[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 45 (Monday, March 9, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11387-11393]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-5982]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[T50-1-6800; FRL-5975-7]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality State Implementation 
Plans (SIP); Texas: Disapproval of the Reasonable-Further-Progress Plan 
for the 1996-1999 Period and the Contingency Plan for the Houston/
Galveston (HGA) Ozone Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed disapproval.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to disapprove the SIP revisions submitted 
by the State of Texas to meet the Rate-of-Progress (ROP) requirements 
under the Clean Air Act (the Act). Under these requirements, States 
must demonstrate a 3 percent reduction of volatile organic compounds 
(VOCs) per year for a three year period between November 15, 1996 and 
November 15, 1999. The EPA is proposing disapproval of the ROP plan 
submitted by Texas for the Houston/Galveston area (HGA) primarily 
because the plan projects excessive emissions reductions for the EPA's 
Compliance Assurance Monitoring (CAM) Rules. The EPA is also proposing 
disapproval of the Contingency Plan associated with this ROP plan. This 
rulemaking action is being taken under sections 110 and Part D of the 
Act.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 8, 1998.

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:

Introduction--Clean Air Act Requirements

Reasonable Further Progress Requirements

    Section 182(c)(2) of the Act generally requires each state having 
one or more ozone nonattainment areas classified as serious or worse to 
develop a plan (for each subject area) that provides for actual VOC 
reductions of at least 3 percent per year averaged over each 
consecutive 3-year period, beginning six years after enactment of the 
Act, until such time as these areas have attained the National Ambient 
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. These plans are referred to 
hereafter as post-1996 Rate-of-Progress Plans (or post-96 ROP plans). 
These plans were due to be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision by 
November 15, 1994.
    Section 182(b)(1) of the Act mandates a 15 percent VOC emission 
reduction, net of growth, between 1990 and 1996 for each State having 
one or more ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or worse. 
That SIP revision was due to EPA by November 15, 1993. The plan for 
these reductions occurring between 1990-1996 is hereafter referred to 
as the 15% Rate-of-Progress Plan.
    Sections 182(b)(1)(C), 182(b)(1)(D) and 182(c)(2)(B) of the Act 
limit the creditability of certain control measures toward the ROP 
requirements. Specifically, states cannot take credit for reductions 
achieved by Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) measures 
(e.g., new car emissions standards) promulgated prior to 1990, or for 
reductions stemming from regulations promulgated prior to 1990 to lower 
the volatility (i.e., Reid Vapor Pressure) of gasoline. Furthermore, 
the Act does not allow credit toward ROP requirements for post-1990 
corrections to existing motor vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) 
Programs or corrections to Reasonably Available Control Technology 
(RACT) rules, since these programs were required to be in place prior 
to 1990.
    Additionally, sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) of the Act require 
contingency measures to be included in the ROP and attainment plans. 
These measures are required to be implemented immediately if reasonable 
further progress has not been achieved, or if the NAAQS is not met by 
the deadline set forth in the Act.

[[Page 11388]]

Attainment Demonstration Requirement

    Under section 182(c)(2)(A) of the Act, States required to submit 
post-1996 ROP plan SIPs, by November 15, 1994 for serious or worse 
ozone nonattainment areas, must also submit for those areas an 
attainment demonstration to provide for achievement of the ozone NAAQS 
by the statutory deadline. This demonstration is to be based on 
photochemical grid modeling, such as the Urban Airshed Model, or an 
equivalent analytical method. In a March 2, 1995, memorandum from Mary 
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, 
EPA set forth an approach to satisfy the attainment demonstration 
requirements under section 182(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Under this 
approach, Texas was required to submit a Rate of Progress Plan to cover 
the first three year period as part of their Phase I submittal by 
December 31, 1995. Pursuant to the December 23, 1997 memorandum from 
Richard D. Wilson, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and 
Radiation, an attainment plan is due April, 1998 showing how Houston 
will attain by 2007.

