[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 133 (Friday, July 11, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37175-37183]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-18244]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[TX80-1-7329; FRL-5856-4]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality State Implementation 
Plans (SIP); Texas: 1990 Base Year Emissions Inventories, 15 Percent 
Rate of Progress Plans and Contingency Plans

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed conditional interim rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing a conditional interim approval of the 15 
Percent Rate of Progress Plans and associated Motor Vehicle Emissions 
Budgets (MVEB) for the Dallas/Fort Worth, El Paso and Houston ozone 
nonattainment areas. In addition, the EPA is proposing to fully approve 
revisions to the 1990 base year emissions inventory and contingency 
plans for these three areas.
    On January 29, 1996, the EPA published a proposed limited approval/
limited disapproval of the 15 Percent Plans and contingency measures in 
the Federal Register. Also, on January 29, 1997, the EPA published a 
limited approval of the control measures contained in the 15 Percent 
Plans. Today's proposed action replaces the January 29, 1996, proposed 
limited approval/limited disapproval of the 15 Percent Plans and 
contingency measures. The proposed limited approval of the control 
measures is not affected by this proposal.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 11, 1997.

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.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
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), EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-
2733, telephone (214) 665-7242.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Clean Air Act Requirements

    Section 182(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (the Act), as amended in 
1990, requires ozone nonattainment areas with classifications of 
moderate and above to develop plans to reduce area-wide Volatile 
Organic Compound (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 by 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 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 Act 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 (moderate 1), Dallas/Fort Worth 
(moderate), El Paso (serious), and the Houston/Galveston (severe) 
areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Previously classified Serious, on April 2, 1996, the EPA 
corrected the classification of Beaumont/Port Arthur to moderate (61 
FR 14496).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Previous 15 Percent Rate of Progress SIP Revisions

    Texas first 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 by 
the Phase I measures. The combination of the Phase I and Phase II 
measures was ruled complete by the EPA on May 12, 1994.
    The EPA analyzed the November 13, 1993, and May 9, 1994, submittal 
and determined that the measures included in the plan did not achieve 
the required amount of reductions. Among other reasons, there was a 
shortfall in reductions because the I/M program relied on in the plans 
had been repealed by the State. On January 29, 1996, the EPA published 
a proposed limited approval/limited disapproval of the 15 Percent Plans 
included in the November 13, 1993, and May 9, 1994, submittals (61 FR 
2751). The EPA also proposed a limited approval of the measures that 
were included with the plans because they resulted in a strengthening 
of the SIP. For a complete discussion of the deficiencies in the 
State's plans, please see the January 29, 1996 Federal Register 
document.

[[Page 37176]]

C. Current 15 Percent SIP Revision

    The Governor of Texas submitted in a letter dated August 9, 1996, 
revisions to the 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plans for Beaumont/Port 
Arthur, Dallas/Fort Worth, El Paso and Houston Areas. The SIP revision 
also included revisions to the 1990 Base Year Inventory, El Paso 
Section 818 analysis, the Post 96 Rate of Progress Plan for Houston and 
the Employee Commute Options SIP. In this Federal Register, the EPA is 
taking action on only the Emissions Inventories, 15 Percent Rate of 
Progress Plans and Contingency measures for the Dallas/Fort Worth, El 
Paso and Houston areas. The EPA is taking no action on the other 
portions of the August 9, 1996, submittal including the Beaumont/Port 
Arthur 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plan. The other portions of the SIP 
submittal will be acted on in separate Federal Register documents.

II. The EPA's Analysis of Texas's Submittal

A. General

    Texas has made the following changes to address the shortfalls that 
were identified in the January 29, 1996, limited approval/limited 
disapproval. First, Texas made several revisions to its emissions 
estimates. These revisions were based on more recent information or 
source surveys. From these studies, Texas concluded that, in some 
instances, better estimates of emissions were available based on 
locally derived emission factors rather than defaults based on national 
data. Second, these same studies resulted, in some instances, in lower 
projections of emissions in 1996 resulting in less growth to be offset. 
Third, by better segregating the emission points that were subject to 
specific rules, Texas identified additional emission reductions from 
measures in the original 15 Percent Plan. Finally, Texas introduced a 
new tail pipe I/M program called Texas Motorist Choice to replace the 
previous vehicle I/M Program. The EPA is proposing that the combination 
of the Texas Motorist Choice Program and the revisions to the Emission 
Inventory and Growth Projections eliminate the shortfall identified in 
the January 29, 1996, limited disapproval/limited approval.

