Clean Air Act Limited Approval and Limited Disapproval of 15 Percent Rate of Progress and Contingency Plans for Texas

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[TX43-1-6275; FRL-5403-7]

Clean Air Act Limited Approval and Limited Disapproval of 15

Percent Rate of Progress and Contingency Plans for Texas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes a limited approval and limited disapproval of

the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of

Texas to meet the 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plan requirements of the

Clean Air Act. The EPA is proposing a limited approval because the 15

Percent Plans, submitted by Texas, will result in significant emission

reductions from the 1990 baseline and thus, will improve air quality.

Simultaneously, the EPA is proposing a limited disapproval of the 15

Percent Plans because they fail to demonstrate sufficient reductions of

area-wide Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) to meet the 15 Percent Rate

of Progress requirements. Also, the EPA is proposing a limited approval

of the contingency plans because these plans, if implemented, will

result in emission reductions that will improve air quality.

Simultaneously, the EPA is proposing a limited disapproval of the

contingency plans because they fail to demonstrate that the required

three percent reduction of VOC emissions will be achieved if the plans

are implemented.

The EPA is also proposing a limited approval of the specific

control measures in the 15 Percent and Contingency Plans because these

rules will strengthen the SIP. A final action on these control measures

will incorporate these rules into the Federally approved SIP.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be post marked by March

29, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to Mr.

Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section, at the EPA Regional

Office listed below. Copies of the documents relevant to this action

are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the

following locations. Persons interested in examining these documents

should make an appointment with the appropriate office at least 24

hours before the visiting day.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Planning Section

(6PD-L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 72202-2733.

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, 12100 Park 35 Circle,

Austin, Texas 78711-3087.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Guy R. Donaldson, Air Planning

Section (6PD-L), USEPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-

2733, telephone (214) 665-7242.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background:

Section 182(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended in 1990,

requires ozone nonattainment areas with classifications of moderate and

above to develop plans to reduce area-wide VOC emissions by 15 percent

from a 1990 baseline. The plans were to be submitted by November 15,

1993 and the reductions were required to be achieved within 6 years of

enactment or November 15, 1996. The Clean Air Act also sets limitations

on the creditability of certain types of reductions. Specifically,

States cannot take credit for reductions achieved by Federal Motor

Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) measures (new car emissions standards)

promulgated prior to 1990 or for reductions resulting from requirements

to lower the Reid Vapor Pressure of gasoline promulgated prior to 1990.

Furthermore, the CAA does not allow credit for corrections to Vehicle

Inspection and Maintenance Programs (I/M) or corrections to Reasonably

Available Control Technology (RACT) rules as these programs were

required prior to 1990.

In addition, section 172(c)(9) of the Clean Air Act requires that

contingency measures be included in the plan revision to be implemented

if reasonable further progress is not achieved or if the standard is

not attained.

In Texas, four moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas are

subject to the 15 Percent Rate of Progress requirements. These are the

Beaumont/Port Arthur (serious), Dallas/Fort Worth (moderate), El Paso

(serious), and the Houston/Galveston (severe) areas. Texas adopted

measures for the 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plans and the required

contingency measures in two phases. Phase I was submitted to the EPA on

November 13, 1993, and contained measures achieving the bulk of the

required reductions in each of the nonattainment areas. Phase II was

submitted May 9, 1994. The Phase II submittal was to make up the

shortfall in reductions not achieved in the Phase I measures. The

combination of the Phase I and Phase II measures was ruled complete by

the EPA on May 12, 1994.

On August 3, 1994, Texas submitted rules for the review and

processing of Alternate Means of Control (AMOC). These revisions

provide for the EPA review and approval of AMOC plans. On November 9,

1994, Texas submitted a narrative explanation and justification of the

AMOC process with their plan to reduce emissions an additional 9

percent in the Houston/Galveston and Beaumont/Port Arthur Areas.

The EPA has analyzed the November 13, 1993, submittal; May 9, 1994,

submittal; August 3, 1994 submittal; and the AMOC narrative portion of

the November 9, 1994, submittal; and believes that these proposed 15

Percent Plans and Contingency Plans can be given limited approval

because they overall would strengthen the SIP by achieving reductions

in VOC emissions. The 15 Percent Plan and Contingency Plans do not,

however, achieve the total required percentage of reductions.