Background of State Submittal

    In a letter from the Governor dated November 9, 1994, Texas 
submitted a Post-96 ROP plan to reduce emissions in the Houston area by 
an additional 9 percent by November 15, 1999. In January of 1995, the 
Texas Legislature moved to suspend the motor vehicle tailpipe I/M 
program. The Post-96 ROP Plan depended in part on reductions from the 
I/M program.
    In a letter dated August 9, 1996, Texas submitted a revision to the 
Post-96 ROP Plan as part of a larger SIP submittal which included 
revisions to the 1990 Base Year Inventories, the 15% Rate-of-Progress 
Plans for the Texas ozone nonattainment areas, the HGA Employee Trip 
Reduction Program, and section 179B Attainment Demonstration for El 
Paso. Today's proposed action addresses only the HGA Post-96 ROP Plan. 
The other portions of the submittal will be addressed in separate 
Federal Register actions. On July 11, 1997, the EPA proposed 
conditional interim approval of the Texas 15% Rate-of-Progress plans 
for the Houston/Galveston, Dallas/Fort Worth and El Paso areas and 
proposed to fully approve the base year emissions inventory revisions 
and the associated contingency plans for the three areas (62 FR 37175).

Analysis of the SIP Revision

Base Year Emission Inventory

    Under Section 182(b)(1)(B), the baseline from which States 
determine the required reductions for ROP planning is the 1990 base 
year emission inventory. The inventory is broken down into several 
emissions source sectors: stationary, area, on-road mobile, and off-
road mobile sources. The EPA originally approved the Texas 1990 base 
year inventories for the Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston/Galveston, 
Beaumont/Port Arthur and El Paso ozone nonattainment areas on November 
8, 1994 (59 FR 55586). In the August 9, 1996, SIP revision, Texas 
submitted revisions to its 1990 Base Year Inventories. The EPA proposed 
approval of these revisions on July 11, 1997 (62 FR 37175). The Post-96 
ROP plan relies on the revised 1990 emission inventory for the Houston 
area. The EPA will not take final action on the Post-96 ROP plan until 
the revised 1990 emission inventory rulemaking is finalized.

Growth in Emissions Between 1996 and 1999

    States need to provide for sufficient control measures in their ROP 
Plans to offset any emissions growth projected to occur after 1996. 
Therefore, to meet the ROP requirement, a State must provide for 
sufficient emissions reductions to offset projected growth in 
emissions, in addition to a 3 percent annual average reduction of VOC 
emissions. Thus, an estimate of emissions growth from 1996 to 1999 is 
necessary. The EPA believes that Texas' estimates of growth for the 
time period from 1996-1999 are acceptable.

Calculation of Target Level Emissions

    A target level of emissions represents the maximum level of 
emissions allowed in each post-1996 milestone year which will provide 
the 3 percent per year ROP requirement mandated by the Act. The EPA's 
guidance document entitled ``Guidance on the Post-1996 ROP Plan and the 
Attainment Demonstration'' (EPA 452-93-015), dated January 1995, 
outlines the approach States must take to calculate the 1999 target 
level needed to satisfy the Act's post-1996 plan requirement. Table 1 
documents this calculation for the HGA area.
    As described previously, revisions to the 15% ROP plan and the 
Post-96 ROP plan were both included in the August 9,1996 submittal. 
There is a slight discrepancy, however, between the 1996 target level 
used in the 15% ROP plan and the 1996 target level in the Post-96 ROP 
plan. The EPA is proposing not to accept the target level used in the 
State's Post-96 ROP calculations because the same target level for 1996 
should be used in both the 15% ROP plan and the Post-96 ROP plan. The 
EPA believes the 1996 target level in the 15% ROP was calculated 
correctly and proposed approval of this target level on July 11, 1997 
(62 FR 37175). Therefore, the data used by the EPA in Table 1 is 
consistent with the State's 15% ROP plan. The choice of target level is 
important because it affects the size of the emission reductions 
shortfall identified later in this Federal Register. In this case, the 
amount of the shortfall identified is made slightly smaller by using 
the target level identified in the 15% ROP Plan. In future submittals, 
Texas must use a target level that is consistent with the State's 15% 
ROP plan.

