[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 95 (Thursday, May 16, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22093-22101]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09943]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R06-OAR-2018-0715; FRL-9993-56-Region 6]


Air Plan Approval; Texas; Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Area 
Redesignation and Maintenance Plan for Revoked Ozone National Ambient 
Air Quality Standards; Section 185 Fee Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is proposing to approve 
a revision to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP). The EPA is 
proposing to determine that the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) area 
is continuing to attain the 1979 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or standard) and has met the CAA 
criteria for redesignation. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to 
terminate all anti-backsliding obligations for the HGB area for the 1-
hour and 1997 ozone NAAQS. The EPA is also proposing to approve the 
plan for maintaining the 1-hour and 1997 ozone NAAQS through 2032 in 
the HGB area. The EPA is also proposing to approve the Severe Ozone 
Nonattainment Area Failure to Attain Fee SIP revision to address 
section 185 of the CAA for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 17, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2018-0715, at https://www.regulations.gov/ or via email to 
[email protected]. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from 
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public 
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, 
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written 
comment is considered the official comment and should include 
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not 
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary 
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For 
additional submission methods, please contact Carrie Paige, 214-665-
6521, [email protected]. For the full EPA public comment policy, 
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance 
on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available 
electronically at www.regulations.gov/ and in hard copy at the EPA 
Region 6 office. While all documents in the docket are listed in the 
index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy 
location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly 
available at either location (e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carrie Paige, EPA Regional Office 6, 
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, TX 75202, 214-665-6521, 
[email protected]. To inspect the hard copy materials, please 
schedule an appointment with Ms. Paige or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-
7253.

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

I. Background

    In 1979, under section 109 of the CAA, the EPA established the 
primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone at 0.12 parts per million (ppm) 
averaged over a 1-hour period (44 FR 8202, February 8, 1979).\1\ In 
1997, we revised the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone to set the 
acceptable level of ozone in the ambient air at 0.08 ppm, averaged over 
an 8-hour period (62 FR 38856, July 18, 1997).\2\ In 2008, we further 
revised the primary and secondary ozone NAAQS to 0.075 ppm, averaged 
over an 8-hour period (73 FR 16436, March 27, 2008).\3\ For additional 
information on ozone, please see the Technical Support Document (TSD) 
in the docket for this action and visit https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Primary standards are set to protect human health while 
secondary standards are set to protect public welfare. In addition, 
many reports of ozone concentrations are given in parts per billion 
(ppb); ppb = ppm x 1000. Thus, 0.12 ppm becomes 120 ppb or 124 ppb 
when rounding is considered.
    \2\ The standard of 0.08 ppm becomes 0.084 ppm or 84 ppb when 
rounding, based on the truncating conventions in 40 CFR part 50, 
Appendix P.
    \3\ In 2015, we again revised the primary and secondary ozone 
NAAQS to 0.070 ppm, averaged over an 8-hour period (73 FR 16436, 
March 27, 2008). This action does not address the HGB area under the 
2008 or 2015 ozone standards.

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

[[Page 22094]]

Implementation of the 1-Hour and the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

    In 2004, we published a rule governing implementation of the 1997 
ozone NAAQS (Phase 1 Rule) (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004). The Phase 1 
Rule revoked the 1-hour ozone NAAQS along with designations and 
classifications for that standard and set anti-backsliding provisions 
for the transition from the 1-hour to the 1997 8-hour standard. Anti-
backsliding provisions provide for controls that are not less stringent 
than the controls applicable to areas that were listed as nonattainment 
for the revoked ozone standards when the standards and designations 
were revoked. EPA did not include the section 185 fee requirement for 
areas classified as Severe and Extreme as an anti-backsliding provision 
in the Phase 1 Rule.\4\ The United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit Court) ruled that the 
section 185 fee requirement needed to be retained as an anti-
backsliding provision under EPA's approach. South Coast Air Quality 
Management District v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 2006) (``South Coast 
I'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The CAA section 185 fee program requirements apply to ozone 
nonattainment areas classified as Severe or Extreme that fail to 
attain by the required attainment date. It requires each major 
stationary source of VOC located in an area that fails to attain by 
its attainment date to pay a fee to the state for each ton of VOC 
the source emits in excess of 80 percent of a baseline amount.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2015, EPA revoked the 1997 ozone NAAQS and established anti-
backsliding requirements for the revoked 1997 ozone NAAQS, as well as 
some revisions to the anti-backsliding requirements for the revoked 1-
hour standard, in our final rule for implementing the 2008 ozone NAAQS 
(known as the ``SIP Requirements Rule,'' 40 CFR 51.1100, and 80 FR 
12264). EPA considered the South Coast I decision on the Phase 1 Rule 
in developing the SIP Requirements Rule for the 2008 8-hour ozone 
standard.
    The SIP Requirements Rule provided that an area will be subject to 
the anti-backsliding obligations for a revoked NAAQS until we approve 
(1) a redesignation to attainment for the area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 
or (2) a ``redesignation substitute'' for a revoked NAAQS, which 
required an area to demonstrate that it had attained the revoked NAAQS 
due to permanent and enforceable measures and would maintain that 
standard for ten years (40 CFR 51.1105(b)(1)). In the SIP Requirements 
Rule, EPA had created the redesignation substitute procedure because it 
believed it did not have the authority under the CAA to change the 
designations of areas under a revoked NAAQS, but wanted a means to 
terminate anti-backsliding requirements for an area that would 
otherwise be eligible for a redesignation had the standard not been 
revoked. 80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015 at 12304-05. Though EPA created the 
redesignation substitute based on the CAA 107(d)(3)(E) redesignation 
criteria, the procedure did not require states to demonstrate 
satisfaction of all five criteria. Texas submitted and EPA approved 
redesignation substitute demonstrations for the HGB area for the 1-hour 
ozone NAAQS (80 FR 63429, October 20, 2015) and the 1997 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS (81 FR 78691, November 8, 2016), on the basis that the area was 
attaining both standards based on permanent and enforceable emission 
reductions and had demonstrated that the area would maintain each 
standard for 10 years.
    On February 16, 2018, the D.C. Circuit Court vacated certain parts 
of the 2015 final rule for implementing the 2008 ozone NAAQS, including 
the redesignation substitute provision, based on the court's conclusion 
that those provisions were not consistent with CAA requirements. South 
Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA, 882 F.3d 1138 (DC Cir. 
2018) (``South Coast II''). In that decision, the Court held that the 
redesignation substitute tool was not consistent with Clean Air Act 
requirements because it failed to satisfy all five of the statutory 
requirements set forth in CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), which governs 
redesignations from nonattainment to attainment. Id. at 1152.

