[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 27, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 81786-81799]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-32848]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[TX; FRL-6922-4]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Ozone; 
Beaumont/Port Arthur Ozone Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve the Texas 1-hour ozone 
attainment demonstration State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the 
Beaumont/Port Arthur (BPA) moderate ozone nonattainment area. The 
attainment demonstration SIP is addressed in the State of Texas 
submittals dated November 12, 1999 and April 25, 2000. The EPA is also 
proposing to: extend the ozone attainment date for the BPA ozone 
nonattainment area to November 15, 2007 while retaining the area's 
current classification as a moderate ozone nonattainment area; approve 
the State's enforceable commitment to perform a mid-course review and 
submit a SIP revision to the EPA by May 2004; find that the BPA area 
meets the Reasonably Available Technology (RACT) requirements for major 
sources of volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions; and approve the 
motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEB). This proposed rule is based on 
the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (the Act) related to 
ozone attainment demonstrations.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before January 26, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to Mr. 
Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), at the EPA Region 
6 Office listed below. Copies of documents relevant to this action, 
including the Technical Support Document (TSD) are available for public 
inspection during normal business hours at the following locations.
    Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Planning Section 
(6PD-L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
    Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Office of Air 
Quality, 12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753.
    Anyone wanting to examine these documents should make an 
appointment with the appropriate office at least two working days in 
advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Pratt, Air Planning Section 
(6PD-L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Telephone Number 
(214) 665-2140, e-Mail Address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and 
``our'' means EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
A. Basis for the State's Attainment Demonstration
B. Components of a Modeled Attainment Demonstration
C. Framework for Proposing Action on the Attainment Demonstration 
SIP
D. Criteria for Attainment Date Extensions
II. Technical Review of the Submittals
A. Summary of the State Submittals
    1. General Information
    2. Modeling Procedures and Input Data
    3. Modeling Results
    4. Emission Control Strategies
    5. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget

[[Page 81787]]

B. Environmental Protection Agency Review of the Submittals
    1. Adequacy of the State's Demonstrations of Attainment
    2. Adequacy of the Emissions Control Strategies
    3. Adequacy of the Request for Extension of the Attainment Date
    4. Determination of Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) 
Availability
III. Proposed Action
IV. Administrative Requirements

I. Background

A. Basis for the State's Attainment Demonstration

What are the Relevant Clean Air Act Requirements?
    The Act requires the EPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS) for certain widespread pollutants that cause or 
contribute to air pollution that is reasonably anticipated to endanger 
public health or welfare. Clean Air Act sections 108 and 109. In 1979, 
EPA promulgated the 1-hour ground-level ozone standard of 120 parts per 
billion (ppb). 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979).
    Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather, 
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and Nitrogen Oxides ( NOX), 
emitted by a wide variety of sources, react in the presence of sunlight 
to form ground-level ozone. NOX and VOC are referred to as 
precursors of ozone.
    Ozone formation is accelerated or enhanced under certain 
meteorological conditions, such as high temperatures and low wind 
speeds. Higher ozone concentrations occur downwind of areas with 
relatively high VOC and NOX concentrations or in areas 
subject to relatively high background ozone and ozone precursor 
concentrations (ozone and ozone precursors entering an area as the 
result of transport from upwind source areas).
    VOC emissions are produced by a wide variety of sources, including 
stationary and mobile sources. Significant stationary sources of VOC 
include industrial solvent usage, various coating operations, 
industrial and utility combustion units, petroleum and oil storage and 
marketing operations, chemical manufacturing operations, personal 
solvent usage, etc. Significant mobile sources of VOC include on-road 
vehicle usage and off-road vehicle and engine usage, such as farm 
machinery, aircraft, locomotives, and motorized lawn care and garden 
implements.
    NOX emissions are produced primarily through combustion 
processes, including industrial and utility boiler use, process heaters 
and furnaces, and on-road and off-road mobile sources.
    An area exceeds the 1-hour ozone standard each time an ambient air 
quality monitor records a 1-hour average ozone concentration above 124 
ppb in any given day (only the highest 1-hour ozone concentration at 
the monitor during any 24 hour day is considered when determining the 
number of exceedance days at the monitor). An area violates the ozone 
standard if, over a consecutive 3-year period, more than 3 days of 
exceedances are expected to occur at any monitor in the area. 40 CFR 
Part 50, App.H.
    The highest of the fourth-highest daily peak ozone concentrations 
over the 3 year period at any monitoring site in the area is called the 
ozone design value for the area. The Act, as amended in 1990, required 
EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that was violating the 1-
hour ozone standard, generally based on air quality monitoring data 
from the 1987 through 1989 period. Clean Air Act section 107(d)(4); 56 
FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). The Act further classified these areas, 
based on the areas' ozone design values, as marginal, moderate, 
serious, severe, or extreme. Marginal areas were suffering the least 
significant ozone nonattainment problems, while the areas classified as 
severe and extreme had the most significant ozone nonattainment 
problems.
    The control requirements and date by which attainment is to be 
achieved vary with an area's classification. Marginal areas were 
subject to the fewest mandated control requirements and had the 
earliest attainment date, November 15, 1993. Severe and extreme areas 
are subject to more stringent planning requirements but are provided 
more time to attain the standard. Serious areas were required to attain 
the 1-hour standard by November 15, 1999, and severe areas are required 
to attain by November 15, 2005 or November 15, 2007, depending on the 
areas' ozone design values for 1987 through 1989. The BPA ozone 
nonattainment area was initially classified as serious (56 FR 56694). 
Subsequently, EPA determined that the serious classification was made 
in error. The area was reclassified to moderate and the attainment date 
for a moderate area is November 15, 1996 (61 FR 14496). The BPA ozone 
nonattainment area is defined (40 CFR Parts 81.314 and 81.326) to 
contain Jefferson, Hardin and Orange Counties in Texas.
    The specific requirements of the Act for moderate ozone 
nonattainment areas are found in part D, section 182(b). Section 172 in 
part D provides the general requirements for nonattainment plans. 
Section 172(c)(6) in part D of the Act and section 110 require SIPs to 
include enforceable emission limitations, and such other control 
measures, means or techniques as well as schedules and timetables for 
compliance, as may be necessary to provide for attainment by the 
applicable attainment date. Section 172(c)(1) requires the SIP to 
provide for implementation of all reasonably available control measures 
as expeditiously as practicable and requires the SIP to provide for 
attainment of the NAAQS. Section 182(b)(1)(A) requires the State to 
submit for the moderate nonattainment area, a 15% Rate of Progress Plan 
and also provide for specific annual reductions in emissions of VOC and 
NOX ``as necessary to attain'' the ozone NAAQS by the 
applicable attainment date. EPA's ``General Preamble for the 
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990'' (57 
FR 13498 dated April 16, 1992) provides the interpretive basis for 
EPA's rulemakings under the nonattainment plan provisions of the Act 
(General Preamble). In the General Preamble, the EPA provides that this 
section 182(b)(1)(A) requirement for attainment may be met by the use 
of EPA-approved modeling techniques. As part of today's proposal, EPA 
is proposing action on the attainment demonstration SIP revision 
submitted by the State of Texas for the BPA moderate ozone 
nonattainment area.
    In general, an attainment demonstration SIP includes a modeling 
analysis showing how an area will achieve the standard by its 
attainment date and the emission control measures necessary to achieve 
attainment. The attainment demonstration SIPs must include motor 
vehicle emissions budgets for transportation conformity purposes. 
Transportation conformity is a process required by Section 176(c) of 
the Act for ensuring that the effects of emissions from all on-road 
sources are consistent with attainment of the standard. Ozone 
attainment demonstrations must include the estimates of motor vehicle 
VOC and NOX emissions that are consistent with attainment, 
which then act as a budget or ceiling for the purposes of determining 
whether transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to the 
attainment SIP. Refer to Section II.A.5 for more details.

[[Page 81788]]