              Table 1.--Calculation of Required Reductions              
                               [Tons/day]                               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Houston/ 
                                                              Galveston 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 Emission Inventory....................................      1063.72
1990 Adjusted Relative to 1996.............................       975.39
1990 Adjusted Relative to 1999.............................       963.65
RVP and Fleet Turnover.....................................        11.74
9% of adjusted.............................................        86.73
1996 Target level..........................................       812.77
1999 Target level..........................................       714.30
1999 Projection............................................      1029.18
Total Reductions required by 1999..........................       314.88
Reductions required by 15%.................................       213.27
Additional Reductions required.............................       101.61
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Measures Achieving the Projected Reductions

    The EPA agrees with the emission reductions for the following 
control measures. The amount of emission reductions projected for these 
measures are tabulated in table 2. A more detailed analysis of these 
measures and associated emission reductions is included in the 
Technical Support Document for this action.

Hazardous Organic National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants (HON)

    In the 15% ROP plan, Texas developed rules to tighten controls on 
fugitive emissions at refineries and petrochemical plants. The HON also 
requires tighter controls on fugitive emissions (40 CFR 63.160). The 
HON applies to additional source categories (styrene butadiene rubber 
production and polybutadiene production, chlorine production, pesticide 
production, chlorinated hydrocarbon use, pharmaceutical production and

[[Page 11389]]

miscellaneous butadiene use) not covered in the Texas rule. The EPA is 
proposing to accept the projected emissions reductions associated with 
the HON controls on these source categories not covered by the State 
rules for fugitive emissions.

Aircraft Engines

    The Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA) reduces VOC 
emissions in addition to noise. The ANCA will prevent aircraft with 
Stage II engines from operating at most airports. Newer Stage III 
engines will be required. Stage III engines are quieter and generally, 
although not exclusively, emit smaller amounts of pollutants. Texas has 
estimated that emissions will be 40 percent lower than otherwise 
because of the incorporation of the Stage III engines. The EPA is 
proposing to accept this estimate.

Pulp and Paper MACT

    Texas has projected emission reductions for the implementation of 
the Pulp and Paper Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) 
standard. Air emissions from the pulp and paper industry will be 
regulated in three phases. The MACT I regulates non-combustion sources 
at mills engaged in the production of pulp by chemically pulping wood. 
The MACT II will regulate chemical recovery area combustion sources at 
kraft, sulfite and soda mills. The MACT III will regulate emissions 
from nonchemical pulp and paper mills and paper machines. The rules for 
MACT I were signed on November 14, 1997 but have not yet been 
published. Texas examined facilities in the HGA nonattainment area 
subject to the MACT I rules to estimate the expected emission 
reductions. The EPA is proposing to accept this estimate.

Recreational Marine

    Texas has projected VOC emission reductions from the Federal rules 
to control emissions from Outboard Marine Engines and Personal 
Watercraft (October 4, 1996, 61 FR 52087). It is the EPA's proposed 
position that the State calculated the emission reductions consistent 
with EPA guidance (November 28, 1994 memorandum ``Future Nonroad 
Emission Reduction Credits for Court-Ordered Nonroad Standards'') and 
that the projected emission reductions are acceptable.

Utility Engines

    Texas has projected emission reductions based on Federal rules to 
control emissions from lawn and garden equipment (July 3, 1995, 60 FR 
34581). It is the EPA's proposed position the State calculated these 
emission reductions consistent with EPA guidance (November 28, 1994, 
memorandum ``Future Nonroad Emission Reduction Credits for Court-
Ordered nonroad Standards'') and the projected emission reductions are 
acceptable.

Underground Storage Tank Remediation

    Texas estimated that emissions from leaking underground storage 
tank remediations resulted in about 2.05 tons/day of emissions in the 
HGA area in 1990. By 1998, the program for remediation of leaking 
underground storage tanks should be complete in Texas. After 1998, 
storage tanks are required to be upgraded with leak detection systems 
under the Resource Recovery and Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C. 6991 et 
seq. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to accept that emissions from the 
remediation of leaking underground storage tanks should be largely 
eliminated and the projected emission reductions are acceptable.

Transportation Control Measures

    Texas has projected a small amount of emission reductions due to 
the implementation of measures to reduce vehicle emissions, such as 
signal light improvements and high occupancy vehicle lanes. The EPA is 
proposing to accept the projected emissions reductions.

