[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 187 (Thursday, September 26, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60633-60636]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-24492]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[TX-144-1-7574; FRL-7383-6]


Proposed Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; 
Texas; Environmental Speed Limit Revision; and Voluntary Mobile 
Emission Reduction Program Commitment for the Houston/Galveston (HG) 
Ozone Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve revisions to the Texas State 
Implementation Plan (SIP). This proposal covers two separate actions.We 
are proposing approval, through parallel processing, of: a revision to 
the SIP that would retain the 55 miles per hour (mph) speed limit for 
vehicles weighing greater than or equal to 10,000 pounds gross vehicle 
weight rating and would postpone implementation of speed limit 
reductions for vehicles weighing less than 10,000 pounds until May 01, 
2005 (Dual Speed Limit Option). In the alternative, we are requesting 
comment on a revision to the SIP which would suspend the 55 mph speed 
limit for all vehicles until May 1, 2005 and in the interim implement 
an increase in the current environmental speed limit (ESL) of 55 mph to 
a 5 mph reduction from the speed limits posted before May 1, 2002. Both 
of these options would be applicable in the counties of Brazoria, 
Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery and Waller; 
and clarification of a State enforceable commitment to remedy any 
shortfalls in the emission reductions attributed to the Voluntary 
Mobile Emission Reduction Program (VMEP) in the Houston/Galveston (HG) 
nonattainment area so as to achieve all necessary reductions by the 
attainment date.
    These new rules are consistent with attainment of the National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone in the HG area. The EPA 
is proposing approval of these revisions to the Texas SIP to regulate 
emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic 
compounds (VOC) in accordance with the requirements of the Federal 
Clean Air Act (the Act).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 28, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Written comments 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 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 Commission 
on Environmental Quality, 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: Peggy Wade, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone 
(214) 665-7247, e-mail address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and 
``our'' refers to EPA. This document concerns control of Air Pollution 
of NOX and VOCs from mobile sources in the HG area for 
attainment demonstration purposes.

What Action Are We Taking Today?

    On July 16, 2002, the Chairman of the Texas Commission on 
Environmental Quality (TCEQ) submitted to EPA for parallel processing 
two proposed rule revisions to the SIP. These rule revisions concern 
the delayed implementation of the 55 mph speed limit for vehicles 
weighing less than 10,000 pounds; and, clarification of a rule to 
commit the state to remedy any shortfalls in the emission reductions 
attributed to the VMEP so as to achieve all necessary reductions by the 
attainment date.
    On September 16, 2002, the Executive Director of the TCEQ submitted 
to EPA an additional option to the environmental speed limit which is 
under consideration by the TCEQ, in response to comments received on 
the Dual Speed Limit option. This proposed option would suspend the 55 
mph speed limit for all vehicles until May 1, 2005, and, in the 
interim, would increase the current environmental speed limit of 55 mph 
to 5 mph below the original posted speed limit. EPA is taking comment 
on this option.
    These revisions are consistent with attainment of the ozone 
standard in the HG area. The EPA is proposing to approve these 
revisions to the Texas SIP to regulate emissions of NOX and 
VOCs in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act 
(the Act). For more information on the SIP revision, please refer to 
the State's June 26, 2002 proposed SIP revision and the September 16, 
2002 supplemental information.
    These revisions to the HG SIP that we are proposing approval of 
today are being parallel processed. Parallel processing means that EPA 
proposes action on a portion of the state revision before the revision 
becomes final under state law. Under parallel processing, EPA takes 
final action on its proposal if the final, adopted state submission is 
substantially unchanged from the submission on which the proposed 
rulemaking was based, or if significant changes in the final submission 
are anticipated and adequately described in EPA's proposed rulemaking 
or result from corrections determined by the State to be necessary 
through review of issues described in EPA's proposed rulemaking. As 
described above, the Executive Director of TCEQ is

[[Page 60634]]

considering a second option of speed limit implementation in the HG 
area. We are taking comment on this option.
    EPA is proposing action on only these two aspects (modification of 
the 55 mph speed limit and clarification of the State's enforceable 
commitment to remedy shortfalls in emission reductions attributable to 
VMEP) of the submitted SIP revision. A separate notice will be 
published in the Federal Register at a later date to address other 
components of the June 26, 2002 proposed SIP revision.

Why Are We Proposing a Revision to the June 26, 2002, Texas SIP for the 
Postponement of the 55 mph Speed Limit for Vehicles Weighing Less Than 
10,000 Pounds?