B. Emission Inventory Revisions

    The EPA approved the Texas 1990 base year inventory on November 8, 
1994 (59 FR 55586). In the August 23, 1996, SIP revision, Texas 
included revisions to the approved VOC inventory. The revisions have 
been made based on more recently available information from source 
surveys and other methods. Much of the information was developed as 
part of bottom up surveys of area source categories performed as part 
of the 1993 intensive ozone study in the Houston and Beaumont areas. 
This study, called the Coastal Oxidant Assessment for Southeast Texas 
(COAST), included a study of area source emissions. Traditional 
emission inventory techniques use national or state level statistics 
for the level of activity of a source category. For example, gallons of 
gasoline sold statewide might be used to determine emissions from 
Gasoline Stations. These emissions would be apportioned geographically 
using a surrogate such as population. In the bottom-up approach, 
surveys of actual facilities are used to determine emission levels. In 
addition to the data collected from bottom up surveys, other 
improvements were made to the 1990 inventory. A brief discussion of the 
changes made to the inventory follows.
Other Product Coatings, High Performance Maintenance and Other Special 
Purpose Coatings
    These categories are all surface coating categories that were 
estimated for the 1990 inventory using per capita emission factors 
provided by the EPA. The per capita factors were developed from 
national level estimates of usage of a product divided by the 1989 
population. The documentation of the coatings and emissions covered by 
these categories was not initially available. The Texas Natural 
Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC), with EPA approval, removed 
these categories from the 1993 periodic emissions inventory. After 
further study, documentation of the specific categories and coatings 
was identified and the 1990 inventory has been adjusted appropriately. 
Once the categories had been accurately identified, overlap with the 
point source inventory could be accounted for and an improved area 
source estimate was obtained.
Marine Vessel Loading Losses
     Area source emissions in this category were based on estimates of 
the total amount of VOCs loaded at Texas ports. Texas determined that 
individual point sources had under reported emissions from this 
category. When the revised point source emissions are considered, it 
was determined that all of the emissions from this category in the 
Houston area and the bulk of the emissions in the Beaumont area were 
covered in the point source emission inventory. Therefore, the area 
source estimate could be reduced in both areas.
Surface Cleaning
    A contractor performed a bottom up survey of this category. This 
survey was later expanded by TNRCC staff. The results of the survey 
indicated that the national default estimate of emissions for this 
category should be revised for the nonattainment areas in Texas.
Architectural Coatings
    Texas revised emissions estimate by using more recent information 
from the National Paint and Coatings Association combined with data 
from surveys on thinner usage.
Automobile Refinishing
    Texas used more recent information from the National Paint and 
Coatings Association and source surveys to revise the emission 
estimates for this category. In addition, using data from the 
Department of Commerce on paint shipments, Texas projected a 
substantial decrease in emissions between 1990 and 1994.
Sheet, Strip and Coil
    This category was estimated for the 1990 emission factor of 1.5 
tons/employee. The number of employees related to this industry was 
obtained from the County Business Patterns for Standard Industrial 
Classification (SIC) 3479. This SIC code includes many businesses not 
engaged in coil coating operations. A list of companies involved in 
coil coating operations was obtained from the national coil coaters 
association. It was determined that all of the companies involved in 
these operations were outside the nonattainment areas or were reporting 
their emissions in the point source inventory. Therefore, including 
their emissions in the area source emissions would be double counting. 
Therefore, the area source emissions were removed from the inventory.
Vessels With Outboards
    A telephone survey of pleasure craft owners in the Houston 
Galveston and Beaumont Port Arthur areas was conducted. The survey 
showed that 62 percent of boat usage occurs on weekends rather than on 
weekdays. Previous emission estimates had allocated pleasure craft 
emissions equally to each day of the week. It is important to know when 
emissions occur in developing control strategies. In this case, 
according to the EPA guidance, emissions are to be reduced from their 
1990 summer time weekday levels. Therefore, Texas reduced the