Tier I, I/M and Reformulated Gasoline

    Texas has projected reductions in vehicle emissions due to these 
three motor vehicle programs. Tier I emission reductions refer to 
emission reductions occurring due to the implementation of FMVCP 
standards that went into effect starting with the 1994 model year. 
Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) refers to the tail pipe testing and 
repair program instituted in the HGA area. Also, starting 1995, 
reformulated gasoline is being used in the HGA area as required by the 
Act, section 211(k)(10)(D).
    The I/M and Reformulated Gasoline emission reductions were part of 
the 15% ROP Plan so they cannot be relied upon in the Post-96 ROP plan. 
They are listed here because emission reductions from these three 
programs are calculated together by the EPA's MOBILE model for 
estimating on-road emissions. Emission reductions from reformulated 
gasoline and I/M are not credited to the Post-96 plan so no double 
counting results. The EPA is proposing to accept the projected emission 
reductions.

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

    Texas has projected emission reductions for controls on emissions 
from solid waste landfills. During the decomposition of solid waste, 
large amounts of methane and significant amounts of VOCs are generated. 
These emissions can be captured and controlled. The EPA has promulgated 
a New Source Performance Standard for new landfills. In the same 
Federal Register action, the EPA has also issued emission guidelines 
under section 111(d) of the Act which require States to adopt controls 
on existing landfills (March 12, 1995, 61 FR 9905). The State has 
projected emission reductions from the rules they are required to adopt 
in response to the 111(d) requirement. The EPA proposes to accept these 
projected emission reductions.

Reformulated Gasoline in Storage Tanks

    Reformulated Gasoline is required to have a lower volatility than 
conventional gasoline. Reformulated gasoline is required to have an 
average Reid vapor pressure of 7.2 pounds/square inch absolute (psia), 
whereas conventional gasoline was required to have a Reid vapor 
pressure of 7.8 psia. This reduced volatility lessens emissions from 
storage tanks. The EPA is proposing to accept the amount of emission 
reductions projected.

Reformulated Gasoline Loading Racks

    As with storage tanks, emissions from gasoline loading racks are 
lowered by the use of reformulated gasoline. The EPA is proposing to 
accept the amount of emission reductions projected at loading racks due 
to the use of reformulated gasoline.

Rule Effectiveness Floating Roof Tanks

    The EPA contracted, in cooperation with the Texas Natural Resource 
Conservation Commission, a study to establish the rule effectiveness 
for controls on floating roof tanks. The study concluded that the rule 
effectiveness measures controlling these tanks was 87 percent, which 
was factored into the original HGA 1990 inventory. Subsequent to that 
study, Texas instituted rule changes under the RACT fix-up requirements 
of the Clean Air Act (Section 182(a)(2)(A)) designed to improve the 
effectiveness and enforceability of the VOC rules including additional 
seal inspection requirements. Texas provided additional information 
based on more recent inspections of seal gaps and compliance rates to 
show that rule effectiveness had improved for floating roof tanks. In 
addition, Texas has further upgraded its rules to require

[[Page 11390]]

facilities to use actual seal gap measurements to determine actual 
excess emissions and for facilities to have these records on hand for 
their annual State inspections. Texas has projected, and the EPA is 
proposing to accept, that an improved rule effectiveness of up to 95 
percent for nonpermitted and 98 percent for permitted sources is now 
warranted.