What is the History and Time Frame for the State Attainment 
Demonstration SIP for BPA and How Is It Related to EPA Transport 
Policy?
    The BPA area is classified as moderate and, therefore, was required 
to attain the 1-hour ozone standard of 0.12 parts per million by 
November 15, 1996.
    Attainment Demonstration SIPs were originally due November 1994. 
However, through a series of policy memoranda, the EPA recognized that 
States had not submitted these attainment demonstrations and were 
constrained to do so until ozone transport had been further analyzed. 
One policy memorandum addressing the issue of ozone transport is the 
Transport Policy issued by the EPA in July 1998. The Transport Policy 
is particularly relevant to BPA, which is downwind of the Houston/
Galveston (HG) area, a severe-17 ozone nonattainment area with an 
attainment date of November 15, 2007.
    On April 16, 1999, EPA proposed in the Federal Register to 
reclassify the BPA area to a serious ozone nonattainment area, and 
alternatively, proposed to extend the BPA area's attainment date if the 
State submitted a SIP timely and meeting the criteria of the 1998 
Transport Policy (64 Federal Register 18864).
    The BPA Attainment Demonstration SIP revision was adopted by the 
State on October 27, 1999 and submitted to the EPA under a cover letter 
from the Governor dated November 12, 1999. This submittal was termed by 
the State as ``Phase I'' of their NOX rulemaking activities. 
The State submitted a revision to their SIP dated April 25, 2000, as 
``Phase II'' NOX rules and controls needed for attainment.
    In the BPA ozone attainment demonstration SIP reviewed here, the 
State does rely, in part, on regional and statewide NOX 
emission reductions for Texas, including the upwind HG Area, the 
eastern half of the State of Texas, and States upwind of Texas (most 
importantly, Louisiana). In developing the attainment demonstration for 
BPA, the State makes the case that the 1998 Transport Policy is 
particularly relevant to BPA, which is downwind of the HG area, and 
that the BPA area is affected by transport from HG. If we approve of 
such a determination for BPA, the area would have until no later than 
November 15, 2007, the attainment date for HG, to attain the 1-hour 
ozone standard.
What is the Time Frame for Taking Action on the Attainment 
Demonstration SIP?
    The State submitted the attainment demonstration SIP revisions and 
supporting documentation between November 1999 and April 2000. In 
today's Federal Register, EPA is proposing to approve the attainment 
demonstration SIP for the BPA area. The anticipated schedule includes a 
30-day public comment period. The EPA cannot finalize the proposed 
action upon the attainment demonstration SIP unless and until we have 
fully approved all of the control measures relied upon in the State's 
attainment demonstration SIP for the BPA area and the control measures 
required by the Act for a moderate area such as the BPA area. The EPA 
intends to complete final rulemaking on all of those required control 
measures by early spring 2001. We are acting upon those measures in 
separate Federal Register rulemaking notices. The EPA intends to have 
the Regional Administrator sign a final rulemaking on the attainment 
demonstration SIP and the attainment date extension for the BPA Area in 
late April, 2001. The final rule would be published in the Federal 
Register following Regional Administrator signature. The Texas Natural 
Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) submitted an enforceable 
commitment in the April 2000 SIP submittal to perform a mid-course 
review (including evaluation of all modeling, inventory data, and other 
tools and assumptions used to develop this attainment demonstration). 
The TNRCC committed that it will submit a mid-course review SIP 
revision, with recommended mid-course corrective actions, to the EPA by 
May 1, 2004.

B. Components of a Modeled Attainment Demonstration

    The EPA provides guidance (Guidance on the Use of Modeled Results 
to Demonstrate Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS, EPA-454/B-95-007, June 
1996) that States may rely on a modeled attainment demonstration 
supplemented with additional evidence to demonstrate attainment. To 
have a complete modeling demonstration submission, States should have 
submitted the required modeling analyses and identified any additional 
evidence that EPA should consider in evaluating whether the area will 
attain the standard. Additional components are discussed below.
What EPA Guidelines Apply to the Attainment Demonstration Submittals?
    The following documents, among others, contain EPA's guidelines 
affecting the content and review of ozone attainment demonstration 
submittals:
    1. Guideline for Regulatory Application of the Urban Airshed Model, 
EPA-450/4-91-013, July 1991. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/ 
(file name: ``UAMREG'').
    2. Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation, Volume IV: Mobile 
Sources (Revised) (1992);
    3. Guidance on Urban Airshed Model (UAM) Reporting Requirements for 
Attainment Demonstrations, EPA-454/R-93-056, March 1994. Web site: 
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/ (file name: ``UAMRPTRQ'').
    4. User's Guide to MOBILE5 (Mobile Source Emission Factor Model), 
May 1994;
    5. Memorandum, ``Ozone Attainment Dates for Areas Affected by 
Overwhelming Transport,'' from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator 
for Air and Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency, September 1994;
    6. Memorandum, ``Ozone Attainment Demonstrations,'' from Mary D. 
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, March 2, 1995. 
Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html.
    7. Guidance on the Use of Modeled Results to Demonstrate Attainment 
of the Ozone NAAQS, EPA-454/B-95-007, June 1996. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/ (file name: ``O3TEST'').
    8. Memorandum, ``Guidance for Implementing the 1-Hour Ozone and 
Pre-Existing PM10 NAAQS,'' from Richard Wilson, Office of Air and 
Radiation, December 29, 1997. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html.
    9. Memorandum, ``Extension of Attainment Dates for Downwind 
Transport Areas,'' from Richard D. Wilson, Acting Assistant 
Administrator for Air and Radiation, July 16, 1998.
    10. Memorandum, ``Use of Models and Other Analyses in Attainment 
Demonstrations for the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (Draft)'', 1998.
    11. Memorandum, ``Guidance on Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in 
One-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstrations,'' from Merrylin Zaw-Mon, 
Acting Director of the Regional and State Programs Division, November 
3, 1999. Webb site: www.epa.gov/oms/transp/conform/nov3guid.pdf.
    12. Memorandum, ``Guidance on the Reasonably Available Control 
Measures

[[Page 81789]]

(RACM) Requirement and Attainment Demonstration Submissions for Ozone 
Nonattainment Areas,'' from John S. Seitz, Director of Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, November 30, 1999.
    13. Draft Memorandum, ``1-Hour Ozone NAAQS--Mid-Course Review 
Guidance,'' from John Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 
and Standards.
What are the Modeling Requirements for the Attainment Demonstration?
    For purposes of demonstrating attainment under section 182(b), the 
General Preamble provides that a State may rely upon EPA's modeling 
guidance. EPA's modeling guidance provides for the use of photochemical 
grid modeling and additional information. The photochemical grid model 
is set up using meteorological conditions conducive to the formation of 
ozone in the nonattainment area and its modeling domain, as defined 
below. Emissions for a base year are used to evaluate the model's 
ability to reproduce actual monitored air quality values. Following 
validation of the modeling system for a base year, emissions are 
projected to an attainment year to predict air quality changes in the 
attainment year due to the emission changes, which include growth up to 
and controls implemented by the attainment year. A modeling domain is 
chosen that encompasses the nonattainment area. Attainment is 
demonstrated when all predicted ozone concentrations inside the 
modeling domain are at or below the ozone standard or an acceptable 
upper limit above the standard under certain conditions provided in 
EPA's 1996 guidance. When the predicted concentrations are above the 
standard or an upper limit using the 1996 guidance criteria, EPA's 1996 
guidance provides for the use of an optional weight-of-evidence 
determination which incorporates other analyses, such as air quality 
and emissions trends, to address uncertainty inherent in the 
application of photochemical grid models. This latter approach may be 
used under certain circumstances to support a demonstration of 
attainment.
    EPA guidance identifies the features of a modeling analysis that 
are essential to obtain credible results. First, the State develops and 
implements a modeling protocol. The modeling protocol describes the 
methods and procedures to be used in conducting the modeling analyses 
and provides for policy oversight and technical review by individuals 
responsible for developing or assessing the attainment demonstration 
(State and local agencies, EPA). Second, for purposes of developing the 
information to put into the model, air pollution days, i.e., days in 
the past with high ozone concentrations exceeding the standard, are 
considered by EPA to be representative of the ozone pollution problem 
for the nonattainment area. Third, identification of the appropriate 
dimensions of the area to be modeled, i.e., the modeling domain size, 
is an important criterion. A domain larger than the designated 
nonattainment area reduces uncertainty in the boundary conditions as 
does including any large upwind sources just outside the nonattainment 
area. In general, the domain is considered the local area where control 
measures are most beneficial to bring the area into attainment. 
Alternatively, a much larger modeling domain may be established, 
addressing the impacts of both local and regional emission control 
measures on a number of ozone nonattainment areas. In both cases, the 
attainment determination is based on the review of ozone predictions 
within the local area where control measures are most beneficial to 
bring the area into attainment (referred to as the local modeling 
domain). Fourth, determination of the grid resolution is an important 
criterion. The horizontal and vertical grid resolutions in the model 
can affect significantly the modeled results of dispersion and 
transport of emission plumes. Artificially large grid cells (too few 
vertical layers and horizontal grids) may dilute concentrations and may 
not properly consider impacts of complex terrain, complex meteorology, 
and land/water interfaces. Fifth, meteorological and emissions data 
that describe atmospheric conditions and emissions inputs reflective of 
the selected high ozone days are generated. Finally, verification that 
the modeling system is properly simulating the chemistry and 
atmospheric conditions through diagnostic analyses and model 
performance tests (generally referred to as model validation) provides 
confidence in the performance. Once these steps are satisfactorily 
completed, the model is ready to be used to generate air quality 
estimates to support an attainment demonstration.
    The modeled attainment test compares model predicted 1-hour daily 
maximum ozone concentrations in all grid cells for the attainment year 
to the level of the ozone standard. A predicted peak ozone 
concentration above 124 ppb indicates that the area is expected to 
exceed the standard in the attainment year. This type of test is often 
referred to as an exceedance test. The EPA's June 1996 guidance 
recommends that States use either of two exceedance tests for the 1-
hour ozone standard: A deterministic test or a statistical test.
    Under the deterministic test the State compares predicted 1-hour 
daily maximum ozone concentrations for each modeled day (the initial, 
``ramp-up'' days for each episode are excluded from this determination) 
to the attainment level of 124 ppb. If none of the predictions exceed 
124 ppb, the test is passed.
    The statistical test takes into account the fact that the form of 
the 1-hour ozone standard allows exceedances. If, over a 3 year period, 
the area has an average of 1 or fewer ozone standard exceedances per 
year at any monitoring site, the area is not violating the standard. 
Thus, if the State models a severe day (considering meteorological 
conditions that are very conducive to high ozone levels and that should 
lead to fewer than 1 exceedance per year at any location in the 
nonattainment area and in the modeling domain over a 3 year period), 
the statistical test provides that a prediction above 124 ppb up to a 
certain upper limit may be consistent with attainment of the standard. 
(The form of the 1-hour ozone standard allows for up to three readings 
above the standard over a three-year period before an area is 
considered to be in violation.)
    The acceptable upper limit above 124 ppb is determined by examining 
the size of exceedances at monitoring sites which meet or attain the 1-
hour standard. For example, a monitoring site for which the 4 highest 
1-hour average concentrations over a 3 year period are 136 ppb, 130 
ppb, 128 ppb, and 122 ppb is attaining the standard since there are no 
more than 3 exceedences at any one monitor over a 3-year period. To 
identify an acceptable upper limit, the statistical likelihood of 
observing ozone air quality exceedances of the standard of various 
concentrations is equated to the severity of the modeled day. The upper 
limit generally represents the maximum ozone concentration level 
observed at a location on a single day and it would be the only reading 
above the standard that would be expected to occur no more than an 
average of once a year over a 3 year period. Therefore, if the maximum 
ozone concentration predicted by the model is below the acceptable 
upper limit, in this case 136 ppb, then EPA might conclude that the 
modeled attainment test is passed. Generally, exceedances well above 
124 ppb are very unusual at monitoring sites meeting the standard. 
Thus, these upper