[[Page 37177]]

expected weekday emissions based on the results of the survey. 
Correspondingly, the weekend emissions were increased. A similar 
adjustment had previously been made to the Dallas/Fort Worth inventory.
Commercial Vessels
    This category of emission results from fuel combustion by ocean 
going vessels, harbor vessels and the fishing fleet. Emissions were 
originally estimated by using information from the Army Corps of 
Engineers on freight traffic at harbors and allocating national fuel 
usage to Texas. These emissions were revised based on a more recent 
study performed by an EPA funded contractor in 1992. The revised 
emission levels are based on estimates of activity levels for specific 
categories of vessels.
Generators <50 Horsepower
    As part of the COAST project, local area-specific construction and 
recreational area information, and more current information about 
horsepower distributions and equipment/populations, were utilized to 
obtain a more refined estimate of emissions in this category.
Residential Lawnmowers
    Similar to the survey performed of recreational boat users, a 
survey of homeowners was performed to determine when they actually cut 
their lawns. Of those survey respondents whose lawns are cut by the 
resident, friend or neighbor, fifty-nine percent of the surveyed 
respondents reported that they cut their lawns on the weekends. Texas 
reallocated the emissions based on the results of the survey. No 
adjustment was made to the emissions from commercial lawncare services.
Military Aircraft
    This change reflects a change in the 1990 base year inventory for 
the Dallas/Fort Worth area based on a 1992 Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS) for Carswell Air Force Base. This EIS more accurately 
reflected the actual aircraft used at the base when compared to the 
original emission estimate. This change resulted in a substantial 
increase in the 1990 emissions estimate. The base has undergone a 
substantial realignment since 1990 resulting in a significant decrease 
in emissions projected for 1996.
1994 Quality Assurance Efforts
    During 1994, the TNRCC completed a thorough evaluation of the 1990 
point source inventory and discovered that emissions from facilities in 
several SIC codes were misplaced under the wrong emissions category. 
This effort resulted in significant changes to some emissions 
categories. The realignment of emissions did not affect the total 
emissions. The realignment of emissions did have the effect of 
increasing the amount of reductions that were expected for certain 
control measures and decreasing the amount of emission reductions 
expected from other control measures.
    The EPA is proposing to approve these revisions to the 1990 Base 
Year VOC inventory. The originally approved biogenic emissions are 
unchanged. A summary of the Revised 1990 emissions inventory for the 
three areas is included in Table 1.

                                  Table 1.--1990 Base Year Emissions Inventory                                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Point         Area       On-road      Non-road      Total   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dallas/Fort Worth..............................        65.27       174.02       306.60       105.19       651.08
El Paso........................................         9.45        24.94        38.27        10.99        83.65
Houston........................................       481.95       200.07       251.72       129.98      1063.72
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Calculation of the 1996 Target Level of Emissions

    Texas subtracted the noncreditable reductions from the FMVCP and 
Reid Vapor Pressure program from the 1990 emissions inventory. This 
subtraction results in the 1990 adjusted inventory. The total required 
emission reduction required to meet the 15 Percent Plan requirement 
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 2 summarizes the calculations for the Dallas/Fort Worth, El Paso 
and Houston areas.

         Table 2.--Calculation of Required Reductions (Tons/Day)        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Dallas/Fort                 Houston/ 
                                      Worth       El Paso     Galveston 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 Emission Inventory..........       651.08        83.65      1063.72
1990 Adjusted....................       548.83        69.40       975.39
15% of adjusted..................        82.32        10.41       146.31
RACT and I/M Corr................          .99         1.57        16.31
1996 Target......................       465.52        57.42       812.77
1996 1 Projection................       583.07        73.61      1026.27
Required Reduction...............       117.55        16.19       213.27
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 1996 forecasted emissions with growth and pre-1990 controls.          

D. Projections of Growth

    As can be seen from the calculations in Table 2, an important 
component of calculating the required emission reductions is to project 
the amount of growth in emissions that is expected between 1990 and 
1996. Since the 1996 emissions are related to the 1990 emissions, the 
changes in the 1990 emission inventory resulted in changes to the 1996 
projections. In addition, as discussed previously, Texas has projected 
reductions in the emissions from surface cleaning, auto refinishing and 
military aircraft emissions from 1990 levels.

E. Deficiencies Identified in the January 29, 1996, Federal Register

    In the January 29, 1996, Federal Register, the EPA identified 
several areas where it was believed that Texas had projected too much 
emission reduction for particular control measures. The EPA has 
reviewed the

[[Page 37178]]