The HGB Area's Designations and Classifications Under the 1-Hour Ozone 
NAAQS and the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

    Under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the HGB area, consisting of Brazoria, 
Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery and Waller 
Counties, was designated as nonattainment and classified as Severe-17 
with an attainment deadline of November 15, 2007 (56 FR 56694, November 
6, 1991).\5\ The area did not attain the 1-hour ozone standard by its 
applicable attainment date of November 15, 2007 (June 19, 2012, 77 FR 
36400). This determination of failure to attain by the HGB area's 
attainment date triggered the anti-backsliding requirements for CAA 
section 185 and contingency measures. The HGB area subsequently 
attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS at the end of 2013 (80 FR 63429, 
October 20, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Under CAA section 181(a)(2) certain Severe 1-hour ozone 
nonattainment areas like the HGB area were given an attainment 
deadline of 17 years rather than 15 years, thus the ``Severe-17'' 
classification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the HGB area (the same eight counties 
designated as nonattainment under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS) was 
designated as nonattainment and classified as Moderate with an 
attainment deadline of no later than June 15, 2010. (69 FR 23858 and 69 
FR 23951 April 30, 2004). At the request of the Texas Governor we 
reclassified the area to Severe and set an attainment deadline of June 
15, 2019 (73 FR 56983, October 1, 2008). The HGB area attained the 1997 
8-hour ozone NAAQS at the end of 2014 (81 FR 78691, November 8, 2016).

The Texas Redesignation and Maintenance Plan Submittal

    On December 12, 2018, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 
(TCEQ or State) adopted the HGB Redesignation Request and Maintenance 
Plan SIP Revision for the 1-hour and 1997 ozone NAAQS and submitted 
this package to EPA on December 14, 2018. The SIP revision includes a 
request that the EPA redesignate the HGB area to attainment for the 1-
hour and 1997 ozone NAAQS and provides a maintenance plan that will 
ensure the area remains in attainment of these NAAQS through 2032. This 
submittal addresses all five criteria of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). As 
stated in their submittal, the TCEQ developed this redesignation 
request and maintenance plan SIP revision to address the uncertainty 
created by the court's South Coast II ruling.
    We note that the Agency has previously taken the position that when 
it revokes a NAAQS in full, all the associated designations and 
classifications under that NAAQS are also revoked, see 69 FR 23951, 
23969-70 (April 30, 2004), and the Agency no longer has the authority 
to change those designations, 80 FR 12296-97, 12304-05 (March 6, 2015). 
However, in the SIP Requirements Rule, EPA stated that it was retaining 
the listing of the designated areas in 40 CFR part 81 under the revoked 
1997 NAAQS ``for the sole purpose of identifying the anti-backsliding 
requirements that may apply to the areas at the time of revocation.'' 
80 FR 12296-97 (emphasis added). The South Coast II court did not 
address the Agency's interpretation that it lacks authority to alter an 
area's designation post-revocation of a NAAQS. The South Coast II court 
decision did hold that areas that were nonattainment for a revoked 
standard at

[[Page 22095]]