Therefore, the EPA is proposing a limited disapproval of the plans.

Also, the control measures in the four 15 Percent Plans and Contingency

Plans cannot be completely approved, because they do not meet all of

the underlying conditions of the Clean Air Act. Therefore, the EPA is

only proposing limited approval of the control measures in the 15

Percent Plans and the Contingency Plans as a strengthening of the SIP.

The EPA is not taking any action on whether the control measures

included in these plans comply with the

[[Page 2752]]

RACT requirements of CAA section 182(b)(2), or any other underlying CAA

requirement. In addition, the EPA is proposing limited approval of only

the AMOC portion of the November 9, 1994, submittal as a strengthening

of the SIP. The EPA is taking no action on any other portion of the

November 9, 1994, submittal. For a complete discussion of EPA's

analysis of the State submittals, please refer to the Technical Support

Document for this action. A summary of the EPA's findings follows.

Analysis

Emission Inventory

The base from which States determine the required reductions in the

15 Percent Plan is the 1990 emission inventory. The EPA approved the

Texas 1990 base year inventory on November 8, 1994 (59 FR 55586). The

inventory approved by the EPA and the one used in the 15 Percent Rate

of Progress plans are the same except for some minor differences. The

inventory used in the 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plans is slightly

larger than the approved inventory. So it results in slightly more

required reductions. It is, therefore, a somewhat conservative

approach.

Calculation of Target Level Emissions

Texas subtracted the non-creditable reductions from the FMVCP and

Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) program from the 1990 inventory. This

subtraction results in the 1990 adjusted inventory. The total emission

reduction required to meet the 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plan

requirements equals the sum of 15 percent of the adjusted inventory,

plus reductions to offset any growth that takes place between 1990 and

1996, plus any reductions that result from corrections to the I/M or

VOC RACT rules. Table 1 summarizes the calculations for the

nonattainment areas in Texas.

Table 1.--Calculation of Required Reductions (tons/day)

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

Dallas/Fort Beaumont/ Houston/

Worth El Paso Port Arthur Galveston

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

1990 Emission Inventory..................................... 644.93 87.24 342.63 1179.27

1990 Adjusted............................................... 542.68 73.97 331.16 1090.94

15% of adjusted............................................. 81.40 11.10 49.67 163.64

RACT and I/M Corr........................................... .99 1.57 4.28 11.83

1996 Target................................................. 460.29 61.30 277.21 915.47

1996 1 Projection........................................... 606.22 82.68 324.89 1147.71

Required Reduction.......................................... 145.93 21.38 47.68 232.24

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

1 1996 forecasted emissions with growth and pre-1990 controls.

Measures Achieving the Projected Reductions

For each of the four nonattainment areas, Texas provided a plan to

achieve the required reductions. The specific measures adopted in each

of the areas vary with the combination of sources in each area. The

following is a concise description of each control measure Texas used

to achieve reductions credit in the plan. The EPA is proposing limited

approval of the following control measures as a strengthening of the

SIP and agrees with the emission reductions projected in the State

submittals for these measures.

Stage II Vapor Recovery

This measure requires the installation and operation of vapor

recovery equipment on gasoline pumps to reduce the emissions during

refueling. The rules of the program are contained in 30 TAC Chapter

115.241-259. The EPA approved these rules in the Federal Register on

April 15, 1994, (59 FR 17940). The EPA agrees with the reductions

projected for this measure in the Beaumont/Port Arthur, Dallas/Fort

Worth and Houston areas. In the El Paso area, the EPA believes that too

much credit has been claimed in the proposed SIP revision. (see

noncreditable reductions).

Bakeries

Texas made revisions to its vent gas control rules (30 TAC 115.121-

129) to require controls on commercial bakeries. These bakeries can be

significant sources of VOC emissions in the form of ethanol produced by

yeast in the leavening process. The ethanol is liberated primarily when

the bread is baked in the oven. These rules apply to major source

bakeries in the Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston/Galveston areas. Major

sources are defined as those emitting more than 100 tons/year in the

Dallas/Fort Worth area and more than 25 tons/year in the Houston area.