State's August 9, 1996, SIP revision and believes that it addresses the 
EPA's previously identified concerns. A brief discussion of the 
previously identified concerns and how they have been addressed 
follows:
El Paso Stage II
    In the previous submittal, the EPA believed that for the El Paso 
area, too much emission benefit was projected for this control measure. 
Texas, in the August 23, 1996, SIP revision, corrects this problem by 
adjusting the projected control efficiency from 98 percent to 95 
percent.
Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Rules
    Texas projected emission reductions for this category based on past 
EPA guidance. The guidance, however, was changed in a memorandum dated 
March 22, 1995, (Credit for the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans for 
Reductions from the Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) 
Coating Rule). In the August 9, 1996, SIP revision, the emission 
reduction estimate is revised based on the more recent guidance.
    Emission reductions from the AIM rule are based on the rule 
proposed by the EPA on June 25, 1995, which expected compliance by 
April 1997. Subsequently, the issuance of the rule has been delayed. 
The EPA has negotiated a compliance date of no earlier than January 1, 
1998. The previous guidance allowed States to take emission reduction 
credit for the AIM rule even though the reductions were not expected to 
occur until April 1997. The EPA believes that even though the 
compliance date has been pushed back to January 1, 1998, the emission 
reduction from the national AIM rule is creditable in State 15 Percent 
Plans.
Industrial Wastewater
    In the January 29, 1996, Federal Register, the EPA proposed that 
Texas had projected too high a control efficiency for this control 
measure. The EPA continues to believe that the control efficiency 
projected by Texas for this measure is too high. Texas, however, 
believes that the rule effectiveness originally used for this control 
measure was too low. The EPA agrees that this is likely the case. The 
combination of rule effectiveness and control efficiency determine the 
overall reductions. Therefore, the EPA believes that the overall 
reductions should be accurate. Texas has committed to study emissions 
from this category to determine actual control efficiency and rule 
effectiveness for the category. In light of the above, the EPA believes 
that it is appropriate to propose approval of these projected emission 
reductions. The EPA will work with Texas to further study the emissions 
from this source category as part of determining whether RACT has been 
instituted for this category of emissions.
Employee Commute Options (ECO)
    In the Houston area, Texas previously relied on this program to 
provide emission reductions. The EPA approved the State ECO program on 
March 7, 1995 (60 FR 12442). Public Law 104-70, which was passed by 
Congress in December 1995, gave flexibility to the states in meeting 
the requirements of the ECO program. Specifically, the legislation 
allowed states, that prior to its enactment were required to implement 
ECO programs, to ``remove such provisions from the State Implementation 
Plan, or withdraw its submission, if the state notifies the 
Administrator, in writing, that the state has undertaken, or will 
undertake, one or more alternative methods that will achieve emission 
reductions equivalent to those to be achieved by the removed or 
withdrawn provisions.'' The State of Texas has removed the ECO 
emissions reduction credit from the Houston 15 Percent Plan and does 
not rely on the emission reduction of 1.81 ton/day which was projected 
under the ECO program. In addition, the Governor of Texas has notified 
EPA and requested removal of the Texas ECO rule from the SIP. For the 
purposes of the 15 Percent SIP, the State has satisfied the provisions 
of the 1995 legislation. The EPA will act on the Governor's request 
under a separate Federal Register action to address the specific 
requirements of the ECO program and its removal from the SIP.
Marine Vessel Loading
    In the January 29, 1996 Federal Register, the EPA noted that Texas 
had projected reductions from their Marine Vessel Loading Rule for area 
sources (sources with less than 25 tons/year emissions) in this 
category. The rule, however, only covered facilities with emissions 
greater than 100 tons/year. Therefore, the emission reductions for area 
sources could not be credited. As discussed previously, in subsequent 
studies, Texas has learned that there are no area source emissions in 
this category in the Houston area. Therefore, Texas has revised its 
emission reduction estimates to remove the area source emission 
reductions.
Acetone Substitution
    Texas had projected emission reductions for the rules to regulate 
the cultured (synthetic) marble and fiber reinforced plastic 
operations. The EPA, however, has added acetone to the list of non-
reactive substances. Texas, in the August 9, 1996, submittal, has 
removed emission reduction credit for these rules.
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M)
    The January 29, 1996 proposed limited approval/limited disapproval 
did not agree with the emission reductions projected for Vehicle I/M 
because Texas had discontinued the program after submittal of the 15 
Percent Plan. On June 27, 1996, the Region received the State's revised 
I/M plan. The plan contained provisions for the implementation of a 
decentralized two-speed idle testing program. Testing is required 
annually in the counties of Harris, Dallas, Tarrant, and El Paso. The 
plan was submitted under the provisions of the National Highway Systems 
Designations Act of 1995 (NHSDA). The plan also allows for, but does 
not require, loaded mode testing in which case the test would be 
biennial. There are no loaded mode testing commitments or credits 
contained in the I/M or 15% plan SIPs.
    In the Houston area, this is largely a new program. In the El Paso 
and Dallas/Fort Worth areas the existing program is strengthened by 
provisions for remote sensing, a real time data link of test stations, 
auditing and enforcement, repair effectiveness support, performance 
monitoring and evaluation and gas cap pressure testing. The plan start 
dates were July 1, 1996, for Dallas/Fort Worth and January 1, 1997, for 
Houston and El Paso.
    On October 3, 1996, the Region proposed conditional interim 
approval of the revised I/M plan (61 FR 51651). The proposal was 
conditional because the State needed additional legal authority to 
implement portions of its plan including, test on resale provisions, 
enforcement of remote sensing, and authority for re-registration 
denial. The approval was interim because under the provisions of the 
NHDSA the State's estimates regarding network type were to be based on 
good faith estimates with the credits to be evaluated at the end of an 
18 month interim approval period.
    The EPA has reviewed the modeling of the projected emission 
reductions for the revised I/M program provided by Texas. With the 
exception of the gas cap check, Texas has projected emissions