the time of revocation could only terminate their obligations under 
that standard by demonstrating that they have met all five of the 
statutory redesignation criteria, and thus could not rely on the 
redesignation substitute mechanism included in the ozone implementation 
rule at issue. 882 F.3d at 1152 (``The Clean Air Act unambiguously 
requires nonattainment areas to satisfy all five of the conditions 
under Sec.  7407(d)(3)(E) before they may shed controls associated with 
their nonattainment designation.'').
    While the Court did not address the issue of EPA's authority to 
alter designations after a standard has been revoked, it did speak to 
EPA's interpretation that we lacked authority to change a nonattainment 
area's classification under a revoked ozone NAAQS. The Court held that 
the EPA is required to continue to reclassify to a higher 
classification, or bump up, areas under the revoked 1997 NAAQS that 
fail to attain on time, because, in the court's view, such 
reclassification is an anti-backsliding control. South Coast II, 882 
F.3d at 1147-48. The Court's holding on this point could be interpreted 
to call into question EPA's interpretation that when a NAAQS and its 
associated designations and classifications are revoked in full, it no 
longer retains the authority to alter those designations and 
classifications.
    EPA is proposing to find that Texas' submittal meets all five 
criteria in section 107(d)(3)(E), as required by the court, for the 1-
hour and 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA is therefore proposing to terminate the 
anti-backsliding obligations for the HGB area associated with those 
NAAQS. We also take comment on whether EPA has the authority to alter 
an area's nonattainment area designation post-revocation, if only to 
fully clarify that such area has satisfied all requirements with 
respect to that revoked NAAQS. We therefore propose in the alternative 
that if EPA has such authority, the HGB area be redesignated to 
attainment for the revoked 1-hour and 1997 ozone NAAQS. Regardless of 
whether designations can be altered after revocation, it is clear under 
South Coast II that EPA has the authority to terminate an area's anti-
backsliding obligations under a revoked NAAQS if that area meets the 
section 107(d)(3)(E) criteria.
    If finalized, this action will replace our previous approvals of 
HGB redesignation substitutes for the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS. It should be noted that we are not proposing to alter our 
previous conclusions that the HGB area has attained the 1-hour and 1997 
8-hour ozone NAAQS due to permanent and enforceable emission 
reductions. Along with taking comment on whether EPA can alter an 
area's nonattainment designation, we are specifically taking comment on 
whether as part of this action, EPA has the authority to and should 
revise the listings in Part 81 for the HGB area for the 1-hour and 1997 
ozone standards from nonattainment to attainment in recognition that 
the area meets the 107(d)(3)(E) criteria and it is no longer necessary 
to identify the area as one where anti-backsliding obligations apply 
under these standards.

The Texas Severe Ozone Nonattainment Area Failure To Attain Fee 
Submittal

    TCEQ adopted the HGB Severe Ozone Nonattainment Area Failure to 
Attain Fee program for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS (referred herein after as 
the HGB alternative section 185 fee equivalent program) on May 22, 
2013. It was submitted to EPA as a SIP revision on November 27, 2018. 
The SIP revision provided a new Subchapter B (Failure to Attain Fee) in 
Chapter 101 (General Air Quality Rule) of Title 30 of the Texas 
Administrative Code (30 TAC).

II. Redesignation Criteria for Ozone Nonattainment Areas

    As explained earlier in this action, we are proposing to terminate 
the anti-backsliding requirements for the revoked standards or 
redesignate to attainment of the revoked standards, which would also 
have the effect of terminating the anti-backsliding requirements, based 
on our conclusion that the five criteria in CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) 
are met. These criteria are the following: (1) We determine that the 
area has attained the NAAQS; (2) we fully approve the applicable 
implementation plan for the area under CAA section 110(k); (3) we 
determine that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and 
enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of 
the applicable implementation plan and Federal air pollutant control 
regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions; (4) we 
fully approve a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the 
requirements of CAA section 175A; and (5) we determine the State 
containing such area has met all requirements applicable to the area 
under CAA section 110 (Implementation plans) and part D (Plan 
Requirements for Nonattainment Areas).

EPA's Evaluation of the Redesignation and Maintenance Plan Submittal

    Below is the summary of our evaluation. Detailed information on our 
evaluation can be found in the TSD. EPA normally evaluates these 
criteria as the basis to redesignate an area to attainment, therefore, 
EPA has here conducted this analysis for purposes of terminating the 1-
hour and 1997 ozone NAAQS anti-backsliding requirements or in the 
alternative, for redesignation.

Has the area attained the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and are 
the improvements in air quality due to permanent and enforceable 
reductions in emissions? (Criteria 1 and 3)

    In prior actions we determined that the HGB area attained the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS (80 FR 63429, October 20, 2015) and 1997 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS (80 FR 81466, December 30, 2015 and 81 FR 78691, November 8, 
2016). Quality-assured ambient air quality data found in the Air 
Quality System (AQS) database shows that the HGB area attained the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS in 2013 and attained the 1997 ozone NAAQS in 2014. 
Quality-assured data collected through 2017 and preliminary data for 
2018 indicate that the area has continued to maintain both of these 
standards (Table 1).\6\ We are proposing to determine that the HGB area 
is attaining the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ At the time of this writing, the preliminary ozone data for 
2018 are posted on the TCEQ website, but are not yet posted in AQS. 
See https://www.tceq.texas.gov/cgi-bin/compliance/monops/8hr_attainment.pl. For more information on AQS, please visit https://www.epa.gov/aqs. Tables listing the HGB monitoring sites with the 
fourth high 8-hour ozone average concentrations and design values 
and expected exceedances of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS are provided in 
the TSD for this rulemaking.

      Table 1--1-Hour and 1997 Ozone Design Values for the HGB Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     1-hour ozone      1997 ozone design
              Years                  design value            value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011-2013.......................  121 ppb...........  87 ppb.
2012-2014.......................  111 ppb...........  80 ppb.
2013-2015.......................  120 ppb...........  80 ppb.
2014-2016.......................  120 ppb...........  79 ppb.
2015-2017.......................  120 ppb...........  81 ppb.
Preliminary 2016-2018...........  110 ppb...........  78 ppb.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In prior actions, we determined that the improvement in air quality 
in the HGB area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in 
emissions (80 FR 63429, October 20, 2015, regarding the 1-hour ozone 
NAAQS; 81 FR 78691, November 8, 2016, regarding the 1997 ozone NAAQS). 
Texas identified State and Federal control measures that were approved 
in both the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration

[[Page 22096]]

(AD) SIPs that led to permanent and enforceable emission reductions. 
The 1-hour ozone AD SIP was approved on September 6, 2006 (71 FR 
52670). The 1997 ozone AD SIP was approved on January 2, 2014 (79 FR 
57). Additionally, we have approved Reasonable Further Progress SIPs 
for the HGB area that document continuous emission reductions due to 
permanent and enforceable measures for the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone 
standards (70 FR 7407, February 14, 2005; 74 FR 18298, April 22, 2009; 
and 79 FR 51, January 2, 2014). We propose that the HGB area has 
attained the 1-hour and 1997 ozone NAAQS due to permanent and 
enforceable emission reductions.