These rules require that the bakeries reduce emissions by 30 percent

from the levels reported in the 1990 emissions inventory. Each of the

affected bakeries has submitted control plans to achieve the required

reductions. Upon the EPA's approval of these rules, these control plans

will become Federally enforceable. The control plans all rely on some

form of incineration and should easily achieve the expected reductions.

The EPA proposes to approve these rules as a strengthening of the SIP

and agrees with the associated projected emission reductions.

Offset Lithography:

These rules, contained in 30 TAC 115.442-449, regulate emissions

from offset printing operations in the El Paso area. This control

measure was also adopted as a contingency measure in the Houston/

Galveston and Beaumont/Port Arthur areas. These operations produce a

wide variety of products such as magazines, newspapers and books. The

rules regulate emissions from the fountain solution, clean up solvent,

and dryer exhaust. The EPA believes that these rules will result in

enforceable emission reductions. The EPA is proposing to approve these

rules as a strengthening of the SIP and agrees with the associated

projected emission reductions.

Consumer Products

Under section 183(e)(9) of the Clean Air Act, states may develop

and submit to the Administrator a procedure under state law to regulate

consumer and commercial products, provided they consult with the EPA

regarding other State and local regulations for consumer and commercial

product rules. Throughout the process of regulating consumer and

commercial products, Texas has consulted the EPA and other states to

utilize the collective expertise of other regulatory bodies in drafting

and adopting their regulation. The rule applies to any person offering

a consumer or commercial product for sale, supply, distribution,

manufacture or use in Texas. Consumer and

[[Page 2753]]

commercial products include all VOC-emitting products used in homes,

businesses, institutions, and a multitude of commercial manufacturing

operations. The Texas rules, found at 30 TAC 115.600-625 apply

standards for the VOC content of the products in 26 categories.

The rules allow the Executive Director of the Texas Natural

Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) to grant Innovative Product

Waivers to exempt products from the VOC content requirements of this

rule; if the Executive Director determines the innovative product

emits, equal to or less than, the emissions from a representative

consumer product that is in compliance. In general, the EPA can grant

approval of a rule that allows the State discretion to grant variances

or exemptions without a full SIP revision, only if the rule contains

specific conditions and a replicable procedure for the granting of the

waivers. The EPA does not believe that the Texas consumer/commercial

product rule contains such a replicable procedure that the EPA could

use to verify a waiver was merited. The EPA believes it is appropriate

to approve the rule as a strengthening of the SIP in this specific

case, because EPA intends to promulgate national rules for the

regulation of consumer and commercial products under section 183 of the

CAA in the near future. Thus, requiring the state to develop a

replicable waiver procedure now would duplicate efforts that will also

occur through promulgation of the national rules. The EPA is proposing

to approve these rules as a strengthening of the SIP and agrees with

the projected emission reductions.

Automobile Refinishing:

Texas has adopted measures to reduce emissions from repainting cars

at auto body repair shops. Reductions are achieved through two

mechanisms. First, limits on the VOC content of paints and primers have

been set. Second, the application equipment must be High Volume Low

Pressure equipment or equivalent. This equipment tends to increase the

transfer efficiency, or the percentage of paint that actually adheres

to the vehicle. By getting a higher percentage of the paint on the car,

less paint is used and less VOC is emitted to the atmosphere. The rules

also require special equipment be used for equipment cleaning which

will result in lower solvent emissions. These requirements contained at

30 TAC 115.421-422 have been adopted for all four nonattainment areas.

In addition to the State rules, the EPA intends to promulgate a

national rule that will further limit the VOC content of coatings. The

EPA believes the combination of the emission reductions from the State

rules and creditable emission reductions from future national rules

will result in the levels projected in the State's submittal. The EPA

is proposing to approve these State rules as a strengthening of the

SIP.

RACT Catch Up

Section 182(b)(2)(B) of the Clean Air Act requires that moderate

and above ozone nonattainment areas adopt rules to require RACT for all

VOC sources in the area covered by any Control Technique Guideline

(CTG) issued before the date of the enactment of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990. In practice, this required areas that were

considered rural under pre-amendment guidance to ``catch up'' by

adopting the same requirements as urban nonattainment areas. Newly

designated nonattainment areas were required to adopt rules based on

the pre-amendment CTG's. Also, RACT was to be applied to smaller

sources of emissions in some instances because the amount of emissions

defining a major source in serious and above nonattainment areas was

reduced by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.

