 40 CFR 51.448(b) of the Federal transportation conformity 
rules (40 CFR 51.448(b)) state that if the EPA disapproves a submitted 
control strategy implementation plan revision which initiates the 
sanction process under CAA section 179, the conformity status of the 
transportation plan and transportation improvement plan shall lapse 120 
days after the EPA's limited disapproval.
    Nothing in this proposed rule should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to any SIP shall be 
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and 
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and 
regulatory requirements.

Regulatory Process

    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from 
review under Executive Order l2866.
    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., the EPA 
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of 
any proposed or final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). 
Alternatively, the EPA may certify that the rule will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, 
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than 
50,000.
    SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the 
Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements, but simply approve 
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the 
federal SIP-approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify 
that it does not have a significant impact on any small entities 
affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship 
under the CAA, preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would 
constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State 
action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning 
SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v US EPA, 427 US 246, 256-66 
(S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
    The EPA's proposed limited disapproval of the State request under 
section 110 and subchapter I, Part D of the CAA does not affect any 
existing requirements applicable to small entities. Any pre-existing 
Federal requirements remain in place after this proposed limited 
disapproval. Federal disapproval of the State submittal does not affect 
its State-enforceability. Moreover, the EPA's limited disapproval of 
the submittal does not impose any new Federal requirements. Therefore, 
the EPA certifies that this proposed limited disapproval action does 
not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities 
because it does not remove existing requirements, nor does it impose 
any new Federal requirements.

Unfunded Mandates

    Under sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 
1995, the EPA must undertake various actions in association with 
proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result 
in estimated costs of $100 million or more to the private sector; or to 
State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate.
    Through submission of these SIP revisions which have been proposed 
for limited approval in this action, the State and any affected local 
or tribal governments have elected to adopt the program provided for 
under section 175A of the CAA. The rules and commitments given limited 
approval in this action may bind State, local and tribal governments to 
perform certain actions and also require the private sector to perform 
certain duties. To the extent that the rules and commitments being 
given limited approval by this action will impose or lead to the 
imposition of any mandate upon the State, local, or tribal governments, 
either as the owner or operator of a source or as a regulator, or would 
impose or lead to the imposition of any mandate upon the private 
sector; the EPA's action will impose no new requirements. Such sources 
are already subject to these requirements under State law. Accordingly, 
no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the 
private sector, result from this action. Therefore, the EPA has 
determined that this proposed action does not include a mandate that 
may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to State, local, 
or tribal governments in the aggregate or to the private sector.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: December 12, 1995.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator (6RA).
[FR Doc. 96-1543 Filed 1-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P