[[Page 37179]]

reductions that are consistent with EPA guidance.
    However, it is the EPA's position that Texas projected more 
emission reductions than the EPA feels is appropriate for their gas cap 
check. The EPA has performed modeling to assess the amount of over 
estimation. For the Houston, Dallas/Fort Worth and El Paso areas, the 
amount of over estimation is estimated to be 0.5 tons/day, 0.8 tons/
day, and 0.2 tons/day respectively. In each of these areas there are 
excess emission reductions that are sufficient to cover this over 
estimation.
    The I/M Program was challenged in state court. The Court recently 
ruled that the two Senate Bills (19 and 178) challenged were an 
unconstitutional ``taking'' and an unconstitutional interference with 
contract, Texas Testing Technologies I, et al. v. The State of Texas, 
No. 95-1462 (126th Dist. Court, Travis County, Texas) (April 21, 1997). 
The suit is essentially a contract dispute with the State and is hence 
irrelevant to today's proposal to accept the State's projected emission 
reductions in the 15% SIP. The State has adequate legal authority 
without the two Senate Bills' language to implement and enforce an I/M 
program (except for the condititons noted in the October 1996 Federal 
Register proposal). Therefore, EPA is proposing to accept the State's 
projected emissions reductions with the exception of the projected 
emissions from the gas cap check.

F. Impact of Vehicle I/M Start Dates

    Section 182(b)(1) of the Act requires that States containing ozone 
nonattainment areas classified as Moderate or above prepare SIPs that 
provide for a 15 percent VOC emissions reduction by November 15, 1996. 
Most of the 15 percent SIPs originally submitted to the EPA contained 
enhanced I/M programs because this program achieves more VOC emission 
reductions than most, if not all other, control strategies. However, 
because most States experienced substantial difficulties with these 
enhanced I/M programs, only a few States are currently actually testing 
cars using their original enhanced I/M protocols.
    In September, 1995, EPA finalized revisions to its enhanced I/M 
rule allowing states significant flexibility in designing I/M programs 
appropriate for their needs (60 FR 48029). Subsequently, Congress 
enacted the NHSDA, which provides States with more flexibility in 
determining the design of enhanced I/M programs. The substantial amount 
of time needed by States to re-design enhanced I/M programs in 
accordance with the guidance contained within the NHSDA, secure state 
legislative approval when necessary, and set up the infrastructure to 
perform the testing program precluded States that revise their I/M 
programs from obtaining emission reductions from such revised programs 
by November 15, 1996.
    Given the heavy reliance by many States upon enhanced I/M programs 
to help achieve the 15 Percent VOC emissions reduction required under 
section 182(b)(1) of the Act, and the recent NHSDA and regulatory 
changes regarding enhanced I/M programs, the EPA recognized that it was 
no longer possible for many states to achieve the portion of the 15 
percent reductions that is attributed to I/M by November 15, 1996. 
Under these circumstances, disapproval of the 15 percent SIPs would 
serve no purpose. Consequently, under certain circumstances, the EPA 
will propose to allow States that pursue redesign of enhanced I/M 
programs to receive emission reduction credit from these programs 
within their 15 Percent Plans, even though the emissions reductions 
from the I/M program will occur after November 15, 1996.
    Specifically, the EPA will propose approval of 15 percent SIPs if 
the emissions reductions from the revised, enhanced I/M programs, as 
well as from the other 15 Percent Plan measures, will achieve the 15 
Percent target level as soon after November 15, 1996, as practicable. 
To make this ``as soon as practicable'' determination, the EPA must 
determine that the 15 Percent SIP contains all VOC control strategies 
that are practicable for the nonattainment area in question and that 
meaningfully accelerate the date by which the 15% level is achieved. 
EPA does not believe that measures meaningfully accelerate the 15 
Percent date if they provide only an insignificant amount of 
reductions.