In Texas, Beaumont/Port Arthur was a rural nonattainment area prior

to the 1990 amendments. Also, the following counties were added to the

nonattainment areas based on the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990;

Collin, Denton, Fort Bend, Liberty, Montgomery, Waller, Chambers and

Hardin. Texas submitted rules to meet the RACT catch up requirements.

The EPA approved these submittals on May 8, 1995 (60 FR 12438).

Emission reductions from these rule changes are creditable toward the

Rate of Progress requirement. The EPA agrees with the reductions

projected in the 15 Percent Rate of Progress plans due to RACT catch up

rule changes.

Rule Effectiveness Improvements

Rule Effectiveness (RE)is an adjustment to an emission reduction

calculation that compensates for the fact that facilities are not fully

in compliance with a given rule 100 percent of the time. Texas expects

that compliance will improve from 1990 levels for various reasons, the

most important of which is a large projected increase in State

enforcement staff. To insure that real emission reductions have

occurred, the State must commit to performing a study to confirm that

the rule has achieved the expected effectiveness. Texas has committed

to conducting detailed inspections of in-use control efficiency during

annual inspections and to revising the State's upset/maintenance rule

to require more record keeping. These confirmation studies will be

expected to be submitted with the State's Milestone Compliance

Demonstration. The EPA believes the projected emission reductions are

appropriate.

Wood Parts and Products Coatings

These rules, found at 30 TAC 115.421(a)(13), limit the VOC content

of wood coatings. The rules apply to wood part and product

manufacturers in the Houston, El Paso and Dallas/Fort Worth areas.

Texas has projected a 20 percent reduction in emissions due to the

rules, which the EPA believes is appropriate. The EPA is proposing to

approve these rules as a strengthening of the SIP. The EPA also agrees

with the projected reductions.

Fugitive Emission Control

115.352-115.357 These rules, contained at 30 TAC 115.352-115.357,

tighten leak detection and repair requirements in petroleum refining

and petrochemical processes. Texas changed the leak detection minimum

from 10,000 ppm to 500 ppm for valves. The EPA is proposing to approve

these rules as a strengthening of the SIP. The EPA also agrees with the

projected reductions.

Municipal Waste Landfills

These rules, contained at 30 TAC 115.152-115.159, limit emissions

from municipal waste landfills. The decomposition of municipal waste

generates large amounts of methane and significant amounts of VOC's.

These emissions can be captured and recycled or flared. The EPA has

proposed a New Source Performance Standard for new landfills, and also

proposed requirements which States will be required to adopt for

existing landfills under section 111(d) of the CAA. Texas has proceeded

with rules in advance of final national rules so the reductions can be

achieved by 1996. The EPA is proposing to approve these rules as a

strengthening of the SIP. The EPA also agrees with the projected

reductions.

SOCMI Reactor and Distillation

These rules require control of emissions from reactor and

distillation vents in the synthetic organic chemical manufacturing

industry. These rules were based on a draft CTG that has since been

finalized. The EPA is proposing approval of these rules as a

strengthening of the SIP. The EPA also agrees with the projected

emission reductions.

[[Page 2754]]

Carswell Fire Training

This emission reduction is included in the Rate of Progress plan

because Carswell Air Force Base no longer conducts fire training

exercises. A letter of commitment from the Air Force Base, adopted into

the Dallas/Fort Worth 15 percent plan, documents that these training

exercises are no longer conducted at the base and will not be conducted

in the future. The EPA also agrees with the projected emission

reductions.

Degassing or Cleaning of Vessels (115.541-115.549)

These rules require the control of emissions that occur during the

degassing or cleaning of stationary or transport vessels by the capture

and either recovery or destruction of the resulting emissions. The EPA

is proposing to approve these rules as a strengthening of the SIP. The

EPA also agrees with the projected reductions.