Is the applicable implementation plan for the area fully approved and 
has the area met all applicable requirements under CAA section 110 and 
part D? (Criteria 2 and 5)

    We are proposing to find that the HGB area has met all requirements 
under CAA section 110 (Implementation Plans and part D Plan 
Requirements for Nonattainment Areas) that are applicable for purposes 
of redesignation (CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(v)), and that those 
requirements have been fully approved into the Texas SIP (CAA section 
107(d)(3)(E)(ii)).
    110(a)(2) of the CAA contains the general requirements for a SIP. 
Section 110(a)(2) provides that the SIP must have been adopted by the 
state after reasonable public notice and hearing, and that, among other 
things, it must: (1) Include enforceable emission limitations and other 
control measures, means or techniques necessary to meet the 
requirements of the CAA; (2) provide for establishment and operation of 
appropriate devices, methods, systems and procedures necessary to 
monitor ambient air quality; (3) provide for implementation of a source 
permit program to regulate the modification and construction of 
stationary sources within the areas covered by the plan; (4) include 
provisions for the implementation of part C prevention of significant 
deterioration (PSD) and part D new source review (NSR) permit programs; 
(5) include provisions for stationary source emission control measures, 
monitoring, and reporting; (6) include provisions for air quality 
modeling; and, (7) provide for public planning and emission control 
rule development.
    Part D of the Clean Air Act establishes the plan requirements for 
nonattainment areas. Section 172(c) sets forth the basic requirements 
of air quality plans for states with nonattainment areas that are 
required to submit plans on a schedule pursuant to section 172(b). 
Subpart 2 of part D, which includes section 182 of the CAA, establishes 
specific requirements for ozone nonattainment areas depending on the 
areas' nonattainment classifications. The HGB area was classified as 
Severe under both the 1-hour and the 1997 ozone NAAQS with identical 
area boundaries. As such, the area is subject to the subpart 1 
requirements contained in section 172(c) and section 176. The area is 
also subject to the subpart 2 requirements contained in section 182(d) 
(Severe nonattainment area requirements). A thorough discussion of the 
requirements contained in section 172(c) and 182 can be found in the 
General Preamble for Implementation of Title I (57 FR 13498, April 16, 
1992).
    Since Congress passed the CAA Amendments in 1990, EPA has 
consistently held the position that not every requirement that an area 
is subject to is applicable for purposes of redesignation. See, e.g., 
September 4, 1992, Memorandum from John Calcagni (``Calcagni Memo'') at 
6.\7\ For example, some of the Part D requirements, such as 
demonstrations of reasonable further progress, are designed to ensure 
that nonattainment areas continue to make progress toward attainment. 
EPA has interpreted these requirements as not ``applicable'' for 
purposes of redesignation under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v) 
because areas that are applying for redesignation to attainment are by 
definition already attaining the standard. Id. Similarly, EPA has long 
held that only those CAA provisions that are relevant to an area's 
designation and classification as a nonattainment area are 
``applicable'' for purposes of redesignation under CAA section 
107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v). For this reason, SIP revisions that apply 
regardless of whether an area is designated nonattainment or 
attainment, such as good neighbor plans required under CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), have not been considered ``applicable'' for 
purposes of redesignation. Finally, some requirements may not be 
applicable in this action given that both of the NAAQS at issue in this 
notice were revoked for all purposes, and, post-revocation, the HGB 
area remained subject only to the anti-backsliding requirements 
identified by EPA in regulation. See 40 CFR 51.1105(a); 51.1100(o).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to 
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality 
Management Division, September 4, 1992. To view the memo, please 
visit https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/calcagni_memo_-_procedures_for_processing_requests_to_redesignate_areas_to_attainment_090492.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, for the revoked ozone standards at issue here, over the 
past three decades the State has submitted numerous SIPs for the HGB 
area to implement those standards, improve air quality with respect to 
those standards, and to address anti-backsliding requirements for those 
standards. Therefore, even though some of the HGB area's SIP-approved 
measures address measures that are not requirements ``applicable'' for 
purposes of redesignation under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and (v), 
such as CAA section 182(b) reasonable further progress, or address 
requirements that were not retained for anti-backsliding, such as 
section 182(a) emissions inventories, we provide in the accompanying 
TSD the list of SIP-approved measures the State has adopted and EPA has 
approved for the HGB area with respect to the revoked 1-hour and 1997 
ozone NAAQS. These include: (1) Emissions inventories, (2) emissions 
statements, (3) nonattainment new source review programs, (4) 
reasonably available control technology for sources of both VOC and 
NOX, (5) gasoline vapor recovery, (6) both basic and 
enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance programs, (7) enhanced 
ambient monitoring, (8) attainment and reasonable further progress 
demonstrations, (9) contingency measures for failure to attain or make 
reasonable further progress, (10) clean fuel vehicle programs, and (11) 
transportation control measures to offset emissions from growth in 
vehicle miles traveled.\8\ Texas also submitted SIPs to address CAA 
section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, which we approved in prior 
actions.\9\ Similarly, as part of this action, EPA is proposing 
approval of an alternative 185 fee equivalent program submitted by 
Texas on November 27, 2018 to meet the requirement in CAA section 
182(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The requirements can be found in CAA sections 182(a) through 
182(d).
    \9\ Approval of the section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure SIP for the 
1997 ozone standard for Texas is not required for purposes of 
redesignation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does Texas have a fully approved ozone maintenance plan for the HGB 
area? (Criterion 4)

    Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) of the CAA requires EPA to determine that 
the area has a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to CAA section 
175A. Under CAA section 175A, the maintenance plan must demonstrate 
continued attainment of the NAAQS for at least 10 years after the 
Administrator approves a redesignation to attainment. Eight years

[[Page 22097]]

after the redesignation, the state must submit a revised maintenance 
plan which demonstrates that attainment of the NAAQS will continue for 
an additional 10 years beyond the initial 10-year maintenance period. 
To address the possibility of future NAAQS violations, the maintenance 
plan must contain contingency measures, as EPA deems necessary, to 
assure prompt correction of any future NAAQS violation.
    EPA's interpretation of the elements under CAA section 175A is 
contained in the Calcagni Memo. Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) requires the 
maintenance plan to be ``fully approved,'' and the Calcagni Memo 
provides that a state may submit the redesignation request and 
maintenance plan at the same time and rulemaking on both may proceed on 
a parallel track. The Calcagni Memo further provides guidance on the 
content of a maintenance plan, explaining that it should address five 
requirements: (1) An attainment emissions inventory; (2) a maintenance 
demonstration; (3) an air quality monitoring commitment; (4) 
verification of continued attainment; and (5) a contingency plan.
    In conjunction with the redesignation request submitted to EPA on 
December 14, 2018, TCEQ submitted a maintenance plan to provide for the 
ongoing attainment of the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at 
least ten years following the effective date of approval of the SIP 
revision. Our evaluation of the five requirements follows:
1. Attainment Inventory
    The Texas submittal includes a 2014 base year emission inventory 
(EI) for NOx and VOC. The TCEQ chose 2014 as the base year because it 
is the first year in which the HGB area is attaining both the 1-hour 
and 1997 ozone NAAQS and was the most recent periodic inventory 
available to develop the attainment EI. For reference, the previously 
approved 2011 EI (84 FR 3708, February 13, 2019) and the proposed 2014 
base year EI are summarized (in tons per day or tpd) in Table 2. The 
2014 base year EI was developed from the 2014 periodic EI, in 
accordance with the Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (see 80 FR 
8787, February 19, 2015). We propose to approve the 2014 base year EI. 
For more information, see the TSD and the Texas submittal.

        Table 2--Previous Emission Inventories and Submitted Emission Inventories for the HGB Area (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                NOX                             VOC
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                   Source type                        2011 EI                         2011 EI
                                                  approved at 84      2014 EI     approved at 84      2014 EI
                                                      FR 3708        submitted        FR 3708        submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................          108.33           95.11           95.99           77.56
Area............................................           21.15           30.99          304.90          301.97
Non-road Mobile.................................          142.44          100.61           49.78           37.51
On-road Mobile..................................          188.02          131.15           80.73           65.04
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals......................................          459.94          357.86          531.40          482.08
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State's submittal shows the historical trends of NOX 
and VOC emissions reduced from 2002 through 2014, the date by which the 
HGB area reached attainment of both the 1-hour and 1997 ozone NAAQS. 
The attainment level emissions (provided in tpd) are identified by 
source category and summarized in Tables 3 and 4. The attainment 
emissions inventory is consistent with the Calcagni Memo.
2. Maintenance Demonstration
    Texas has demonstrated maintenance of the 1-hour and 1997 ozone 
NAAQS through 2032 by providing EI projections from 2014 through 2032 
that show emissions of NOX and VOC for the HGB area remain 
at or below the attainment year (2014) emission levels. A maintenance 
demonstration need not be based on modeling.\10\ The future year Texas 
EIs presented are 2020, 2026, and 2032: 2032 is more than 10 years 
after the expected effective date of this action and 2020 and 2026 show 
emissions between the attainment year and final maintenance year. To 
generate the future year EIs, Texas estimated the amount of growth that 
will occur between 2014 and the end of 2020, 2026, and 2032. Generally, 
the State followed our guidelines in estimating the growth in 
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2001), Sierra Club 
v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004). See also 66 FR 53094, 53099-
53100 (October 19, 2001), 68 FR 25413, 25430-25432 (May 12, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



                 Table 3--Change in NOX Emissions From 2014 Through 2032 for the HGB Area (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Year
                 Source Category                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       2014            2020            2026            2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................           95.11          128.77          128.94          129.12
Area............................................           30.99           32.52           33.84           34.64
On-road.........................................          131.15           75.63           49.47           38.22
Non-road........................................          100.61           75.77           63.65           61.60
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Annual Totals:..............................          357.86          312.69          275.90          263.58
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 22098]]