Measures Not Achieving the Projected Reductions

Enhanced Monitoring

    The EPA published on October 26, 1997 (62 FR 54901), rules to 
implement the enhanced monitoring requirements of the Act. These rules 
are referred to as the CAM rules. The approach taken in the final CAM 
rules is significantly different than the approach taken in the 
enhanced monitoring rules that were first proposed. Based on the 
initially proposed enhanced monitoring rules, Texas projected emissions 
due to rule effectiveness improvements that could be expected. 
Specifically, Texas referred to draft EPA guidance entitled ``Rule 
Effectiveness Improvements Protocol'' indicating that the proposed 
enhanced monitoring rules would result in a 10 percent rule 
effectiveness improvement for sources covered by the enhanced 
monitoring rules without any confirmatory study. This guidance was 
later finalized in December, 1994 to say that sources subject to 
enhanced monitoring can be allowed a 90 percent rule effectiveness 
versus a 10 percent improvement in rule effectiveness. The 90 percent 
rule effectiveness, thus, represents a maximum that can be allowed 
without a confirmatory study. Under the Texas approach, a facility with 
a baseline rule effectiveness of 85 percent would be projected to 
improve to 95 percent, exceeding the 90 percent cap outlined in EPA 
guidance.
    Even though the final CAM rules are significantly different and 
potentially less stringent than the originally proposed enhanced 
monitoring rules, EPA believes that the CAM rules will still result in 
improvements in the effectiveness of rules up to 90% rule 
effectiveness. Greater increases in effectiveness, must be justified 
through the commitment to perform a confirmatory study. If Texas 
believes that additional rule effectiveness improvements will occur, 
they must commit to perform a confirmatory study to show the reductions 
have occured.
    The EPA has two additional concerns with the way Texas projected 
emissions reductions due to the CAM rule. First, the CAM rule now only 
applies to emission units that rely on a control device to reduce 
emissions. Control devices are defined as equipment that is used to 
destroy or remove air pollutants prior to discharge to the atmosphere. 
Texas has projected emissions reductions from several source categories 
that do not utilize control devices such as fugitive emission controls, 
and coating source categories. It is the EPA's proposed position that 
Texas should not project any reductions for emission units that do not 
have a control device. Second, the CAM rule will be implemented through 
the issuance of title V permits. Texas has projected that 40 percent of 
affected sources will be covered by title V permits in the 1996-1999 
time period. While it is possible that 40 percent of emissions 
Statewide may be covered by Title V permits, it is not clear that the 
facilities scheduled to receive permits in the 1996-1999 time frame 
represent 40% of the emissions in the HGA area. The EPA believes that 
Texas should look specifically at the sources in the HGA area that will 
be issued permits between the issuance of the CAM rule and November 15, 
1999, and identify any rule effectiveness improvements associated with 
these sources.
    Therefore, due to the above concerns, EPA is proposing not to 
accept the reductions projected due to compliance assurance monitoring.

Texas Alternative Fuels Fleets

    In July 1994, Texas submitted the State's opt-out from the Federal 
Clean Fuel Fleet (C.F.) program in a SIP revision to EPA and adopted 
rules to implement the Texas Alternative Fuel Fleet (TAFF) program. The 
program included low emitting vehicle purchase and fleet composition 
requirements which exceeded the Federal program by substantial margins. 
In 1995, the Texas Legislature modified the TAFF program through 
passage of Senate Bill (SB) 200. In response to SB 200, Texas adopted 
regulations to implement the modified program and submitted a revised 
SIP on August 6, 1996. On June 20, 1997, the Governor of Texas signed 
into law Senate Bill 681 that modified the supporting legislation on 
which the August 6, 1996, plan was based. On October 17, 1997, EPA 
proposed disapproval of the Texas C.F. Program based on the finding 
that changes to the supporting legislation have altered the August 6, 
1996, submitted SIP revision. The specific legislative authority for 
the August 6, 1996, submittal is no longer in effect. In addition to 
the above issue, EPA raised concern that Texas' technical and 
equivalency method had not adequately identified and quantified the 
covered fleets in the Federal and State covered areas. These concerns, 
plus the broad exemptions allowed in the Texas program, lead EPA to 
conclude that the State has not made a convincing and compelling 
demonstration of equivalency with the Federal Register (62 FR 53997) 
for more details on EPA's proposed disapproval . Therefore, the EPA is 
proposing that projected emission reductions from the TAFF program 
cannot be credited toward the Post-96 ROP Plan.

Excess Emission Reductions From the 15% Plan

    In its 15% ROP Plan, Texas projected emissions reductions in excess 
of that required to meet the 15 percent target level of emissions. 
Under section 182(c)(2)(B), these excess emission reductions can be 
carried over into the Post-96 ROP Plan. As explained in the Technical 
Support Document to the 15% ROP Plan, however, the emission reductions 
projected from the gas cap check in the Texas Motorist Choice (I/M) 
program were excessive. The EPA believes the excess reductions for the 
gas cap check are approximately 0.5 tons/day. It was explained in the 
15% ROP Plan proposed approval that even with the excessive emission 
reductions projected for the gas cap check since Texas had other 
emission reductions available, the 15% ROP Plan was still approvable 
(July 11, 1997, 62 FR 37175). Essentially the excess emission 
reductions to cover the gas cap check shortfall were borrowed from the 
Post-96 ROP Plan. We explained that the excess emission reductions from 
the gas cap check should be addressed in the Post-96 ROP Plan. 
Therefore, it is proposed that 0.5 ton/day of excess emissions carried 
over from the 15% ROP Plan cannot be credited toward the Post-96 ROP 
plan.