Outdoor Burning

Texas has calculated the reduction in VOC emissions that have

occurred due to the more stringent outdoor burning restrictions that

have been implemented in the El Paso area as required by the El Paso

PM-10 SIP approved on January 18, 1994 (59 FR 2532). The EPA also

agrees with the projected emission reductions.

Gasoline Terminals

Texas projected emission reductions from tightening the control

requirements contained in 30 TAC 115.211-219 for vapor recovery devices

on gasoline terminals used by gasoline powered transport trucks.

Various other changes have also been made to strengthen these rules.

The EPA is proposing to approve these revisions to the State rules as a

strengthening of the SIP. The EPA also agrees with the emission

reductions associated with these measures.

Reformulated Gasoline

Section 211(k) of the CAA requires that after January 1, 1995, in

severe and above ozone nonattainment areas, only reformulated gasoline

be sold or dispensed. This gasoline is reformulated to burn cleaner and

produce fewer evaporative emissions. As a severe area, Houston will

benefit from these emission reductions. The EPA agrees with the

emission reductions that the State has projected for the Houston area.

Section 211(k)(6) allows other nonattainment areas to ``opt in'' to

the program. On June 11, 1992, the Governor of Texas asked that the

Dallas/Fort Worth area also participate in the program. This request

was approved in the Federal Register on October 8, 1992 (57 FR 46317).

These emission reductions are fully creditable toward the Dallas/Fort

Worth Plan. The EPA agrees with the reductions that have been projected

due to the introduction of reformulated gasoline in the Dallas/Fort

Worth area.

Reid Vapor Pressure Control

Texas has enacted rules (30 TAC 115.252-115.259) lowering the

allowed RVP of gasoline sold in the El Paso nonattainment area. RVP is

a measure of the tendency of gasoline to evaporate. Lowering the RVP

results in lower VOC emissions and the reductions can be credited to

the plan. The rules require the gasoline sold in El Paso between June 1

and September 15 of each year to have an RVP of no greater than 7.0

psi.

State governments are generally preempted under section

211(c)(4)(A) of the CAA from requiring gasoline sold in any area in a

State to meet an RVP standard different from the federal standard.

However, under 211(c)(4)(C) a State can require a more stringent RVP

standard in its SIP if the more stringent standard is necessary to

achieve the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) in a

particular nonattainment area. The State can make this demonstration of

necessity by providing evidence that no other measures exist that would

bring about timely attainment, or that such measures exist, are

technically possible to implement, but are unreasonable or

impracticable. Economic consequences may be considered in this

demonstration. If a State makes this demonstration, it can lower the

volatility to whatever standard is necessary for the nonattainment

area.

In addition to the control measures mandated by the CAA, Texas has

compiled a Control Measure Catalog for each of its nonattainment areas

and has graded each measure on its viability for use in these 15

Percent Plans. The grade was based on six criteria; cost of

implementation, reactivity, emission reductions potential, technical

feasibility, toxicity, and enforceability. The Catalog identified

fourteen control measures for the El Paso area; the El Paso 15 Percent

Plan contained all of these measures and an additional ten for a total

of twenty-four. The EPA believes the State has considered all of the

reasonably available control measures.

Included among these control measures was control of VOC's from

fuel. In the absence of fuel controls, it was projected there would be

insufficient VOC reductions to achieve the 15 percent SIP target and

there may ultimately be insufficient VOC reductions to achieve

attainment of the NAAQS. The State considered two fuel control

measures: opting into the federal reformulated gasoline program (RFG)

or implementing a Low RVP (7.0 psi) Program. The State, with help and

input from local area refineries, determined the two programs would

generate the same VOC emission reductions in the El Paso ozone

nonattainment area. However, as explained below, El Paso may receive

additional VOC reductions from the Low RVP Program when the Juarez area

is considered. The local area refineries expressed support for the Low

RVP Program over an RFG Program because of economic reasons as outlined

below.

El Paso and Juarez, Mexico are essentially one air shed from an air

quality standpoint. Modeling submitted by the State demonstrates El

Paso is in attainment of the NAAQS for ozone but for emissions from

Juarez and suggests that reduction of VOC emissions from Juarez will be

needed for the El Paso area to attain the NAAQS for ozone. This

modeling, in support of a 179B demonstration, has been submitted by the

State and is pending before the EPA. Action on this submittal will be

taken in a separate Federal Register notice.