G. Acceptability of Texas 15 Percent Plans

    In the case of the Dallas/Fort Worth, El Paso and Houston areas, 
Texas has submitted 15 Percent SIP revisions that demonstrate they 
achieve the necessary 15 Percent reductions from I/M by the end of 
1997. The Texas I/M program is an annual program which began in Dallas/
Fort Worth on July 1, 1996, and in El Paso and Houston on January 1, 
1997. Texas submitted 15 Percent SIPs for Dallas/Fort Worth, El Paso, 
and Houston that included creditable control measures. Emission 
reductions resulting from the implementation of the state adopted 
control measures in the 15 Percent Plans have already occurred. Texas 
has relied on reductions from the AIM rule. The AIM reductions are 
expected to occur by January 1, 1998. Therefore, the EPA believes that 
these plans will achieve the required reductions by January 1, 1998. 
The EPA believes that these SIPs contain measures, including I/M, that 
achieve the required reductions as soon as practicable for these 
nonattainment areas.
    The EPA has examined other potentially available SIP measures to 
determine if they are practicable for the Dallas/Fort Worth, El Paso 
and Houston Areas and if they would meaningfully accelerate the date by 
which these areas reach the 15 Percent level of reductions. EPA 
proposes to determine that the SIPs for the Dallas/Fort Worth, El Paso 
and Houston Areas contain the appropriate measures. For the Dallas/Fort 
Worth, El Paso and Houston area no additional measures were identified 
that could be implemented to meaningfully accelerate the date by which 
the 15 Percent target level could be attained. For a complete 
discussion of the control measures considered, please see the Technical 
Support Document for this action.
    Tables 3 through 5 summarize the control measures and the 
associated emission reductions used to achieve the 15 Percent targets.

 Table 3.--Summary of Emission Reductions: Dallas/Fort Worth (Tons/Day) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Required Reduction.........................................       117.55
Creditable Reductions:                                                  
    RACT Catch-up..........................................         4.03
    Stage II...............................................        18.19
    Aircraft Stage III.....................................         0.60
    Other VOC storage, transport...........................         0.05
    I/M, FMVCP Tier I, Reformulated Gas....................        69.46
    Bakeries...............................................         0.12
    Municipal Landfills....................................         3.49

[[Page 37180]]

                                                                        
    Carswell Fire Training Pit Closure.....................         1.20
    RE Improvements........................................         4.86
    Gas Utility Engines....................................         7.76
    Reform Off Road........................................         4.23
    TCMs...................................................         6.94
    Consumer/Commercial Products...........................         4.09
    Gasoline Terminals.....................................         2.17
    Fugitives..............................................         0.07
    Wood Furniture.........................................         1.35
    AIM....................................................         4.77
    Traffic Markings.......................................         0.56
    High Performance Maintenance...........................         0.96
    Other Special Purpose Coatings.........................         1.18
                                                            ------------
        Total..............................................       136.07
------------------------------------------------------------------------


        Table 4.--Summary Emission Reductions: El Paso (Tons/Day)       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Required Reduction.........................................        16.19
Creditable Reductions:                                                  
    RACT Catch-up..........................................         0.71
    Stage II...............................................         1.87
    Aircraft Stage III.....................................         0.02
    FMVCP Tier I, I/M, Low RVP.............................         7.37
    Offset Printing........................................         0.56
    Vessel Loading.........................................         0.32
    Fugitives..............................................         1.13
    RE Improvements........................................         1.63
    Gas Utility Engines....................................         0.88
    TCMs...................................................         0.35
    Architectural Coatings.................................         0.80
    Consumer/Commercial Products...........................         0.70
    Municipal Landfills....................................         0.21
    Industrial Wastewater..................................         0.27
    Bulk Gasoline Terminals................................         0.77
    Outdoor Burning........................................         0.40
    Wood Furniture.........................................         0.04
    RVP (off-road).........................................         0.09
    Traffic Markings.......................................         0.09
    High Performance Maintenance...........................         0.12
                                                            ------------
        Total..............................................        18.32
------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Table 5.--Summary Emission Reductions: Houston/Galveston (Tons/Day)  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Required Reduction........................................        213.27
Creditable Reductions:                                                  
    RACT Catch-up.........................................         27.81
    TSDF..................................................         13.48
    Stage II..............................................         16.89
    General Vent Gas......................................         13.97
    Reform Gas, I/M, Tier I FMVCP.........................         40.41
    Reform (Off Road).....................................          5.30
    Vessel Cleaning/Degassing.............................          3.01
    Stage I...............................................          6.26
    SOCMI Rct. & Dist.....................................          1.68
    Fugitive Controls.....................................         46.03
    RE Improvements.......................................         12.82
    Gas Utility Engines...................................          8.47
    TCMs..................................................          0.36
    Consumer/Commercial Products..........................          4.44
    Marine Vessel loading.................................         15.73
    Gasoline Terminals....................................          3.36
    Wood Coating..........................................          0.37
    Bakeries..............................................          0.22
    Architectural Coatings................................          5.03
    Industrial Wastewater.................................          8.56
    Traffic Markings......................................          0.56
    Other Special Purpose.................................          1.24
    High Performance Maintenance..........................          0.99
                                                           -------------