    The purpose of this revision is to delay the implementation of the 
speed limit reduction to 55 mph for light vehicles to May 01, 2005. The 
December 2000 SIP revision included a speed limit reduction for the 8-
county Houston/Galveston nonattainment area. This revision reduced the 
speed limit to 55 mph on all roadways with posted speeds above 55 mph, 
with compliance to be achieved by May 01, 2002. Emission reductions 
attributed to reduced speed limits were initially estimated to be 12.33 
tons per day (tpd) of NOX and 1.76 tpd of VOCs in 2007. (The 
HG SIP 2007 attainment demonstration budget for on-road mobile source 
NOX emissions is 156.6 tpd.) These calculations were 
performed by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) using MOBILE5a, 
an emissions factor model developed by EPA.
    On January 29, 2002, EPA released a new version of the MOBILE 
model, MOBILE6, representing current best understanding of mobile 
source emissions estimates. In a preliminary analysis conducted by the 
Texas Transportation Institute using MOBILE6, results indicate that the 
majority of emission reductions achieved through the speed limit 
reduction can be attributed to heavy-duty trucks. New data from MOBILE6 
show a decrease in the 2007 ESL NOX emission reductions from 
12.33 tpd (as determined with MOBILE5a) to 5.8 tpd. Additionally, 4.2 
of the 5.8 tpd is attributed to heavy-duty vehicles weighing over 
10,000 pounds. Passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks contribute only 
1.6 tpd in NOX emission reductions when modeled at 55 mph 
with MOBILE6. Based on this new information, the TCEQ is proposing to 
retain the 55 mph speed limit for vehicles weighing greater than or 
equal to 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating and to postpone 
speed limit reductions for vehicles less than 10,000 pounds until May 
01, 2005.
    Because this SIP revision is a delay in implementation only, EPA 
concludes that the same amount of emission reductions would be achieved 
by the attainment date and thus, the attainment plan would be 
unaffected by this change. Prior to May 01, 2005, the TCEQ will conduct 
a more thorough review of the emissions benefits of speed limit 
reductions for passenger and light-duty trucks. If the TCEQ determines 
that such a speed limit reduction strategy is not needed to demonstrate 
attainment, the Commission may revise the SIP to remove the speed limit 
reduction altogether. However, if the TCEQ determines that more 
emission reductions are necessary despite this speed limit reduction 
strategy, the Commission will need to revise the SIP in order to 
provide additional control measures. Should a SIP revision be submitted 
incorporating the removal or modification of the speed limit reduction 
strategy, EPA may publish a revision to this rule.
    Texas acknowledges that the emission reductions attributed to the 
speed limit reduction are lower as preliminarily calculated with 
MOBILE6 than they were as calculated with MOBILE5a. Texas intends to do 
a complete new analysis of all emissions with MOBILE6 during midcourse 
review. At that time, Texas will determine whether the emission 
reductions from all controls continue to provide the emission 
reductions necessary for attainment as established in the attainment 
demonstration. Should overall emission reductions as calculated with 
the MOBILE6 model not prove sufficient, Texas will develop additional 
controls as necessary to ensure sufficient reductions are available to 
support the attainment demonstration.
    The affected area would include the following counties within the 
HG nonattainment area: Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, 
Harris, Liberty, Montgomery and Waller. This control strategy is a 
necessary measure to consider for contributing to a successful 
attainment demonstration with the NAAQS for ozone.

Why Are We Considering the Alternative Speed Limit Proposal to the 
Texas SIP, Which Suspends the 55 mph Speed Limit Until May 1, 2005 and 
Reinstates the Speed Limit to a Level 5 mph Below the Previously Posted 
Speed Limits?