                 Table 4--Change in VOC Emissions From 2014 Through 2032 for the HGB Area (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Year
                 Source Category                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       2014            2020            2026            2032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................           77.56           77.56           77.56           77.56
Area............................................          301.97          319.18          327.46          351.20
On-road.........................................           65.04           49.16           37.82           28.59
Non-road........................................           37.51           29.84           28.79           29.71
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Annual Totals:..............................          482.08          475.74          471.63          487.06
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 3 shows a net decrease in emissions of NOX from 
2014 to 2032 of 98.28 tpd. Table 4 shows a net increase in emissions of 
VOC from 2014 to 2032 of 4.98 tpd, due to growth in area source 
emissions. The projected increase in VOC emissions is offset by the 
much larger projected decrease in NOX emissions. In the most 
recent attainment demonstration submittal for the HGB area, the TCEQ 
included in their analysis that, excepting industrial HRVOC, which are 
not expected to increase, NOX emissions are responsible for 
more ozone creation than VOC emissions from area and mobile source 
groups.\11\ In its submittal, Texas notes that photochemical modeling 
and data analysis for the HGB area consistently show that reducing 
NOX emissions is expected to be at least as effective as 
reducing VOC emissions in lowering the ozone design value. This is 
further supported by the emission inventories showing consistent 
decreases in NOX emissions in the HGB area with concurrent 
reductions in Ozone levels. Therefore, Texas has offset the growth in 
VOC emissions with far greater NOX emissions reductions. The 
projected reduction in NOX emissions and projected growth in 
VOC emissions, expressed in tpd and as a percentage, are shown in Table 
5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The mobile source groups described by the TCEQ are on-road 
and non-road, including elevated ships. See the Texas Attainment 
Demonstration for the HGB Ozone Nonattainment Area (Docket ID: EPA-
R06-OAR-2017-0053): HGB attainment SIP Appendix C pgs. 37-39 and 62 
(Docket ID: EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0053-0004); Manvel Croix Source 
Apportionment spreadsheet (Docket ID: EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0053-0008), 
and numerous other source apportionment spreadsheets in the same 
Docket. 83 FR 24446, May 29, 2018.

                 Table 5--Maintenance Demonstration \12\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Description                   NOX (tpd)       VOC (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. 2014 Emissions Inventories (from               357.86          482.08
 Tables 2 and 3)........................
b. 2032 Emissions Inventories (from               263.58          487.06
 Tables 2 and 3)........................
c. Change in EI from 2014 to 2032 (line           -94.28          + 4.98
 b minus line a)........................
d. Percent change in EI from 2014 to             -26.34%         + 1.03%
 2032...................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NOX emissions are projected to decrease by approximately 
94 tpd by 2032, which is about 26 percent less than the 2014 
NOX emission levels. VOC emissions are projected to increase 
by approximately 5 tpd by 2032, which is about 1 percent higher than 
the 2014 VOC emission levels. Because the projected reduction in 
NOX emission (26%) is far greater than the projected 
increase in VOC emissions (1%), we propose that the TCEQ has offset the 
growth in VOC emissions with NOX emissions reductions and 
demonstrated maintenance of the 1-hour and 1997 ozone NAAQS through 
2032. We note that the projections for the on-road mobile source 
inventory for 2032, which TCEQ submitted as motor vehicle emissions 
budgets, are consistent with maintenance of the 1-hour and 1997 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See our TSD for more detail on the State's submitted 
maintenance demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Monitoring Network
    The TCEQ has committed to continue to maintain an air monitoring 
network to meet regulatory requirements in the HGB area to ensure 
maintenance of the 1-hour and 1997 ozone standards. Texas has committed 
to meet monitoring requirements and continue to quality assure 
monitoring data in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and to enter all 
data into AQS in accordance with Federal guidelines through the end of 
the maintenance period in 2032.
4. Verification of Continued Attainment
    The TCEQ has the legal authority to enforce and implement the 
requirements of the maintenance plan for the HGB area. This includes 
the authority to adopt, implement, and enforce any subsequent emission 
control measures determined as necessary to correct any future failure 
to maintain the 1-hour and 1997 ozone NAAQS.
    Verification of continued attainment is accomplished through 
operation of the ambient ozone monitoring network and the periodic 
update of the area's EI. The TCEQ has committed to continue monitoring 
ozone levels according to an EPA-approved monitoring plan. Should 
changes in the location of an ozone monitor become necessary, TCEQ will 
work with EPA to ensure the adequacy of the monitoring network. The 
TCEQ has further committed to continue to quality assure the monitoring 
data to meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 58 and enter all data into 
AQS in accordance with Federal guidelines.
    In addition, to track future levels of emissions, TCEQ will 
continue to develop and submit to EPA updated EIs for all source 
categories at least once every three years, consistent with the 
requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart A, and in 40 CFR 51.122. The 
most recent triennial inventory for Texas was compiled for 2014. Point 
source facilities covered by the Texas emission statement rule will 
continue to submit VOC and NOX emissions on an annual basis 
as required by 30 TAC Chapter 101.10(d).

[[Page 22099]]