[[Page 81790]]

limits are rarely substantially higher than the attainment level of 124 
ppb.
What are the Additional Analyses That May Be Considered When the 
Modeling Fails To Show Attainment?
    When the modeling does not conclusively demonstrate attainment, 
additional analyses may be presented to help determine whether the area 
will attain the standard. As with other predictive tools, there are 
inherent uncertainties associated with modeling and its results. For 
example, there are uncertainties in some of the modeling inputs, such 
as the meteorological and emissions data bases for individual days and 
in the methodology used to assess the severity of an exceedance at 
individual sites. The EPA's 1996 guidance recognizes these limitations 
and provides a means for considering other evidence to help assess 
whether attainment of the standard is likely. The process by which this 
is done is called a weight-of-evidence determination.
    Under a weight-of-evidence determination, the State can rely on and 
EPA will consider factors such as: Model performance and results, 
episode selection, other modeled attainment tests, e.g., relative 
reduction factor analysis; other modeled outputs, e.g., changes in the 
predicted frequency and pervasiveness of exceedances and predicted 
changes in the design value; actual observed air quality trends; 
estimated emissions trends; analyses of air quality monitored data; the 
responsiveness of the model predictions to further controls; and, 
whether there are additional control measures that are or will be 
approved into the SIP but were not included in the modeling analysis. 
This list is not an exhaustive list of factors that may be considered 
and these factors could vary from case to case. The EPA's 1996 guidance 
contains no limit on how close a modeled attainment test must be to 
passing to conclude that other evidence besides an attainment test is a 
sufficiently compelling case for attainment. However, the further a 
modeled attainment test is from being passed, the more compelling the 
weight-of-evidence needs to be.
    The EPA's 1996 guidance also recognizes a need to perform a mid-
course review as a means for addressing uncertainty in the modeling 
results. Because of the uncertainty in long term projections, EPA 
believes a viable attainment demonstration that relies on weight of 
evidence should contain provisions for periodic review of monitoring, 
emissions, and modeling data to assess the extent to which refinements 
to emission control measures are needed.

C. Framework for Proposing Action on the Attainment Demonstration SIP

Besides the Modeled Attainment Demonstration, What Other Issues Must be 
Addressed in the Attainment Demonstration SIP?
    In addition to the modeling analysis and weight-of-evidence 
determination demonstrating attainment, the EPA has identified the 
following key elements which must be present in order for EPA to 
approve the 1-hour attainment demonstration SIP under the criteria of 
the 1998 Transport Policy.
    1. Clean Air Act measures and other measures relied on in the 
modeled attainment demonstration State Implementation Plan. To receive 
final approval of the BPA attainment demonstration SIP under the 1998 
Transport Policy, the State must have adopted the emission control 
measures required under the Act for the area's classification or must 
have established negative source declarations for the source categories 
for which the area has no sources that are subject to the Clean Air Act 
area's classification requirements for such sources. All required 
emission controls must be implemented as expeditiously as practicable 
but no later than prior to the beginning of the ozone season (year 
round in the BPA area, 40 CFR Part 58--Texas Air Quality Control Region 
10) in the area's attainment year to assure attainment of the ozone 
standard in the attainment year.
    The attainment demonstration must incorporate the emission impacts 
of, and the SIP submittal must address the rule development for, any 
additional emission control measures needed to achieve attainment. The 
rules for these emission controls relied upon in the attainment 
demonstration must also have been adopted by the State and approved by 
EPA before the EPA can finally approve the attainment demonstration 
SIP. The emission controls for these sources must be implemented as 
expeditiously as practicable.
    Table 1 presents a summary of the Clean Air Act requirements that 
need to be met for a moderate ozone nonattainment area for the 1-hour 
ozone standard. These requirements are specified in sections 182(b) and 
182(f) of the Act. Information on additional measures that Texas has 
adopted and relied on in the attainment demonstration SIP for the BPA 
area is not shown in this table, but is addressed later in this 
proposed rule.

       Table 1.--CAA Requirements For Moderate Nonattainment Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             New Source Review
                                             (NSR) regulations for VOC
                                             and NOX, including an
                                             offset ratio of 1.15:1 and
                                             a major VOC and NOX source
                                             size cutoff of 100 tons per
                                             year (TPY).
                                             Reasonably
                                             Available Control
                                             Technology (RACT) for VOC
                                             and NOX.
                                             15 percent Rate-Of-
                                             Progress (ROP) plan for VOC
                                             through 1996.
                                             1990 baseline
                                             emissions inventory for VOC
                                             and NOX.
                                             Periodic emissions
                                             inventory and source
                                             emission statement
                                             regulations.
                                             Vehicle inspection
                                             and maintenance (I/M)
                                             program.\a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ A vehicle I/M program would normally be listed as a requirement for
  a moderate ozone nonattainment area. However, the Federal I/M
  Flexibility Amendments of 1995 determined that urbanized areas with
  populations less than 200,000 for 1990 (such as Beaumont/Port Arthur)
  are not mandated to participate in the I/M program (60 FR 48033,
  September 18, 1995).

    2. Motor vehicle emissions budgets. An attainment demonstration SIP 
must establish the motor vehicle emissions budget that is the maximum 
level of on-road emissions that can be produced in the attainment year. 
The attainment demonstration SIP must also demonstrate that this 
emissions level, when considered with emissions from all other sources, 
is consistent with attainment. The motor vehicle emissions budgets must 
meet certain criteria which are listed in the Transportation Conformity 
Rule (40 CFR Part 93 Subpart A Section 93.118) and all pertinent SIP 
requirements before the budgets can be approved as part of the 
attainment demonstration SIP.

D. Criteria for Attainment Date Extensions

What is EPA's Policy With Regard to an Ozone Attainment Date Extension?
    The EPA's policy regarding an extension of the ozone attainment 
date for the BPA area is fully addressed in EPA's initial notice of 
proposed rulemaking dated April 16, 1999 (64 FR 18864). In the April 
16, 1999, notice, the EPA proposed to reclassify the BPA area to a 
serious ozone nonattainment area, but also provided notice of the 
area's potential eligibility for an attainment date extension based on 
a July 16, 1998, EPA guidance memorandum. The specifics of the 
attainment date policy are repeated below for clarity.
    On July 16, 1998, a guidance memorandum entitled ``Extension of

[[Page 81791]]

Attainment Dates for Downwind Transport Areas'' was issued by the EPA. 
That memorandum included EPA's interpretation of the Act regarding the 
extension of attainment dates for ozone nonattainment areas that have 
been classified as moderate or serious for the 1-hour ozone standard 
and which are downwind of areas that have interfered with their ability 
to demonstrate attainment of the ozone standard by dates prescribed in 
the Act. That memorandum stated that the EPA will consider extending 
the attainment date for an area or a State that:
    (1) Has been identified as a downwind area affected by transport 
from either an upwind area in the same State with a later attainment 
date or an upwind area in another State that significantly contributes 
to downwind ozone nonattainment;
    (2) Has submitted an approvable attainment demonstration with any 
necessary, adopted local measures and with an attainment date that 
shows it will attain the 1-hour standard no later than the date that 
the reductions are expected from upwind areas under the final 
NOX SIP call (63 FR 57356, October 27, 1998; compliance 
dates revised by Court order August 30, 2000) and/or the statutory 
attainment date for upwind nonattainment areas, (i.e., assuming the 
boundary conditions reflecting those upwind emission reductions);
    (3) Has adopted all applicable local measures required under the 
area's current classification and any additional measures necessary to 
demonstrate attainment, assuming the reductions occur as required in 
the upwind areas;
    (4) Has provided that it will implement all adopted measures as 
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the date by which the 
upwind reductions needed for attainment will be achieved.
    Once an area receives an extension of its attainment date based on 
ozone/precursor transport impacts, the area is no longer subject to 
reclassification to a higher ozone nonattainment classification for 
failure to attain the ozone standard by the original attainment 
deadline. If the BPA area is granted an attainment date extension, it 
would no longer be subject to a reclassification to serious 
nonattainment for ozone and no longer subject to the additional 
emission control requirements that would result from the 
reclassification to serious nonattainment, for failure to attain by the 
original November 15, 1996, deadline.
    Texas has requested an extension of the attainment date for the BPA 
nonattainment area in conjunction with the ozone attainment 
demonstration submittals. The ozone attainment demonstration SIP uses 
November 15, 2007 as the ozone attainment date. The chosen 2007 
attainment date reflects the statutory attainment date for the HG area, 
as the BPA is downwind of the HG area.