Currently, Juarez is receiving in excess of 80 percent of its

gasoline from refineries located in El Paso. The local area refineries

estimated the cost to produce low RVP gasoline would be about one cent

per gallon over that of conventional gasoline. The capital investments

and other costs necessary for the production of RFG was estimated to

increase the cost of RFG by about four cents per gallon. The State

concluded that the Juarez market would accept the small increase in the

cost of low RVP gasoline and El Paso would be subjected to VOC

emissions from Juarez based on gasoline with an RVP of slightly more

than 7.0 psi. Contrarily, the State concluded that the higher cost of

RFG would likely result in Juarez requesting conventional gasoline from

the El Paso refineries, with an RVP of 9.0 psi or higher, rather than

RFG. Because the low RVP gasoline is more likely to be accepted in

Juarez, it is expected to generate additional reductions that will be

needed for attainment of the NAAQS for ozone in El Paso beyond those

reductions generated by an RFG program. In a letter to the Chairman of

the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission from the Director of

the EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, dated June 23,

1995, the EPA indicated the State could, with conditions, use the

[[Page 2755]]

expected emission reductions from Juarez to meet the requirements of

the 15 Percent SIP. In a future submittal, Texas will need to

substantiate and quantify the expected reductions from the Juarez area

as a result of the Low RVP Program.

El Paso is also a Carbon Monoxide nonattainment area and Texas has

implemented an Oxygenated Fuel Program with a control period from

September 1 of one year to March 31 of the next. The monitoring and

enforcement of the program has been delegated to the El Paso City/

County Health and Environmental District (District). The District has

dedicated resources, personnel and equipment, to this program. The

State also intends to delegate the monitoring and enforcement of the

Low RVP Program to the District. Since the Oxygenated Fuel Program is a

winter program and the Low RVP Program is a summer program the District

will be able to utilize the same resources in both programs resulting

in a savings of administrative costs. Thus the State is implementing

strategies specific to their pollution abatement needs; an Oxygenated

Fuel Program in the winter months and a Low RVP Program during the high

ozone period of the summer.

For the reasons stated above, the EPA believes the State has

satisfied the requirements of section 211(c)(4)(C) to demonstrate that

the Low RVP Program is necessary to achieve the NAAQS for ozone in the

El Paso area. The State has demonstrated that all other reasonable and

available sources of VOC reductions have been considered and used; and

that the only other alternative available for VOC emissions reductions,

the RFG Program, will not yield VOC reductions in Juarez that will be

needed for the eventual attainment of the NAAQS of ozone in the El Paso

area. The EPA is proposing limited approval of the State's Low RVP

Program. The EPA agrees with the projected emission reductions, in the

El Paso area from the Low RVP program. However, if the State wishes to

credit emission reductions occurring in the Jaurez area, due to the low

RVP program, as outlined in the EPA's June 23, 1994 letter; Texas will,

in future SIP revisions, need to substantiate and quantify the expected

reductions from the Juarez area as a result of the Low RVP Program.

Tier I Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program

The EPA promulgated standards for 1994 and later model year light-

duty vehicles and light-duty trucks (56 FR 25724, June 5, 1991). Since

the standards were adopted after the CAA amendments of 1990, the

resulting emission reductions are creditable toward the 15 percent

reduction goal. The EPA agrees with the State's projected emission

reductions.

Transportation Control Measures (TCM)

The State has included several TCM's such as high occupancy vehicle

lanes, traffic signal and intersection improvements in the plans that

result in emission reductions in the Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, and El

Paso nonattainment areas. The emission reductions from TCM's are

approximately 6.94 tons/day for Dallas/Fort Worth, 0.30 tons/day for El

Paso, and 0.10 tons/day for the Houston area. In addition, TNRCC has

adopted a set of TCM rules which were submitted under separate cover as

a SIP revision for the EPA's approval. The TCM rules will be

supplementing the control strategy SIPs in order to assure

implementation of the TCM's. The EPA has reviewed the TCM's included in

the 15 Percent Rate of Progress plans and agrees with the projected

reductions. The EPA is not, however, taking action at this time on the

TCM rules. The EPA will be taking action on the TCM rules in a separate

Federal Register notice.