    As discussed previously, TCEQ has received comments on their 
proposed Dual Speed Limit strategy. In response to these comments, EPA 
is taking comment on whether a second option, if adopted by TCEQ, could 
be approved. Under this option, the TCEQ would suspend the 55 mph speed 
limit until May 1, 2005. In the interim, the 55 mph speed limit would 
be increased to a level 5 mph below the previously posted speed limits.
    Emission reductions can be achieved by implementing a 5 mph speed 
limit reduction from the previously posted speeds of 70 and 65 mph, 
applicable to all roadways in the 8-county area. Upon EPA approval of 
this proposal, speed limits on roadways having a previously posted 
speed limit of 70 mph will be increased from the current environmental 
speed limit of 55 mph to 65 mph. Speed limits on roadways with 
previously posted speeds of 65 mph will be increased from the current 
environmental limit of 55 mph to 60 mph. According to an analysis 
performed by the Texas Department of Transportation using EPA's MOBILE6 
emissions modeling program, this speed limit will result in 
NOX emission reductions of 2.3 tpd when compared to the 
NOX emissions estimated with MOBILE6 from the previously 
posted higher speed limits.
    Prior to May 01, 2005, the date upon which the suspension of the 55 
mph speed limit terminates, the TCEQ will conduct a more thorough 
review of the emissions benefits of this incremental speed limit 
reduction. If the TCEQ determines that such a speed limit reduction 
strategy is not needed to demonstrate attainment, the Commission may 
revise the SIP to remove the incremental speed limit reduction 
altogether. However, if the TCEQ determines that more emission 
reductions are necessary despite this speed limit reduction strategy, 
the Commission will need to revise the SIP in order to provide 
additional control measures. Should a SIP revision be submitted 
incorporating the removal or modification of the speed limit reduction 
strategy, EPA may publish a revision to this rule. EPA requests comment 
on whether this state proposed alternative speed limit reduction would 
be appropriate.
    The affected area would include the following counties within the 
HG nonattainment area: Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, 
Harris, Liberty, Montgomery and Waller. This control strategy is a 
necessary measure to consider for contributing to a successful 
attainment demonstration with the NAAQS for ozone.

[[Page 60635]]

Why Are We Proposing To Clarify the State's Enforceable Commitment To 
Remedy Shortfalls in Emission Reductions Attributable to VMEP in the 
June 26, 2002, Texas SIP Revision?

    Voluntary Mobile Emission Reduction Programs (VMEP) are mobile 
source strategies which attempt to complement existing programs through 
voluntary, non-regulatory changes in local transportation activities. 
Some examples include economic and market-based incentive programs, 
trip reduction programs, ozone action programs and targeted public 
outreach efforts. Programs of this type attempt to gain additional 
emission reductions beyond mandatory Clean Air Act requirements and 
state rules by engaging the public to make changes in activities that 
will result in reducing mobile source emissions.
    A criterion for approval of VMEPs into SIPs is that the voluntary 
measure be enforceable. Under this policy, the State is obligated to 
monitor, assess and report on the implementation of voluntary actions 
and the resultant emission reductions from those actions. In addition, 
the State must remedy, in a timely manner, any emission reduction 
shortfalls should the voluntary measure not achieve the projected 
emission reduction.
    The purpose of this revision is to clarify the State's commitment 
to remedy any shortfalls in the emission reduction attributed to the 
VMEP so as to achieve all necessary reductions by the attainment date. 
The state can remedy such a shortfall by revising the voluntary program 
such that needed reductions will in fact be achieved, adopting 
substitute control measures, or demonstrating that attainment can be 
reached without those emission reductions. This proposed language in no 
way changes existing language in Section 6.3.8 of the December 2000 HG 
Attainment Demonstration SIP. This rule represents additional, 
clarifying language to be added to the SIP. Our review indicates that 
this additional language does not change or weaken the commitment, but 
merely adds clarity. EPA has reviewed the state's submittal and 
believes that it is not entirely clear on the timeframe in which the 
state would remedy any emission reductions shortfall. EPA has commented 
to the state that the commitment should be further clarified to 
explicitly express that the state will remedy any emission reduction 
shortfall by the attainment date. EPA proposes to approve the state's 
clarification of its commitment provided that the state further 
clarifies the commitment consistent with EPA's comment to explicitly 
state that any shortfall will be remedied by the attainment date.
    The affected area would include the following counties within the 
HG nonattainment area: Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, 
Harris, Liberty, Montgomery, and Waller. This control strategy is a 
necessary measure to consider for contributing to a successful 
attainment demonstration with the NAAQS for ozone.

Proposed Action

    We are proposing approval of two revisions: (1) delayed 
implementation of the 55 mph speed limit for vehicles weighing less 
than 10,000 pounds until May 1, 2005, or, in the alternative, EPA 
request's comment on suspension of the implementation of the 55 mph 
speed limit until May 1, 2005 and increasing the speed limit to a level 
5 mph below the previously posted speed limits in the interim; and (2), 
clarification of a State commitment to remedy any shortfalls in the 
emission reductions attributed to the VMEP for the HG Ozone 
Nonattainment Area so as to achieve all necessary reductions by the 
attainment date.

Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements 
and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 
law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this 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 approves 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).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism 
implications because it does 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 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. This 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.).
    As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, 
February 7, 1996), in issuing this 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.
    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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Motor vehicle pollution, Volatile organic compounds, 
Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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


[[Page 60636]]


    Dated: September 18, 2002.
Gregg A. Cooke,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 02-24492 Filed 9-25-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P