[[Page 37181]]

                                                                        
        Total.............................................        237   
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

    The Clean Air Act, section 176(c), and the transportation 
conformity rule require the states to establish motor vehicle emissions 
budgets (MVEB) in any control strategy SIP that is submitted for 
attainment and maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards. These budgets will be used to determine if future 
transportation plans conform with State air quality plans. The budget 
for each area has been calculated by projecting the 1996 Motor Vehicle 
emissions and subtracting the emission reductions from planned emission 
control programs. The State of Texas has established a MVEB for VOC for 
Dallas/Fort Worth, El Paso, and Houston. The EPA is proposing to give 
conditional interim approval of the following MVEB:

           Table 6.--1996 VOC Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               VOC (Tons
                             Area                               per Day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dallas/Fort Worth............................................     165.49
El Paso......................................................      21.63
Houston......................................................     152.12
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Contingency Measures

    Ozone areas classified as moderate or above must include in their 
submittals, under section 172(c)(9) of the Act, 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 planning by the State is needed. Therefore, the 
EPA interprets the Act 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
    This measure was adopted as part of the 15 Percent Plans for the 
Houston area. It was also adopted as a contingency measure 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.
Dry Cleaning Naphtha
    This measure 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 measure and 
believes that it will achieve the projected reductions in the event it 
must be implemented.
Offset Printing
    Regulation of emissions from offset printing was adopted as a 15 
Percent Plan 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.
Commercial Bakeries
    Texas adopted control measures for major source bakeries in Dallas/
Fort Worth and Houston as part of the 15 Percent Plans. Texas also 
adopted for Dallas 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.
Transportation Control Measures (TCM)
    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. TCMs are 
measures such as High Occupancy Vehicle lanes that reduce emissions by 
modifying the transportation system. The EPA believes the projected 
emission reductions have been quantified appropriately.
Gas Utility Engines
     In all three areas, Texas has projected emission reductions that 
will occur from the small engine rule in the year following the 
required milestone demonstration or 1997. The EPA believes that these 
reductions have been quantified appropriately.
Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance and Tier I
    All of the contingency plans rely to some extent on reductions from 
the inspection and maintenance program. As discussed previously, the 
planned I/M reductions are not expected to occur until the end of 1997. 
Additional reductions from I/M cannot be expected to occur in the time 
frame envisioned for contingency measures. Therefore, these reductions 
cannot be credited toward the contingency measures.
    However, reductions in excess of the 15 percent plans and 
requirements achieved from measures enumerated above are sufficient to 
ensure that the contingency measure target of three percent is met. If 
Texas has to implement these measures for contingency purposes or for 
future plans then the State will have one year to backfill the 
contingency plan.

 Table 7.--Summary of Acceptable Contingency Measures: Dallas/Fort Worth
                               (Tons/Day)                               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Required Contingency.......................................        16.46
Creditable Contingency Reductions:                                      
    Vessel Cleaning........................................         0.18
    Dry Cleaning Naphtha...................................         2.22
    Offset Printing........................................         0.85
    Commercial Bakeries....................................         0.15

[[Page 37182]]

                                                                        
    TCMs...................................................         2.03
    Gas Utility Engines 1997...............................         0.73
    Excess reductions from 15 Percent measures.............        18.52
                                                            ------------
        Total..............................................        24.68
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table 8.--Summary of Contingency Measure Reductions: El Paso (tons/day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Required Contingency.......................................         2.08
Creditable Contingency Reductions:                                      
    Vessel Cleaning........................................         0.09
    Dry Cleaning Naphtha...................................         0.30
    Commercial Bakeries....................................         0.05
    TCMs...................................................         0.53
    Gas Utility Engines 1997...............................         0.08
    Excess reductions from 15 percent measures.............         2.13
                                                            ------------
        Total..............................................         1.74
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table 9.--Summary of Contingency Measure Reductions: Houston/Galveston 
                               (tons/day)                               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Required Contingency.......................................        29.26
Creditable Contingency Reductions:                                      
    Municipal Landfills....................................         3.99
    Dry Cleaning-Naphtha...................................         1.88
    Offset Printing........................................         2.20
    Gas Utility Engines 1997...............................         0.76
    Excess Reductions from 15% measures....................        23.73
                                                            ------------
        Total..............................................        32.56
------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Rulemaking Action