Small Gas Utility Engines

Texas calculated emission reductions that were expected to result

from a State rule requiring that cleaner burning small gas utility

engines be manufactured for sale in Texas. The State has since revised

the rule to allow for a later compliance date. This could have resulted

in a loss of projected emission reductions. The EPA, however, believes

that the expected emission reductions still occurred during 1994 and

1995 and will occur during 1996, as a result of small engine

modifications made by the industry's major manufacturers. These

reductions are the result of actions taken by the industry in advance

of the Federal Emission Standards for New Non-road Spark-Engines at or

below 25 Horsepower (Phase I) that will take effect in the 1997 model

year. To demonstrate that reductions have occurred, the industry has

provided sufficient Texas specific sales data and engine specification

information to the EPA demonstrating that significant emission

reductions are expected to occur during the 1994, 1995, and 1996

calendar years. The EPA agrees these emission reductions will occur.

The EPA is taking no action on Texas' small engine rule because it now

largely duplicates already promulgated Federal requirements.

Off-Road Reformulated Gasoline

The use of reformulated gasoline will also result in reduced

emissions from off-road engines such as outboard motors for boats and

lawn mower engines. The EPA agrees with the reductions projected in the

plans for off-road engines utilizing reformulated gasoline.

Tier III Jet Engine Standards

Aircraft are required by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

rules to have engines that meet Tier III standards. These standards

result in engines designed to be both quieter and less polluting. These

rules contain a phase in schedule with full compliance required by the

year 2000. The EPA agrees with the projected emission reductions

contained in the State submittal.

Benzene National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

(NESHAPS)

In January 1993, the EPA promulgated 40 CFR 61 subpart FF, National

Emission Standard for Benzene Waste Operations. Texas has quantified

the VOC reductions that will result from these rules in the Beaumont

area. The EPA agrees that these reductions will occur.

Measures Achieving Less Than the Projected Emission Reductions

For the following control measures, the EPA believes that the

amount of emission reduction that has been claimed in the State

submittals is not appropriate or is inadequately documented. The EPA

does not agree with the projected emission reductions that are in

excess of those which the EPA believes will actually occur.

Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings (AIM)

Emission reductions have been projected for AIM coatings due to the

expected promulgation by the EPA of a national rule. In a memo dated

March 22, 1995, the EPA provided guidance on the expected reductions

from the national rule. It is expected that emissions would be reduced

by 20 percent. Texas has taken 25 percent reduction credit in its plan.

This was based on previous guidance from the EPA that 25 percent

reductions would occur. Since the 20 percent more accurately reflects

the emission reductions that will occur in practice, the EPA does not

agree with the reductions projected in excess of 20 percent.

[[Page 2756]]

Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M)

The plans in each of the four areas relied on revised vehicle I/M

programs that were developed by the State of Texas and submitted to the

EPA on November 12, 1993, and on March 9, 1994. The EPA evaluated these

programs and approved them into the SIP on August 22, 1994. Texas began

implementing these programs in January, 1995. The Texas legislature

enacted a bill on May 1, 1995, giving the governor authority to develop

a revised program. During the interim, the legislation reinstated the

I/M programs in existence prior to January 1, 1995. In June 1995, the

TNRCC adopted emergency rules to reinstate the pre-1995 programs. As a

result of these actions, the emission reductions that were expected to

result cannot be expected to be achieved. Thus, the EPA cannot agree

with the projected emission reductions for vehicle inspection and

maintenance.