II. Technical Review of the Submittals

A. Summary of the State Submittals

1. General Information
    When were the ozone attainment demonstration State Implementation 
Plan revisions submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency? The 
TNRCC made two submittals to us, which in whole or in part concern the 
ozone attainment demonstration, and an extension of the attainment date 
for the BPA ozone nonattainment area:
    (a) A November 12, 1999, submission from the Governor of Texas, 
which included the following:
    A. Regulations and associated documentation for the control of VOC 
emissions from batch process operations and industrial wastewater 
treatment processes, intended to fulfill the remaining VOC RACT 
requirements of section 182(b)(2) of the Act for the BPA moderate 
nonattainment area;
    B. A regulation and associated documentation for the control of 
NOX emissions from lean burn engines, intended to meet the 
remaining NOX RACT requirements of section 182(b)(2) of the 
Act for the BPA moderate nonattainment area;
    C. A Photochemical Modeling demonstration and its accompanying 
control strategy to bring the BPA area into attainment of the one-hour 
ozone standard as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 2007;
    D. A 2007 motor vehicle emissions budget for transportation 
conformity;
    E. Emissions growth estimates and an emissions inventory; and,
    F. An enforceable commitment to submit additional rules to us in 
accordance with its modeled control strategy.
    (b) An April 25, 2000, submission from the Governor of Texas, which 
included the following:
    A. NOX emissions specifications in the BPA area for 
electric utility boilers, industrial, commercial or institutional 
boilers, and certain process heaters, relied upon for attainment in the 
BPA area;
    B. Additional regional rules and orders relied upon for 
demonstrating attainment in the BPA area;
    C. A Revised Photochemical Modeling demonstration and emissions 
growth estimates; and,
    D. An enforceable commitment to perform a mid-course review with 
submittal to the EPA by May 1, 2004.
    For the purposes of this action, we are reviewing only the 
modeling, weight-of-evidence support, the transport analysis, MVEB, 
emissions inventory, the approved VOC 1990 baseline emission inventory 
regarding major VOC sources in the BPA area, and the mid-course 
enforceable commitment.
    When were the submittals addressed in public hearings, and when 
were the submittals formally adopted by the States? The TNRCC held a 
public hearing on the November submittal on August 9, 1999. This 
submittal was formally adopted by the TNRCC on October 27, 1999. The 
TNRCC held ten public hearings on the April submittal; a public hearing 
was held in the BPA area on January 31, 2000. The TNRCC formally 
adopted the April 25, 2000, submittal on April 19, 2000.
2. Modeling Procedures and Input Data
    What modeling approach was used in the analyses? The State of Texas 
conducted the modeling analyses and other analyses, including weight-
of-evidence analyses, used to support the attainment demonstration. The 
modeling approach is documented in both Texas' November 12, 1999, ozone 
attainment demonstration (Phase I) and the April 25, 2000, supplemental 
ozone attainment demonstration (Phase II) submittals.
    The TNRCC used the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions 
(CAMx) photochemical grid model (which is based on well-established 
treatments of advection, diffusion, deposition, and chemistry similar 
to the UAM photochemical grid model) to conduct the SIP attainment 
demonstration modeling.
    TNRCC used a relatively large modeling domain to capture the 
influence of inter-urban transport between Lake Charles, Louisiana 
(LC), the BPA area, and the HG area. The modeling domain covers most 
counties in central and east Texas, including the ozone nonattainment 
counties of Harris, Jefferson, Orange, Chambers, Hardin, Liberty, 
Montgomery, Waller, Brazoria, Galveston, and Fort Bend counties, and 
parts of three parishes in Louisiana.
    How were high ozone episodes evaluated for modeling selection? In 
selecting the episodes to be modeled, the State followed the guidance 
provided by the EPA. The July 1991 ozone modeling guidance, ``Guideline 
for Regulatory Application of the Urban

[[Page 81792]]

Airshed Model'', recommends that episodes for modeling be selected to 
represent different meteorological regimes observed to correspond with 
ozone exceeding the standard. The policy represents EPA's view that 
both stagnation and transport conditions should be examined, and a 
minimum of 3 primary episode days should be modeled. Primary episode 
days are those days for which ozone concentrations exceeding the 
standard were monitored in the area. For a more complete description of 
episode selection criteria see the TSD for this document.
    What high ozone periods were modeled? TNRCC selected two episodes 
for BPA's attainment demonstration modeling purposes. They were the 
August 31-September 2, 1993, and September 6-11, 1993, episodes. 
Details of the rationale for inclusion of these two episodes can be 
found in the State's BPA attainment demonstration SIP submittal and the 
TSD for this document.
    The August 31 to September 2, 1993, episode, in EPA's view, 
features representative wind patterns and high monitored ambient ozone 
concentration levels. This particular meteorological regime is highly 
correlated with rather severe monitored ozone exceedances. Transport 
between HG and BPA is indicated during this episode. The highest 
monitored reading in the BPA area for this period was 139 ppb on 
September 2, 1993.
    The September 6-11, 1993, episode is characterized by having high 
to moderately high daily monitored peak ozone concentrations over the 
entire large domain. The highest monitored reading in the BPA area for 
this period was 141 ppb on September 10, 1993. As noted, the high ozone 
episodes TNRCC selected and modeled cover more than 3 primary episode 
days and cover the types of meteorology observed along with high ozone 
in the BPA area. For a more complete description of episode selection 
see the TSD for this document.
    What input data systems and analyses were used as part of the 
combined modeling system? The following input data systems and analyses 
were used by the State:
    Emissions: TNRCC developed two major types of modeling emission 
inventories, one type representing the actual emissions that occurred 
during the two chosen specific episode periods, and another type 
representing the projected emissions expected to occur at the 
attainment date for the HG area (i.e., 2007). The episode-specific 
modeling emissions, termed the ``base case,'' were used to evaluate the 
model's reliability in replicating the ozone exceedances that occurred 
during the two chosen episodes. The 2007 projected modeling emissions, 
termed the ``future case,'' were used to estimate the overall level of 
reductions in VOC and NOX needed to achieve attainment. For 
a more complete description of how these base case and future case 
inventories were developed, see the TSD for this document.
    Meteorology: TNRCC developed the meteorological inputs to CAMx 
using the System Application International Mesoscale Model (SAIMM), 
which is a prognostic mesoscale meteorological model with four 
dimensional data assimilation (4DDA). EPA is proposing to accept 
TNRCC's use of SAIMM upon the technical justification that it 
adequately replicates the land-sea breeze and inter-urban area 
transport features which appear to be typical of conditions associated 
with ozone exceedances along the Texas Gulf coast.
    Chemistry: Atmospheric chemistry within the modeling grid system 
was simulated using the Carbon Bond-Version IV model developed by the 
EPA.
    Boundary and Initial Conditions: EPA's modeling Guidelines 
recommend the use of the ROM photochemical model on a regional basis 
for developing boundary conditions. TNRCC in collaboration with ENVIRON 
conducted a regional modeling application to determine boundary and 
initial conditions for the COAST modeling domain. This regional 
modeling domain covered a rather large area of the southeastern United 
States, extending from San Angelo, Texas on the west to the Georgia-
Alabama border on the east, and from south of Brownsville on the south 
to the Oklahoma-Kansas border on the north. EPA considers this modeling 
framework used by TNRCC for the development of boundary and initial 
conditions to be superior to ROM, since it encompasses many 
improvements in model formulation over ROM. Using the OTAG model 
performance criteria as a gauge for the technical acceptability of this 
Texas regional modeling, EPA proposes to accept the TNRCC/ENVIRON 
regional modeling application as producing acceptable results upon 
which to derive initial and boundary conditions for the two COAST 
modeling episodes.
    What procedures and sources of projection data were used to project 
the emissions to future years? In general the projected 2007 modeling 
emissions inventory (future case) was derived from the base case 
modeling emissions inventory (base case) by applying growth and control 
factors to the various source categories.
    For the growth of stationary point sources, TNRCC used survey data 
of point source startups and shutdowns that occurred from 1990 to 1996 
to account for banking emissions, startups and shutdowns. As 
recommended, TNRCC used procedures developed by EPA, which take into 
account the survey data and the required offsets for nonattainment New 
Source Review purposes, to develop growth rates for the modeling 
domain.
    For the growth of the area and off-road mobile source emissions, 
TNRCC used a combination of growth factors derived from a model 
developed specifically for Texas by Regional Economic Modeling Inc. 
(REMI). The Texas model is an adaptation of the Emissions Growth 
Analysis System (EGAS), which is the standard EPA method of developing 
growth factors. The EPA is proposing to find the Texas model acceptable 
for projecting the growth of the area and off-road mobile source 
emissions in the BPA area modeling.
    TNRCC developed the projected 2007 on-road mobile source emissions 
using much of the same procedures as used for the base case on-road 
mobile source emissions, for most of the counties. For these counties, 
the projections were based upon the results of the Travel Demand Model 
(TDM)(a Texas Department of Transportation--TxDOT--travel demand model) 
and additional special survey data (local travel counts, etc.), which 
provided estimates of the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) mix and hourly 
VMT fractions. The TDM modeling used a projected 2007 roadway network. 
The results of this TDM modeling were coupled with the results of 
MOBILE5a, the EPA-approved mobile sources model. However, some counties 
in the COAST modeling domain were not covered by the TDM. For this 
smaller group of counties, TNRCC did not develop the projected 2007 on-
road mobile source emissions in the same manner as discussed above. In 
these cases, TNRCC used regional adjustment factors based upon: (1) the 
difference between MOBILE5a runs for model years 1993 and 2007 that 
were calculated above for those counties in the COAST modeling domain 
that were covered by the TDM, and (2) the difference between 1993 and 
2007 VMT for those same TDM covered counties from the Highway 
Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) estimates provided by TxDOT. The 
adjustment factors were calculated by averaging county-specific ratios. 
Then, similar to how MOBILE5a was run for the TDM