Summary of Emission Reductions

    Table 2 summarizes the emission reductions in the plan.

[[Page 11391]]



    Table 2.--Summary of Approved and Disapproved Emission Reductions   
                            Houston/Galveston                           
                               (Tons/day)                               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Required Reduction.........................................       101.61
Creditable Reductions                                                   
    HON....................................................         0.47
    Aircraft Engines.......................................         0.97
    Pulp and Paper MACT....................................         8.26
    Recreational Marine....................................         0.06
    Utility Engine 1997-1999...............................         6.31
    UST remediation........................................         2.05
    TCMs...................................................          0.5
    Tier I, I/M, RFG.......................................         4.37
    MSW landfills NSPS & E.................................         4.06
    RFG--Tanks.............................................         2.45
    RFG--Loading Racks.....................................         3.76
    RE Floating Roof Tanks.................................        26.86
    Excess emissions from the 15% plan.....................        28.53
                                                            ------------
        Total..............................................        88.65
Reductions not Approved                                                 
    Enhanced Monitoring....................................        31.00
    Texas Alternative Fuel Fleets..........................         0.08
    Excess emissions Gas Cap check.........................          0.5
                                                            ------------
        Total not approved.................................        31.08
                                                            ============
        Shortfall..........................................        13.77
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contingency Measures

    Pursuant to sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) of the Act, States 
must include contingency measures in their ROP Plan submittals for 
ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above. Contingency 
measures are measures which are to be immediately implemented if 
reasonable further progress is not achieved in a timely manner, or if 
the areas do not attain the NAAQS by the applicable date mandated by 
the Act. The EPA's interpretation of this Act requirement is set forth 
in the Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990 (April 16, 1992, 57 FR 13498), which states that the 
contingency measures should, at a minimum, ensure that emissions 
reductions continue to be made if reasonable progress (or attainment) 
is not achieved in a timely manner. Contingency measures must be fully 
adopted rules or measures but do not need to be implemented until they 
are triggered by either a failure to meet a milestone or failure to 
attain the NAAQS by the appropriate date.
    States must show that their contingency measures can be implemented 
with minimal further action on their part, and with no additional 
rulemaking action (e.g., public hearings, legislative review, etc.). A 
capsule description of each of the measures follows:
    Recreational Marine Vessels: As discussed in the Technical Support 
Document to this action, Texas has taken credit for reductions that 
will occur due to additional turnover of boats in the year of 2000. The 
EPA is proposing to approve these projected reductions for this plan.
    Enhanced Monitoring: Texas has projected additional emission 
reductions from implementation of the CAM rules as additional title V 
permits are issued. As discussed above, the EPA does not believe these 
projected emissions reductions are approvable.
    Texas Alternative Fuel Fleets: Texas has projected emission 
reductions as additional fleets are brought into compliance with this 
rule. As discussed above however, the EPA does not believe these 
projected reductions are approvable.
    Naphtha Dry Cleaners: This rule calls for control of dry cleaners 
that use petroleum naphtha for cleaning. While this is not as common as 
perchloroethylene, surveys by Texas indicated significant emissions. 
The EPA first proposed approval of this contingency measure when it was 
submitted with the 15% ROP Plan. Since Texas has not implemented the 
measure because it was not needed after 1996, the EPA believes it 
continues to be acceptable as a contingency measure for the Post-96 ROP 
Plan.
    Offset Lithography: These rules regulate emissions from offset 
printing operations. These operations produce a wide variety of 
products such as magazines, newspapers and books. The EPA first 
proposed approval of this contingency measure when it was submitted 
with the 15% ROP Plan. An analysis of the rule is contained in the 
Technical Support Document to the 15% ROP plan. Since Texas has not 
implemented the measure because it was not needed after 1996, the EPA 
believes it continues to be acceptable as a contingency measure for the 
Post-96 ROP Plan.
    Utility Engines 1999-2000: Texas has projected the additional 
emission reductions that would be available from new, cleaner burning 
lawn equipment during the year 2000 when contingency measures should be 
implemented. The EPA is proposing to accept these emission reductions 
as contingency measures.
    Excess Emission Reductions from the 9 Percent ROP plan: Texas had 
10.69 tons/day of emission reductions projected in excess of the 9% ROP 
requirement. These reductions are not available as contingency measures 
because EPA believes that Texas has projected excessive emission 
reductions in the Post-96 ROP Plan. The plan, in reality, has a 
shortfall in required reductions, not excess emission reductions.