5. Contingency Plan
    Section 175A of the CAA requires that the state must adopt a 
maintenance plan, as a SIP revision, that includes such contingency 
measures as EPA deems necessary to assure that the state will promptly 
correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation of the 
area to attainment of the NAAQS. The maintenance plan must identify: 
The contingency measures to be considered and, if needed for 
maintenance, adopted and implemented; a schedule and procedure for 
adoption and implementation; and a time limit for action by the state. 
The state should also identify specific indicators to be used to 
determine when the contingency measures need to be considered, adopted, 
and implemented. The maintenance plan must include a commitment that 
the state will implement all measures with respect to the control of 
the pollutant that were contained in the SIP before redesignation of 
the area to attainment in accordance with section 175A(d) of the CAA.
    As required by CAA section 175A, Texas has proposed a contingency 
plan for the HGB area to address future violations of the 1-hour and/or 
1997 ozone NAAQS. The contingency measures proposed by the TCEQ 
include, but are not limited to, the following:
     Limit VOC emissions from dryers, filtration systems, and 
fugitive emissions from petroleum dry cleaning facilities.
     Decrease in the rule threshold triggering applicability to 
requirements, such as control and inspection requirements, for 
controlling flash emissions from fixed roof crude oil and condensate 
storage tanks.
     Require the application of low solar-absorptance paint to 
VOC storage tanks.
     Implement enhanced leak detection and repair program 
measures.
     Decrease the rule threshold triggering applicability to 
requirements for storage tanks, transport vessels, and marine vessels.
     Regulate pneumatic controllers used in oil and natural gas 
production, transmission of oil and natural gas, and natural gas 
processing.
    The maintenance plan provides that a monitored and certified 
violation of the NAAQS triggers the requirement to consider, adopt, and 
implement the plan's contingency measures. The schedule and procedure 
for adoption and implementation by the State is no longer than 18 
months following a monitored and certified violation of the NAAQS. 
Given the estimated emissions in the Houston nonattainment area, we 
believe the proposed contingency measures are sufficient to address any 
potential future violations.
    EPA is proposing that the TCEQ's maintenance plan adequately 
addresses the five basic components of a maintenance plan: Attainment 
inventory, maintenance demonstration, monitoring network, verification 
of continued attainment, and a contingency plan. Thus, the maintenance 
plan SIP revision proposed by the TCEQ meets the requirements of CAA 
section 175A and EPA proposes to approve it as a revision to the Texas 
SIP.

III. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

    The HGB maintenance plan submission includes motor vehicle 
emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the last year of the maintenance plan (in 
this case 2032). MVEBs are used to conduct regional emissions analyses 
for transportation conformity purposes. See 40 CFR 93.118. The MVEB is 
the portion of the total allowable emissions in the maintenance 
demonstration that is allocated to highway and transit vehicle use and 
emissions. See 40 CFR 93.101. As part of the interagency consultation 
process on setting MVEBs, TCEQ held discussions to determine what years 
to set MVEBs for the HGB area maintenance plan.
    We note the HGB area already has adequate NOX and VOC 
MVEBs for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, the HGB area can continue to 
make conformity determinations for transportation plans, transportation 
improvement programs, and projects based on budgets for the 2008 ozone 
NAAQS as it has been doing, according to the requirements of the 
transportation conformity regulations at 40 CFR part 93.\13\ The 
Houston area currently demonstrates conformity to the more stringent 
2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS using MVEBs contained in the area's 2008 
ozone NAAQS Reasonable Further Progress SIP revision (82 FR 26091, June 
6, 2017). Therefore, EPA is not approving the submitted 2032 
NOX and VOC MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes. As 
noted previously, EPA is proposing to find that the projected emissions 
inventory which reflects these budgets are consistent with maintenance 
of the 1-hour and 8-hour standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Transportation Conformity Guidance for the South Coast II 
Court Decision, EPA-420-B-18-050. November 2018, available on EPA's 
web page at https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/policy-and-technical-guidance-state-and-local-transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Evaluation of the HGB Alternative Section 185 Fee Equivalent 
Program

    The CAA section 185 fee program requirements apply to ozone 
nonattainment areas classified as Severe or Extreme that fail to attain 
by the required attainment date. It requires each major stationary 
source of VOC located in an area that fails to attain by its attainment 
date to pay a fee to the state for each ton of VOC the source emits in 
excess of 80 percent of a baseline amount. CAA section 182(f) extends 
the application of this provision to major stationary sources of 
NOX. In 1990, the CAA set the fee as $5,000 per ton of VOC 
and NOX emitted, which is adjusted for inflation, based on 
the Consumer Price Index, on an annual basis. For areas subject to 
section 185, fee collection is for each calendar year beginning after 
the attainment date, until the area is redesignated to attainment.\14\ 
More information on CAA section 185 is provided in our TSD. Because the 
HGB area failed to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable 
attainment deadline of November 15, 2007, the area became subject to 
section 185 for that standard.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Section 185 is an anti-backsliding requirement which would 
be terminated upon a showing that the five criteria of 107(d)(3)(E) 
are met. This action, if finalized, will terminate the requirement 
for a section 185 fee program.
    \15\ Although the HGB area is also designated and classified as 
Severe for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the section 185 fee program 
was not triggered for that standard, because the area attained the 
1997 ozone NAAQS well before the Severe area attainment deadline of 
June 15, 2019. See 80 FR 81466, December 30, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 5, 2010 EPA issued the memo ``Guidance on Developing Fee 
Programs Required by Clean Air Act Section 185 for the 1-hour Ozone 
NAAQS.'' \16\ The guidance discussed options for the EPA approval of 
SIPs that included an equivalent alternative program to the section 185 
fee program specified in the CAA when addressing anti-backsliding for a 
revoked ozone NAAQS under the principles of section 172(e). Section 
172(e) requires EPA to develop regulations to ensure that controls in a 
nonattainment area are ``not less stringent'' than those that applied 
to the area before EPA revised a NAAQS to make it less stringent. 
Although section 172(e) does not directly apply where EPA has 
strengthened the NAAQS, as it did in 1997, 2008, and 2015, EPA has 
applied the principles in section 172(e) when revoking less stringent 
ozone standards. EPA allows a state to adopt an