[[Page 81793]]

covered counties, MOBILE5a was run for the non-TDM covered counties 
with the same input setup used for the 1993 episodic on-road mobile 
source emissions, only changing the model year to 2007. EPA is 
proposing to accept this approach for projecting the future 2007 on-
road mobile source emissions in the domain.
    TNRCC used the same biogenic emissions developed for the 1993 
episodic inventory (i.e., BIOME generated) for the future case. TNRCC 
assumed biogenic emissions would remain approximately constant between 
the years 1993 and 2007, and the EPA proposes to accept this 
assumption.
    The above emission projection procedures are acceptable to the EPA. 
The emission projection procedures are explained in greater detail in 
the TSD.
3. Modeling Results
    How did the State validate the photochemical modeling results? The 
State conducted a number of statistical analyses to compare the 
modeling system's ozone predictions to observed peak ozone 
concentrations for the base period. Using the preliminary base period 
emissions and meteorological inputs, the State derived statistics 
covering: unpaired peak accuracy; normalized bias; and, gross error of 
data pairs for each of the modeled high ozone episode days. These 
results were compared to acceptable accuracy ranges in the EPA 
guidance. With a few exceptions, the modeling results for the selected 
two episodes are in agreement with EPA-specified criteria.
    Table 2 presents a summary of the model performance statistics for 
the BPA ozone nonattainment area. The days August 31, September 6 and 
7, in EPA's view as expressed in the guidance, can be excluded for use 
in the analyses as these were ramp-up days for the modeling (the ramp-
up days are expected to exhibit poor model performance and are 
generally dropped from further consideration). These data were taken 
from Appendix K of the State's submittal.

                       Table 2.--Model Ozone Performance Statistics BPA Nonattainment Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Aug 31-Sept 2 1993                   September 1993 Episode
                                             Episode         ---------------------------------------------------
                                   --------------------------
                                        9/1          9/2          9/8          9/9          9/10         9/11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measured Peak (ppb)...............        105          139          113          110          141          116
Modeled Base Yr Peak(ppb).........         96          113          165          139          155          162
Normalized Bias (%)...............          4.1         10.4         27.4         13.3         10.1         11.8
Gross Error (%)...................         14.1         16.9         30.8         16.1         18.2         17.9
Unpaired Peak Accuracy (%)........          8.7         18.5         24.3         16.1          1.0         24.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The model performance statistics can be compared to EPA's 
recommended (July 1991, Guideline for Regulatory Application of the 
Urban Airshed Model) acceptable model performance statistics:

Normalized Bias: 5 to 15 percent
Gross Error: 30 to 35 percent
Unpaired Peak Accuracy: 15 to 20 percent.

    It can be seen from Table 2 above that the modeling system 
adequately performs within acceptable performance ranges for the 
majority of the performance criteria. The model does under predict the 
peak ozone levels on the days of September 1 and 2, 1993. The model 
over predicts ozone peaks on the other days, particularly on September 
8, 9, and 11, 1993. The model over predicts an ozone peak but it is 
fairly close to that measured on the September 10, 1993, day. EPA is 
proposing that the modeling system is performing adequately and in an 
acceptable manner to support emission control strategy considerations.
    The State used the September 6-11 ozone episode for its attainment 
demonstration. The model performance is in reasonable agreement with 
EPA performance specifications in the BPA area for three of the four 
days of this episode, with the exception being September 8, 1993. 
However, since this date had no monitored exceedances in the BPA area, 
it is EPA's proposed technical position that the September 8, 1993, day 
of the selected episode is not required for attainment demonstration 
control strategy evaluation for the BPA SIP.
    A number of other tests and considerations were also given to the 
overall model performance evaluation. The performance evaluation 
considered various items of statistical and graphical information, 
diagnostic and sensitivity analyses, and graphical performance 
measures. It is EPA's technical position that these tests and 
considerations show acceptable performance of the modeling system for 
the chosen base period, and that September 10, 1993 shows good 
agreement between modeled and monitored data.
    For a more detailed description of the validation of the 
photochemical modeling results, and the procedures to determine the 
controlling episode and day, see the TSD for this document.
    How was potential transport from the HG area addressed? TNRCC 
demonstrated the impact of ozone and ozone precursor transport from the 
upwind HG nonattainment area upon the BPA nonattainment area through 
the August 31 to September 2nd, 1993 episode. TNRCC applied the CAMx 
model using the same set of air quality and meteorological inputs 
previously used in the base case simulation, but with an emissions data 
set in which anthropogenic (man-made) emissions from the 8-county HG 
nonattainment area were eliminated. As a result, the modeled base peak 
ozone is reduced by as much as 10-30 ppb on most modeled days in the 
BPA area. Jefferson and Hardin counties are influenced more strongly by 
HG transport than Orange County, which in EPA's opinion, makes sense 
given their greater proximity to the HG nonattainment area. However, on 
some days, the modeled peak ozone level is not greatly diminished by 
the exclusion of the HG contribution. This does not mean, in EPA's 
opinion, that the BPA area is not affected by transport from the HG 
area. It is EPA's proposed technical position that for some days, the 
BPA area is affected by transport from the HG area. On other days, the 
BPA area is affected by ozone emissions generated within the BPA area 
itself.
    In addition, TNRCC hired Dr. Thomas W. Sager of the University of 
Texas (UT) to conduct an analysis of back trajectories of air parcels 
coming into the BPA area and evaluate the effect of HG-only strategies' 
impact in BPA. He conducted a statistical study that evaluated back 
trajectories that terminated in BPA. He evaluated back trajectories on 
both high ozone concentration and low ozone concentration days for the 
BPA area. Dr. Sager used the HYSPLIT (HYbrid

[[Page 81794]]

Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory) model for these 
studies. The HYSPLIT model is the newest version of a complete system 
for computing simple air parcel trajectories to complex dispersion and 
deposition simulations.
    Based on the results of the study, Dr. Sager showed that back 
trajectories from the BPA area that pass near the HG area result in 
higher average ozone concentration levels in BPA, and that the closer 
the trajectory came to HG, the higher the ozone concentration levels in 
BPA. However, he did not show that transport from HG was the sole cause 
of high ozone concentrations in the BPA area. It is EPA's position that 
his study supports the above modeling results, that transport is a 
reason for higher ozone concentration levels in the BPA area on some 
days. On other days, the high ozone concentration levels in the BPA 
area are not due to transport, but due to locally-generated ozone or 
ozone precursor emissions.
    In conclusion, we are proposing that Texas has demonstrated that 
during some BPA exceedances, ozone levels are affected by emissions 
from the HG area, and that the HG area emissions affect BPA's ability 
to meet attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard.
    What were the ozone modeling results for the base period and for 
the future attainment period? The ozone modeling system was run to 
simulate ozone concentrations on selected high ozone days in the 1993 
episodes using emissions for those days, and a future year (2007). The 
resulting BPA area ozone peaks for 1993 and 2007 are given in Table 3. 
These modeled ozone peaks reflect the 2007 emissions and modeling 
results for the September 6-11 episode as documented by Texas in its 
April 25, 2000 submittal (September 6, 7, and 8 omitted as detailed in 
previous discussions), taking into consideration the emission control 
strategies discussed later.

Table 3.--Peak Observed and Modeled Ozone Concentrations (ppb)in the BPA
                        Ozone Nonattainment Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Period                           September 9-11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Date                    9/9          9/10         9/11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993 Peak Observed...............          110          141          116
1993 Base Modeled................          139          155          162
2007 Future Base Case Modeled....          126          142          147
2007 Post-Control Modeled........          115          132          140
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Do the modeling results demonstrate attainment of the ozone 
standard? As noted in Table 3, the 1-hour maximum predicted ozone 
concentration on the controlling day (September 10--the day during the 
selected episode with the maximum observed ozone concentration for the 
BPA area) over the BPA area is 132 ppb.
    The modeling by itself does not conclusively demonstrate attainment 
of the standard, but its results are close enough to attainment to 
warrant the consideration of weight of evidence arguments that support 
the demonstration of attainment. The TNRCC conducted several weight of 
evidence analyses (please see next sections for further details) to add 
additional evidence that the demonstration shows that BPA will attain 
the standard by 2007 with the planned emission controls.
    What weight-of-evidence analyses and determinations are used to 
support the modeled attainment demonstration? A weight-of-evidence 
determination includes an assessment of the confidence one has in the 
modeled results. The more extensive and credible the corroborative 
information, the greater the influence it has in how to view deviations 
from the modeled attainment demonstration. As discussed in the June 
1996 EPA guidance, Guidance on Use of Modeled Results to Demonstrate 
Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS, the weight-of-evidence given to model 
results depends on the following factors: (1) Model performance; (2) 
confidence in the underlying data bases; (3) length of the projection 
period; and (4) how close the results come to demonstrating attainment 
for all receptor sites and times modeled (see Table S.1. of the June 
1996 guidance for a complete list of factors affecting weight-of-
evidence determinations and acceptance of model results nearly passing 
the attainment tests).
    EPA's draft guidance document entitled ``Use of Models and Other 
Analyses in Attainment Demonstrations for the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS'' 
(Draft) (1998), addresses additional weight-of-evidence approaches, one 
of which considers methods relating modeled ozone concentrations to 
monitored design values for a particular area. TNRCC relied on this 
concept (called the future design value) as well as the criteria from 
the 1996 guidance. All predicted future design values for the 
attainment year, in EPA's view, should be less than 125 ppb to support 
the attainment demonstration.
    Texas relied on the future design value calculations, Design Value 
trends, modeling metrics evaluating spatial and temporal changes in 
ozone extent, and results of alternative modeling scenarios including 
30% point source NOX emissions reductions from grandfathered 
non-electric generating facilities (EGFs) to develop weight of evidence 
for the BPA 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP.
    The State analyzed, and the EPA considered, the following factors 
and data in aggregate in assessing whether the State has provided 
sufficient evidence that corroborates further the attainment 
demonstration. The following is a summary of the analyses. Reference 
the BPA SIP and the TSD for this document for details of the analyses. 
A historical account of exceedance days is provided in the TSD to this 
proposed rulemaking.
    Future Design Value Calculations: The TNRCC performed future design 
value calculations. Since episodes chosen for the BPA attainment 
demonstration occurred during 1993, TNRCC used monitoring data 
collected from 1992 to 1994 in the BPA nonattainment area, as discussed 
in the 1998 EPA draft guidance, using monitoring data from the 3 year 
time frame around the modeled episodes. They used reading from both 
Southeast Texas Regional Planning Commission (SETRPC) and TNRCC 
monitors in the BPA area from that time period.
    To calculate the future design values, TNRCC developed a ratio of 
the predicted future case model results (including the control 
scenarios) to that of the original base case modeling results, and then 
multiplied these ratios by the 1992-1994 design value (DVC) 
to obtain a future design value (DVF). This technique 
demonstrates in EPA's opinion, that although the modeled maximum 
concentration in the BPA area for the 2007 Control Scenario is 132