Summary of Contingency Measures

    Table 3 summarizes the contingency measures in the plan.

[[Page 11392]]



   Table 3.--Summary of Approved and Disapproved Contingency Measures   
                            Houston/Galveston                           
                               [Tons/day]                               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Required Contingency.......................................        28.95
Creditable Reductions:                                                  
    Recreation Marine (2000)...............................         0.31
    Offset Printing........................................         2.34
    Naphtha Dry Cleaning...................................         1.97
    Utility Engine.........................................         1.51
                                                            ------------
        Total..............................................         6.31
Reductions not Approved:                                                
    Enhanced Monitoring....................................        15.50
    Texas Alternative Fuel Fleet...........................         0.17
    Excess from 9% plan....................................        10.69
                                                            ------------
        Total not approved.................................        26.36
                                                            ============
        Shortfall..........................................        22.64
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rulemaking Action

    The EPA has evaluated this submittal for consistency with the Act, 
applicable EPA regulations, and EPA policy. Texas' Post-96 ROP Plan for 
the HGA nonattainment area will not meet the ROP requirements of 
section 182(c)(2)(B) of the Act to achieve a reduction of emissions by 
9 percent between 1996 and 1999, including a projection of growth. In 
addition, the contingency measures provided by Texas do not provide 
sufficient emission reductions to achieve an additional 3 percent 
reduction if the HGA misses a rate-of-progress milestone.
    In light of the above deficiencies, EPA is proposing to disapprove 
the Post-96 Rate-of-Progress portion of the SIP revision and the 
associated contingency plan, which were submitted November 9, 1994, and 
revised August 9, 1996, under sections 110(k)(3), 301(a), and Part D of 
the Act. The submittal does not fully satisfy the requirements of 
section 182(c)(2)(B) of the Act regarding the post-1996 ROP Plan, nor 
the requirement of section 172(c)(9) of the Act regarding contingency 
measures.
    On July 11, 1997, EPA granted conditional interim approval of the 
Texas I/M program (62 FR 37138). The interim conditional approval was 
granted under the provisions of the Clean Air Act and the National 
Highway Systems Designation Act of 1995. For the HGA area, the approval 
was granted using EPA's low enhanced performance standard. The low 
enhanced performance standard was developed and allowed for areas that 
were required to implement enhanced I/M programs, but desired to focus 
control strategies on other programs. The low enhanced standard 
(September 18, 1995, 60 FR 48035) was allowed for areas that had an 
approved plan to achieve Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) through 1996 
(15% Plan) and did not have a disapproved plan for RFP after 1996 
(e.g., 9% Plan), or a disapproved attainment plan. Thus, finalization 
of this disapproval would remove the area's eligibility for using the 
low enhanced performance standard in meeting the requirements of the 
Act and Federal I/M rule. Finalization of this action would result in 
the area being required to meet the high enhanced performance  standard 
 of  the  Federal I/M rule. The EPA proposes that the State be required 
to submit a revised I/M SIP which meets EPA high enhanced performance 
standard for the HGA area within 12 months of the effective date of 
final Post-96 ROP Plan disapproval.
    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: withholding of 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 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), and codified at 40 CFR 52.31. Moreover, the 
final disapproval triggers the Federal Implementation Plan requirement 
under section 110(c).
    Nothing in this action 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 the SIP shall be 
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and 
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and 
regulatory requirements.

Administrative Requirements

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

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

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.
    The EPA's disapproval of the State request under section 110 and 
subchapter I, part D of the Act does not affect any existing 
requirements applicable to small entities. Any preexisting Federal 
requirements remain in place after this disapproval. Federal 
disapproval of the State submittal does not affect its State-
enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal does not 
impose any new Federal requirements. 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 and impose any new Federal requirements.

Unfunded Mandates

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 
signed

[[Page 11393]]

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 proposed action 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, Hydrocarbons, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and Recordkeeping 
requirements.

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

    Dated: February 24, 1998.
Lynda Carroll,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 98-5982 Filed 3-6-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P