[[Page 22100]]

alternative to CAA section 185 if the state demonstrates that the 
proposed alternative program is ``not less stringent'' than the direct 
application of CAA section 185. EPA has previously stated that one way 
to demonstrate this is to show that the alternative program provides 
equivalent or greater fees and/or emissions reductions directly 
attributable to the application of CAA section 185. Although the 2010 
guidance was vacated and remanded by the D.C. Circuit on procedural 
grounds, the court did not prohibit alternative programs, stating 
``neither the statute nor our case law obviously precludes that 
alternative'' (NRDC v. EPA, 643 F.3d 311 (D.C. Cir. 2011)). EPA 
approved alternative 185 fee equivalent programs in California for the 
San Joaquin Valley (77 FR, 50021, August 20, 2012) and the South Coast 
Air Quality Management District covering two 1-hour ozone nonattainment 
areas: (1) Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin Area and (2) Southeast 
Desert Modified Air Quality Management Area (77 FR 74372, December 14, 
2012) (upheld in Natural Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 779 F.3d 1119 (9th 
Cir. 2015)). More recently we approved an alternative 185 fee 
equivalent program for the New York portion of the New York-Northern 
New Jersey-Long Island 1-hour ozone nonattainment area (84 FR 12511, 
April 2, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/1hour_ozone_nonattainment_guidance.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Texas program: (1) Calculates the amount of fees that major 
sources would pay each year; (2) offsets the major source fees with 
fees collected in the HGB area for programs designed to reduce 
emissions from mobile sources; and (3) allows for major sources to 
request to fulfill all or part of their fee obligations with emission 
credits, emission allowances or a supplemental emission reduction 
project (if there are still major source fee obligations after 
offsetting with mobile source fees). The fees collected from mobile 
sources in the HGB area fund emission reductions through the (1) Texas 
Emissions Reduction Plan, (2) Low-Income Vehicle Repair Assistance, 
Retrofit, and Accelerated Vehicle Repair Program (LIRAP) and (3) Local 
Initiative Project program. The Texas Emission Reduction Plan provides 
money to help replace, repower or retrofit diesel equipment to 
accelerate the introduction of cleaner diesel equipment. LIRAP provides 
money to assist owners with the repair or replacement of automobiles 
that fail the Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program and that 
otherwise would receive a waiver and not be repaired. The Local 
Initiative Project program provides money for projects such as improved 
enforcement of the I/M program. These programs all provide for emission 
reductions in the HGB area in the hard to reach mobile source sector.
    In a letter dated December 4, 2018, TCEQ provided a reconciliation 
report summarizing the section 185 fee equivalency demonstration. The 
TCEQ report found that the fees collected for emission reduction 
projects in the HGB area more than fully offset the fees that would 
have been collected under a direct application of section 185 during 
the years 2012 to 2016.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Before the South Coast II decision our approval of the HGB 
1-hour redesignation substitute ended the obligation for a section 
185 fee program in late 2015 (80 FR 63429, October 20, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A detailed evaluation of the Texas section 185 alternative fee 
program is included in the TSD for this action. Based on our evaluation 
we are proposing to find that the Texas program proposed for approval 
is an equivalent section 185 fee program as it provides greater or 
equivalent fees and emission reductions than those that would be 
provided by major stationary sources alone. Thus, we are also proposing 
to approve 30 TAC Chapter 101, Subchapter B (Failure to Attain Fee) 
sections 101.100-101.102, 101.104, 101.106-101.110, 101.113, 101.116, 
101.117, 101.118(a)(1), 101.118(a)(3) and 101.120-101.122. At this 
time, we are not taking action on 30 TAC sections 101.118(a)(2) and 
101.118(b).\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Section 30 TAC 101.118(a)(2) allows for ending the failure 
to attain fee program through a finding of attainment by EPA. 
Section 30 TAC 101.118(b) allows for placing fee payment into 
abeyance if three consecutive years of quality-assured data 
resulting in a design value that did not exceed the 1-hour ozone 
standard, or a demonstration indicating that the area would have 
attained by the attainment date but for emissions emanating from 
outside the United States, are submitted to the EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Proposed Action

    We are proposing to determine that the HGB area is continuing to 
attain the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and that Texas has met 
the CAA criteria for redesignation of this area. Therefore, the EPA is 
proposing to terminate all anti-backsliding obligations for the HGB 
area for the 1-hour and 1997 ozone NAAQS. The EPA is also proposing to 
approve 30 TAC sections 101.100-101.102, 101.104, 101.106-101.110, 
101.113, 101.116, 101.117, 101.118(a)(1), 101.118(a)(3) and 101.120-
101.122 as an alternative 185 fee equivalent program. We are also 
proposing to approve the plan for maintaining the 1-hour and 1997 ozone 
NAAQS through 2032 in the HGB area.

VI. Incorporation by Reference

    In this action, we are proposing to include in a final rule 
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance 
with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by 
reference revisions to the Texas regulations as described in the 
Proposed Action section. We have made, and will continue to make, these 
documents generally available electronically through 
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office (please 
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section of this preamble for more information).

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    The actions in this proposal terminate statutory and regulatory 
requirements associated with prior federal revoked ozone standards and 
do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond 
those imposed by state law. Therefore, this action does not in and of 
itself create any new requirements. Moreover, the Administrator is 
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions 
of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 
CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to 
approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 
For that reason, these actions:
     Are not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
     Are not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because they are not ``significant regulatory 
actions'' under Executive Order 12866;
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Do not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not an economically significant regulatory action 
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);

[[Page 22101]]

     Are not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 
country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will 
not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt 
tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 
9, 2000).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

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

    Dated: May 9, 2019.
David Gray,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2019-09943 Filed 5-15-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P