[[Page 81795]]

ppb on September 10th, the calculated future design value is 115.4 ppb, 
which is less than the 1-hour standard of 125 ppb. This provides in 
EPA's view, additional support that the BPA area will attain the 
standard in 2007.
    Design Values Trends: As a part of weight-of-evidence, TNRCC also 
analyzed the historic air quality in the BPA ozone nonattainment area 
for the period of 1975 to 1999. The analyses demonstrate that the 
area's ozone design value exhibits a general decrease since 1995 (this 
can be seen on Figure 6.3-2 of the April 25, 2000 BPA SIP submission). 
This downward trend is almost as great for the period 1991-1999 as for 
the earlier period. TNRCC believes, and EPA proposes, that this long-
term downward trend is likely to continue. In addition, TNRCC expects, 
and the EPA is proposing, that the air quality will keep improving due 
to substantial reductions in precursor emissions in both HG and BPA, 
due to both state and federal emission control requirements. This 
includes the impacts of the implementation of the NOX RACT 
and beyond-RACT NOX rules for the BPA area.
    Spatial and Temporal Modeling Metrics: Another of the weight-of-
evidence analyses that TNRCC included in the BPA SIP attainment 
demonstration is an analysis of metrics to assess the relative 
effectiveness of modeled strategies. This is in addition to comparing 
maximum concentrations between two or more modeled scenarios (i.e., 
1993 base case, 2007 future case, etc.) These metrics include changes 
in the modeled area exceeding the standard and changes in the number of 
grid cell-hours exceeding the standard. For this analysis, TNRCC made a 
comparison between the initial September 6-11, 1993, base case and the 
2007 future base case (with banked and shutdown emissions added back) 
and the final chosen rules control scenario. The results of this 
analysis show that even though the chosen control strategy does not 
drive each and every grid cell below 125 ppb, it does substantially 
change area and temporal extent of predicted ozone concentrations 
greater than 124 ppb. In particular, the changes in temporal/area 
extent for September 10th show that the number of grid cells greater 
than 124 ppb drops by 28 percent from the original 1993 base case to 
the 2007 base case. The 2007 post-control case then drops the values 
from the 2007 base case by a additional 82 percent. This represents an 
overall 87 percent improvement in ozone exceedence days for the 2007 
post-control case as compared to the 1993 base case. This analysis, in 
EPA's technical opinion, indicates the State's NOX control 
strategy demonstrates a dramatic improvement in predicted air quality 
over the original and future base case scenarios.
    Alternative Modeling Scenarios: TNRCC also conducted alternative 
scenarios to include in their weight-of-evidence analyses. In the first 
scenario, shutdown and banked emissions were taken out of the future 
base case inventory. The results indicated that the future base case 
concentration declined from 146 ppb to 142 ppb. This would indicate an 
improvement in air quality if all banked emissions are not used. In 
another scenario, in-line with expectations from Senate Bill 766, as 
enacted in 1997 (which encourages non-EGF sources in attainment areas 
of Texas to acquire permits for their grandfathered units) TNRCC 
estimated that SB 766 would result in approximately a 30 percent 
decrease in emissions of NOX from grandfathered non-EGF 
sources across Texas. TNRCC believes that these reductions will aid BPA 
in reaching attainment by reducing background concentrations of ozone 
and its precursors, which will in turn aid in lowering ozone 
concentrations in the nonattainment area. Details of the above 
alternative modeling scenarios are provided in the TSD to this 
document.
    In addition to the above scenarios, an EPA proposed rule entitled 
``Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Proposed Heavy-Duty 
Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control 
Requirements'', 65 FR 35430 (Friday, June 2, 2000) will reduce 
NOX emissions from heavy-duty diesel engines. This rule, 
which was not included by the State in the control strategy modeling 
portion of the SIP, is to be phased in beginning in model year 2007. 
The rule will reduce NOX to 98% of the uncontrolled level 
for these engines, adding to the weight-of-evidence analyses for 
attainment.
    The EPA is proposing that the State's analyses of air quality and 
emission trends do provide additional support for the State's 
attainment demonstration. Progress in air quality improvement through 
recent periods is demonstrated and future progress in air quality 
improvement is shown. In addition, these analyses lend support to a 
regional NOX reduction as a reasonable approach to achieving 
attainment of the ozone standard. EPA is proposing that based on the 
weight-of-evidence and the modeling, the control strategy should 
provide for attainment by November 15, 2007. EPA's proposed approval is 
based on a composite of the information, not on a single element of the 
``weight-of-evidence.''
4. Emission Control Strategies
    What emission control strategies were included in the attainment 
demonstration? The BPA Attainment Demonstration SIP relies on a 
combination of Federal measures, CAA statutory requirements, Regional 
measures, local controls in the BPA area, and projections of the level 
of control in the HG area based on enforceable commitments in the 
November 1999 SIP for the HG area.
    Federal Measures: The TNRCC included the following federal measures 
in their Future Year Base Case.
    (1) On-road mobile sources:
     Heavy-duty diesel standards.
     Federal motor vehicle control program.
     National low emission vehicles standards.
     Federal low sulfur gasoline.
     Tier II vehicle emission standards.
    EPA believes that the projected growth rates and emissions 
reductions from the sources subject to the above federal measures were 
calculated correctly by the TNRCC.
    (2) Off-road mobile sources:
     Heavy duty diesel standards.
     Locomotive standards.
     Compression ignition standards for vehicles and equipment.
     Spark ignition standards for vehicles and equipment.
     Commercial marine vessel standards.
     Recreational marine standards.
    The EPA believes that the State correctly projected the growth 
rates and emissions reductions from sources subject to these federal 
measures.
    CAA Statutory Requirements: The TNRCC included the following CAA 
Statutory Requirements in their Future Year Base Case.
     Phase II reformulated gasoline in H-G eight county 
nonattainment area
     Texas motorists' choice inspection and maintenance (I/M) 
program in Harris county
    The EPA believes that the State correctly projected the growth 
rates and emissions reductions from sources subject to these CAA 
Statutory Requirements.
    State/Regional Measures: The TNRCC included the following State 
Measures as state-wide or regional controls in their Future Year Base 
Case.
     Agreed orders with Alcoa, Inc. (formerly Aluminum Company 
of America) for their Milam facility, and the Eastman Chemical Company, 
Texas operations, for their facility near Longview, Texas.
     50% Reductions at EGFs in Central and Eastern Texas.

[[Page 81796]]

     Low Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) Gasoline in Eastern and 
Central Texas.
     Stage I vapor recovery at gas stations in Eastern and 
Central Texas.
     Water Heaters Rule in all of the State.
    The EPA has already published actions on the above control measures 
in the Federal Register. EPA believes that the TNRCC correctly 
projected the growth rates for and the emissions reductions from these 
affected sources.
    Local Measures: The TNRCC included the following additional State 
Measures as local (BPA) area controls in their Future Year Post-Control 
Case.
     Rich-Burn Internal Combustion Engines.
     Lean-Burn Internal Combustion Engines.
     Industrial/Utility Boilers.
     Process Heaters.
     Gas Turbines.
     Electric Utility Boilers (five electric utility power 
boilers in BPA).
    For the above local measures, emission limits were assigned to 
categories of combustion units of the categories and sizes as listed in 
Table 4. Table 4, also, shows corresponding reductions in the 
NOX emissions inventory from each control strategy. This 
strategy applies to major stationary sources of NOX in BPA. 
EPA believes that the State correctly projected the growth rates for 
and the emissions reductions from these affected sources.