    The EPA has evaluated the Emissions Inventory, 15 Percent Plans and 
contingency measures submitted as part of the August 23, 1996 SIP 
revision for Texas. The EPA has also reviewed the MVEB associated with 
these 15% plans. The EPA proposes to give full approval of the 
revisions to the 1990 base year inventory for Dallas/Fort Worth, El 
Paso and Houston/Galveston Areas. The EPA proposes to give Conditional 
Interim approval of the 15 Percent Plans and associated MVEB for the 
three areas. Finally, the EPA proposes to give full approval of the 
contingency plans for these three areas.
    The 15 Percent Plans for the three areas can only receive a 
conditional interim approval because the plans all rely in part on 
emission reductions from the revised I/M program. The EPA proposed 
conditional interim approval of the I/M program for the three areas on 
October 3, 1996. Therefore, the 15 Percent Plans can only receive 
conditional interim approval.

Interim Approval

    The NHSDA allows States to make a ``good faith'' estimate of the 
reductions that will be achieved by the I/M program. The I/M program 
can be given interim approval during an 18 month period during which 
the program is evaluated to validate the ``good faith'' estimate. At 
the end of the 18-month interim period, the interim approval status for 
the I/M program will automatically lapse pursuant to the NHSDA. It is 
expected that the State will, at that time, be able to make a 
demonstration of the program's effectiveness using an appropriate 
evaluation criteria. If the State fails to provide a demonstration of 
the program's effectiveness to EPA within 18 months of the final 
interim I/M rulemaking, the interim approval will lapse, and EPA will 
be forced to disapprove the State's permanent I/M SIP revision. An I/M 
disapproval will result in a 15 Percent Plan disapproval unless 
substitute emission reductions are submitted. Information from the I/M 
program evaluation showing the program achieves a lesser amount of 
reductions than originally projected will be used in the final action 
on the 15 Percent Plans. Further discussion of the requirements for 
final approval of the
I/M program are discussed in the October 3, 1996, Federal Register (61 
FR 51651).

Conditional Approval

    The EPA is proposing a conditional approval of the 15 Percent Plans 
contingent upon the State meeting the conditions outlined in the 
proposed I/M conditional approval. These include the State obtaining 
the appropriate legislative authority as needed to implement the 
program outlined in the Governor's Executive Order. The EPA proposes 
that if the State fails to obtain the needed additional legal authority 
within 12 months of final conditional interim approval of the 15 
Percent Plans, the 15 Percent Plan approval will convert to a 
disapproval after a letter is sent notifying the State of the 
conversion to disapproval.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to 
the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light 
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in 
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

    This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature 
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the 
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a 
July 10, 1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator 
for Air and

[[Page 37183]]

Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this 
regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA 
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of 
any proposed or final rule on small entities. See 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 
Alternatively, 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.
    Conditional approvals of SIP submittals under section 110 and 
subchapter I, part D of the 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 Act, preparation of a flexibility 
analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic 
reasonableness of State action. The Act forbids EPA to base its actions 
concerning SIPs on such grounds. See Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 
427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
    If the conditional approval is converted to a disapproval under 
section 110(k), based on the State's failure to meet the commitment, it 
will not affect any existing State requirements applicable to small 
entities. Federal disapproval of the State submittal does not affect 
its State-enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal 
does not impose a new Federal requirement. Therefore, EPA certifies 
that this 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 substitute a new Federal requirement.

C. Unfunded Mandates

    Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 
signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact 
statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a 
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or 
tribal governments in the aggregate; or to private sector, of $100 
million or more. Under Section 205, EPA must select the most cost-
effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives 
of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 
requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small 
governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    The EPA has determined that the conditional approval action 
proposed does not include a Federal mandate that may result in 
estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or 
tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This 
Federal action approves preexisting requirements under State or local 
law, and imposes no new Federal requirements. Accordingly, no 
additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the 
private sector, result from this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, 
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 1, 1997.
Jerry Clifford,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-18244 Filed 7-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P