                        Table 4.--Modeled NOX Reductions From Selected Source Categories
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Percent
                                                                                                     change from
            Category                 Maximum design heat input            NOX emission limit         2007 future
                                                                                                         base
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric utility boilers.......  All units.......................  0.10 lb/MM Btu..................          -45
Industrial boilers \a\.........  >= 40 MM Btu/hr.................  0.10 lb/MM Btu..................          -58
Industrial process heaters.....  >= 40 MM Btu/hr.................  0.08 lb/MM Btu..................          -32
Gas turbines...................  > 10 MW.........................  42 ppm..........................          -27
Rich-burn engines \b\..........  300 hp..........................  2 g/hp-hr.......................          -82
Lean-burn engines \b\..........  300 hp..........................  3 g/hp-hr.......................          -73
Overall........................  ................................  ................................        -44%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This reduction was not applied to boiler industrial furnace (BIF) units out of technical and economic
  considerations, based on special design and operational requirements for destruction of hazardous air
  pollutants by BIFs.
\b\ The engine percent reductions represent reductions from engines required to reduce emissions, not the entire
  category.

    The adopted NOX emission limit of 0.10 lb 
NOX/MMBtu applies to all five electric utility power boilers 
in BPA and represents approximately a 45% reduction in emissions from 
this source category. The adopted NOX emission limit of 0.10 
lb NOX/MMBtu for industrial boilers and 0.08 lb 
NOX/MMBtu for process heaters requires four refineries and 
15 chemical plants which are major sources of NOX in BPA to 
reduce their associated NOX emissions by approximately 58% 
and 32%, respectively. Overall, the control case modeling reflects a 
point source NOX reductions for BPA area sources of roughly 
44%.
    Table 5 provides the projected NOX reductions for the 
2007 attainment year afforded by the Federal and State rules.

     Table 5.--NOX Reduction Estimates (Phase I and Phase II rules)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  2007
              EPA-Issued Rules                  projected     Reduction
                                                  (tpd)         (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMVCP, Tier I, NLEV, on-road HDD............         35.61          6.4
Locomotive engines..........................          5.24          1.89
Non-road HDD................................         28.42          7.73
Small engines...............................          0.49         -0.48
Recreational marine engines.................          0.13         -0.10
                                             ---------------------------
    EPA--Issued Rules Total.................         68.69         15.44
                                             ---------------------------
    TNRCC--Issued Rules Total...............        170.51         75.09
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The intent of the State's rules is to reduce NOX 
emissions from major stationary sources in the BPA ozone nonattainment 
area. The adopted rules established an emission limitation for lean 
burn stationary combustion engines greater than 300 hp. Other adopted 
rules limit emissions of NOX from power plants, industrial 
boilers, and process heaters. The rules will also lower the 
applicability threshold for boilers and process heaters to a rated 
input heat capacity of 40 MMBtu/Hr and above.
    Lowering of the trigger limits and restricting emission 
specifications from combustion sources in the BPA area contributes 
significantly to ozone attainment. For a detailed analysis, section by 
section, of the TNRCC's adopted rules, see EPA's Federal Register 
notices with accompanying Technical Support Documents, and the SIP and 
its appendices.
    Houston Measures: TNRCC committed to substantial emission 
reductions in the HG area in their November 1999 SIP submission.
    These reductions included expanded I/M program, 90% point source 
reductions, and fuels measures. TNRCC has proposed these measures for 
adoption and enforceably committed to submitting the necessary adopted 
measures by the end of December, 2000.
    Has the State adopted the selected emission control strategies and 
has the State adopted the emission control regulations needed to 
implement the emission control strategies? The State has adopted and 
submitted the emission control strategies and all associated

[[Page 81797]]

emission control regulations required for a moderate ozone 
nonattainment area and relied upon in the attainment demonstration 
modeling, but for the HG measures. See the previous Section, including 
Tables 4 and 5, for a listing of applicable State measures. Many, but 
not, all of these measures have been approved. EPA is proposing 
approval of the attainment demonstration SIP contingent upon SIP 
approval of all CAA required measures for a moderate area and other 
attainment measures (but for the HG measures) before final action on 
the BPA attainment demonstration SIP and request for an extension of 
the attainment date.
5. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget
    What is a motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) and why is it 
important? The MVEB is the level of total allowable on-road emissions 
established by a control strategy implementation plan or maintenance 
plan. In this case, the MVEB establishes the maximum level of on-road 
emissions that can be produced in the attainment year of 2007, when 
considered with emissions from all other sources, that meets the 
requirements of the SIP to demonstrate attainment. It is important 
because the MVEB is used to determine the conformity of transportation 
plans and programs to the SIP, as described by section 176(c)(2)(A) of 
the Act.
    Did the State Establish Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets? Texas has 
submitted motor vehicle emissions budgets for the 2007 attainment year 
for the BPA ozone nonattainment area. The emission budgets are shown in 
Table 6.

        Table 6.--2007 Attainment Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2007 tons/
                          Pollutant                               day
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC..........................................................      17.22
NOX..........................................................      29.94
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is proposing to approve the MVEBs listed in Table 6.

B. Environmental Protection Agency Review of the Submittals

1. Adequacy of the State's Demonstrations of Attainment
    Did the State adequately document the techniques and data used to 
derive the modeling input data and modeling results? The submittals 
from the State thoroughly documented the techniques and data used to 
derive the modeling input data. The submittals adequately summarized 
the modeling outputs and the conclusions drawn from these model 
outputs. The submittals adequately documented the State's weight-of-
evidence determinations and the bases for concluding that these 
determinations support the attainment demonstration.
    Did the modeling procedures and input data used comply with the 
Environmental Protection Agency guidelines and Clean Air Act 
requirements? Yes, the modeling procedures and input data (including 
evaluation of the emissions inventory input and procedures) meet the 
requirements of the Act and are consistent with the EPA's July 1991 and 
June 1996 ozone modeling guidelines.
    Do the weight-of-evidence determinations support the attainment 
demonstration? The TNRCC incorporated the following weight-of-evidence 
elements for the BPA attainment demonstration:
     Design Value trends;
     Modeling metrics evaluating spatial and temporal changes 
in ozone extent;
     Results of alternative modeling scenarios including 30% 
point source NOX reductions in adjacent, non-SIP call 
states; and,
     DVf/RRF calculations using modeled concentrations from an 
array of cells about each monitor.
    The above weight-of-evidence, when viewed in aggregate with the 
modeling, shows attainment of the standard and thus EPA is proposing 
approval.
2. Adequacy of the Emissions Control Strategies
    Do the emission control strategies meet the requirements of the 
Clean Air Act? The selected emission control strategy, based upon 
modeling and the weight-of-evidence techniques, plus additional 
information regarding the effect of HG upon BPA, demonstrates 
attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard in BPA.
    Do emission control shortfalls exist with regard to probable 
attainment of the ozone standard? We do not believe there exist any 
emission control shortfalls with regard to the attainment of the 1-hour 
ozone standard in BPA by the 2007 attainment year, provided the HG area 
meets its enforceable commitment to submit all adopted rules needed for 
attainment by the end of December 2000. On December 6, 2000, the TNRCC 
adopted a major SIP revision for the HG area. In this revision, the 
commission adopted all of the measures relied upon in the BPA 
attainment demonstration. EPA will be evaluating the HG SIP measures 
after they are received (expected by December 31, 2000).
    Has the State established an acceptable MVEB? The State has 
submitted an MVEB. The MVEB budget submitted by the TNRCC for the BPA 
nonattainment area has been found to meet the adequacy criteria and 
upon further review of the SIP for approvability continues to be 
consistent with attainment; therefore, it is proposed for approval.
    Does the BPA Area Meet the RACT Requirements for Major Source VOC 
Emissions?
    On March 7, 1995, as part of our action approving VOC requirements, 
we found that TNRCC had implemented RACT on all major sources in the 
BPA area except those that were to be covered by post-enactment Control 
Technique Guidelines (CTG's). 44 FR 12438 (March 7, 1995). Since that 
time, many expected CTGs were issued as Alternative Control Technique 
documents (ACTs). Of the expected CTGs and ACT's, BPA has major sources 
in the following categories: batch processing; reactors and 
distillation; industrial wastewater; and Volatile Organic Liquid 
Storage. EPA has approved measures as meeting RACT for the reactors and 
distillation and the Volatile Organic Liquid Storage categories for the 
BPA area. 64 FR 3841 (January 26, 1999), and 61 FR 55894 (October 30, 
1996), respectively. EPA has published a direct final rulemaking action 
wherein we find that the State is imposing RACT on the batch processing 
and industrial wastewater categories in the BPA area (signed November 
2, 2000). While CTGs and ACTs were issued for other categories such as 
wood furniture coating or aerospace coating, there are no major sources 
in those categories in the BPA area. It is EPA's position that RACT is 
being implemented on all major VOC sources in BPA. (see item 8 under 
Section IV Proposed Action).
3. Adequacy of the Request for Extension of the Attainment Date
    The policy for the extension of an ozone attainment date is 
discussed earlier. The State's compliance with these requirements is 
discussed here.
    a. Identification of the area as a downwind area affected by ozone 
transport.
    We have reviewed the CAMx demonstrations, and are proposing to 
agree with the TNRCC that this episode adequately demonstrates 
transport of pollutants from the Houston Galveston ozone nonattainment 
area. We are proposing that this transported pollution affects BPA's 
ability to attain by the current attainment date. Thus, for BPA to 
attain, controls both in BPA and HG are necessary. We therefore propose 
to find that the State's demonstration of

[[Page 81798]]

ozone transport meets the criteria in EPA's attainment date extension 
policy.
    b. Submittal of an approvable attainment demonstration.
    EPA's review of the attainment demonstration shows that it should 
be approved. The State has modeled and adopted an acceptable control 
strategy that demonstrates attainment. We propose to approve the 
attainment demonstration and agree that it meets the criteria in the 
July 1998 transport policy and all other EPA guidance, and the 
regulatory and statutory requirements.
    c. Adoption of all applicable local measures required under the 
area's current ozone classification.
    Texas has adopted all VOC and NOX related emission 
control requirements required under the Clean Air Act (CAA) for a 
moderate ozone nonattainment area. A listing of applicable CAA moderate 
classification-related VOC and NOX related regulations and 
their effective dates as approved by the EPA as part of the Texas SIP 
for the BPA area, is provided in the TSD to this rulemaking.
    It is EPA's position that the State of Texas has met the 1998 
Transport Policy's criteria for adoption and submittal to EPA for 
approval of all measures required under the Act for an area classified 
as moderate.
    d. Implementation of all adopted measures by the time upwind 
controls are expected.
    All of the NOX rules will be implemented as 
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 2005, two years before 
the Houston attainment date of November 15, 2007. We are proposing to 
find that this transport policy criteria has been met by the State.
    The State is proposing a phase-in approach to the NOX 
controls which will provide compliance earlier than the attainment 
date. The State's compliance schedule is provided in Table 7.

              Table 7.--Texas NOX Rules Compliance Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Source Type                        Compliance date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RACT......................................  No later than November 15,
                                             1999.
Lean Burn Engines.........................  No later than November 15,
                                             2001.
\2/3\ NOX Emissions Reductions............  No later than May 1, 2003.
All NOX Reductions........................  No later than May 1, 2005.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are of the opinion that the above listed compliance dates in 
Table 7 are as expeditious as practicable compared with the compliance 
dates of similar sources in moderate ozone nonattainment areas of the 
country.
4. Determination of Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) 
Availability.
    Section 172(c)(1) of the Act requires SIPs to provide for the 
implementation of all reasonably available control measures (RACM) as 
expeditiously as practicable and for attainment of the standard. EPA 
has previously provided guidance interpreting the RACM requirements of 
172(c)(1) in the General Preamble. See 57 FR 13498, 13560. In the 
General Preamble, EPA indicated its interpretation of section 
172(c)(1), under the 1990 Amendments, as imposing a duty on States to 
consider all available control measures and to adopt and implement such 
measures as are reasonably available for implementation in the 
particular nonattainment area. EPA also retained its pre-1990 
interpretation of the RACM provisions that where measures that might in 
fact be available for implementation in the nonattainment area could 
not be implemented on a schedule that would advance the date for 
attainment in the area, EPA would not consider it reasonable to require 
implementation of such measures. EPA indicated that a State could 
reject certain measures as not reasonably available for various reasons 
related to local conditions. A State could include area-specific 
reasons for rejecting a measure as RACM such as the rejected measure 
would not advance the attainment date, or technological and economic 
feasibility in the area.
    The EPA also issued a recent memorandum reaffirming its position on 
this topic, ``Guidance on the Reasonably Available Control Measures 
(RACM) Requirement and Attainment Demonstration Submissions for Ozone 
Nonattainment Areas.'' John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, dated November 30, 1999. A copy can be obtained 
from www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html. In this memoranda, EPA states 
that in order to determine whether a state has adopted all RACM 
necessary for attainment and as expeditiously as practicable, the state 
will need to provide a justification as to why measures within the 
arena of potential reasonable measures have not been adopted. The 
justification would need to support that a measure was not reasonably 
available for that area and could be based on technological or economic 
grounds.
    EPA has reviewed the SIP submittal for the BPA area and believes 
that the State did not include sufficient documentation concerning the 
rejection of certain available measures as RACM for the specific BPA 
area. Therefore, EPA has itself reviewed potential available measures, 
as documented in the RACM available analysis section of the TSD for 
this proposed rulemaking. Based on this analysis, EPA proposes to 
conclude that this additional set of evaluated measures are not 
reasonably available for the specific BPA area, because (a) some would 
require an intensive and costly effort for numerous small area sources, 
(b) due to the small percentage of mobile source emissions in the over-
all inventory, some are not cost-beneficial, and (c) since the BPA area 
relies in part on reductions from the upwind HG area which are 
substantial, and the reductions projected to be achieved by the 
evaluated additional set of measures are relatively small, they would 
not produce emission reductions sufficient to advance the attainment 
date in the BPA area and, therefore, should not be considered RACM.
    Although EPA encourages areas to implement available RACM measures 
as potentially cost-effective methods to achieve emissions reductions 
in the short term, EPA does not believe that section 172(c)(1) requires 
implementation of potential RACM measures that either require costly 
implementation efforts or produce relatively small emissions reductions 
that will not be sufficient to allow the BPA area to achieve attainment 
in advance of full implementation of all other required measures.

III. Proposed Action

    The EPA believes that the transport demonstration and attainment 
demonstration SIP developed for the BPA ozone nonattainment area meet 
the Clean Air Act. The EPA is proposing that the State has adequately 
followed the EPA's 1998 Transport Guidance for demonstrating transport. 
In the State's transport demonstration, EPA believes that the analyses 
conducted by TNRCC indicate there are impacts of ozone and ozone 
precursor transports from the upwind HG area affecting the BPA area. In 
addition, EPA is proposing to approve the State's demonstration that 
BPA will attain the ozone NAAQS. The modeling, the provided weight-of-
evidence analyses, and the analysis of transport of ozone and ozone 
precursor compounds from the HG area, demonstrate that the control 
strategy chosen by TNRCC will provide for attainment of the ozone 
standard. For BPA, it is the EPA's technical opinion that the control 
strategy will provide for

[[Page 81799]]

attainment of the ozone NAAQS by November 15, 2007.
    The EPA proposes to: approve the attainment demonstration SIP for 
the BPA ozone nonattainment area; approve the State's request to extend 
the ozone attainment date for the BPA ozone nonattainment area to 
November 15, 2007 while retaining the area's current classification as 
a moderate ozone nonattainment area; approve the on-road motor vehicle 
emissions budgets; find that the BPA area meets all remaining 
outstanding VOC RACT requirements for major sources; and approve the 
State's enforceable commitment to conduct a mid-course review 
(including evaluation of all modeling, inventory data, and other tools 
and assumptions used to develop this attainment demonstration) and to 
submit a mid-course review SIP revision, with recommended mid-course 
corrective actions, to the EPA by May 1, 2004. If the subsequent 
analyses conducted by the State as part of the mid-course review 
indicate additional reductions are needed for BPA to attain the ozone 
standard, EPA will require the State to implement additional controls 
as soon as possible until attainment is demonstrated through 
photochemical grid modeling.
    EPA cannot finalize the above proposed actions unless and until the 
EPA approves all of the following:
    1. The NOX rules for Electric Generating Facilities in 
East and Central Texas (30 TAC sections 117.131, 117.133, 117.134, 
117.135, 117.138, 117.141, 117.143, 117.145, 117.147, 117.149, 
117.512);
    2. The State-wide NOX rules for Water Heaters, Small 
Boilers, and Process Heaters (30 TAC sections 117.460, 117.461, 
117.463, 117.465, 117.467, 117.469);
    3. The revised emission specifications in the BPA area for Electric 
Utility Boilers, Industrial, Commercial or Institutional Boilers and 
certain Process Heaters (30 TAC sections 117.104, 117.106, 117.108, 
117.116, 117.206 as they relate to the BPA area, and the repeal of 
sections 117.109 and 117.601 as they relate to the BPA area);
    4. The administrative revisions to the existing Texas 
NOX SIP (30 TAC sections 117.101-117.121, 117.201-117.223, 
117.510, 117.520, and 117.570);
    5. The two Agreed Orders entered into by TNRCC and Alcoa, Inc. and 
TNRCC and Texas Eastman;
    6. Lower RVP Program in East and Central Texas (30 TAC sections 
114.1, 114.301, 114.302, and 114.304-114.309);
    7. Stage I vapor recovery Program in East and Central Texas (30 TAC 
sections 115.222-114.229); and,
    8. VOC rules as RACT for batch processing (30 TAC sections 115.160-
115.169) and wastewater (30 TAC sections 115.140-115.149).
    If the EPA cannot fully approve all of the above actions (one 
through eight), EPA will take final action on the proposed 
reclassification as described in the April 16, 1999 Federal Register. 
To the extent that comments received on the April 1999 proposed action 
are applicable to this proposed rulemaking, EPA will respond to those 
comments in its final rulemaking action.

IV. Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and 
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and 
Budget. This proposed action merely approves state law as meeting 
federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond 
those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 
that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under state law and does not impose any 
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does 
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995 (Public Law 104-4). For the same reason, this proposed rule also 
does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of tribal 
governments, as specified by Executive Order 13084 (63 FR 27655, May 
10, 1998). This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects 
on the States, on the relationship between the national government and 
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among 
the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule 
implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or 
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean 
Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically 
significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. The proposed rule does 
not involve special consideration of environmental justice related 
issues as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 
1994). As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, 
February 7, 1996), in issuing this proposed rule, EPA has taken the 
necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize 
potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected 
conduct. The EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, 
March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in 
accordance with the ``Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for 
the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings' issued 
under the executive order. This proposed rule does not impose an 
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: December 18, 2000.
Gregg A. Cooke,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 00-32848 Filed 12-26-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P