Employee Commute Options

On March 7, 1995 (60 FR 12442), the EPA approved a revision to the

Texas SIP incorporating an Employee Commute Options/Employer Trip

Reduction Program. The program is required in all severe and extreme

ozone nonattainment areas. For Texas, this affects the Houston/

Galveston nonattainment area. On April 18, 1995, the Governor of Texas

signed legislation which suspended the program for 180 days and allowed

additional 45 day suspensions of the program at the discretion of the

Governor. The TNRCC is in the process of restructuring the program. Due

to the suspension of the program, the 1.81 tons per day of emission

reductions claimed for the Houston/Galveston nonattainment area cannot

be expected to be achieved. Thus, the EPA cannot agree with the

emission reductions projected for this program in the Houston/Galveston

15 Percent Rate of Progress Plan.

Marine Vessel Loading

These rules are designed to reduce emissions that result from the

loading of VOC's into marine vessels in the Houston area. The rules

control sources that emit more than 100 tons/year. The EPA believes

that the rules will result in enforceable emission reductions toward

the 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plan for Houston. The EPA is therefore,

proposing to approve these rules as a strengthening of the SIP.

Texas, however, projected reductions from both points (defined as

greater than 25 tons per year) and area (less than 25 tons per year)

sources, when the rule only applies to 100 ton/year or greater sources.

The smaller area sources, those that emit less than 25 tons per year,

would remain uncontrolled. The EPA cannot ascertain what portion of the

emission reductions claimed from the point source inventory are from

sources that emit between 25 and 100 tons/year but expects that this is

a relatively small amount. Therefore, the EPA can agree with the

emission reductions associated with marine vessel loading operations

contained in the point source inventory only with the understanding

that before a final action, the State will demonstrate that no emission

reductions are being projected for sources in the 25-100 ton/year

emissions range. The EPA cannot agree with the projected emission

reductions associated with area source marine vessel loading

operations.

The EPA is aware that Texas now believes that all of the marine

vessel loading emissions are covered in the point source inventory and

that the area source inventory is zero. If this is the case, future SIP

revisions should reflect this adjustment and the projected emission

reductions should be adjusted accordingly.

Industrial Wastewater

Texas has adopted rules for control of emissions from industrial

wastewater. These rules were based on a draft Control Technique

Guideline for the control of emissions from wastewater. The TNRCC rule

applies to VOC emissions from wastewater from the organic chemicals,

plastics, and synthetic fibers manufacturing industry (Standard

Industrial Classification codes 2821, 2823, 2824, 2865 and 2869),

pesticide manufacturing industry, petroleum refining industry,

pharmaceutical manufacturing industry, and hazardous waste treatment,

storage, and disposal facilities. The essential concept in the TNRCC

rule is to suppress VOC emissions from all wastewater streams that have

either greater than 10,000 ppm VOC at any flow rate or 1000 ppm VOC and

a flow rate greater than 10 liters/minute. The rule encourages

facilities to remove the VOC's from the stream before they are emitted

to the air. The 15 Percent Rate of Progress plans claim a 90 percent

overall control efficiency for this measure.

In contrast, the EPA expects that the overall reductions expected

from control of wastewater streams using the exemption cutoffs in the

Texas rule are 43 percent for the organic, chemicals, plastics and

synthetic fibers industry, and 41 percent control for the petroleum

refining industry. This assumes that the State rule is based on a

control program as effective as the wastewater emission control program

in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

(NESHAP) for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (40

CFR 63.100). This rule is generally referred to as the Hazardous

Organic NESHAP (HON). The Texas rule, however, is not as stringent in

its control requirements when compared to requirements expected in the

draft CTG or the HON. Chief among the differences is that the Texas

rule merely requires that streams be treated to remove VOC down to a

concentration of 1000 ppm. In contrast, the HON requires that the VOC

concentration in any stream with a concentration greater than 1000 ppm,

must be reduced to the level that can be achieved by a steam stripper.

This level can be far lower than 1000 ppm. Even if the Texas control

program were similar to the program in the HON for the control of

hazardous air pollutants, it would be expected to get less than the 90

percent emission reductions projected by the State because of the

exemption levels that were chosen.

The EPA is proposing limited approval of the Texas rules for

control of wastewater emissions as a strengthening of the SIP that will

result in emission reductions. The EPA cannot agree with all of the

emission reductions that have been projected. From the information

provided, the EPA cannot ascertain what the actual emission reductions

from this program will be. The EPA, perhaps, could agree to emission

reductions based on a control efficiency of 42 percent drawn from an

average of the petroleum refinery and Synthetic Organic Chemical

Manufacturing Industry emission reduction estimates in the draft CTG.

However, the Texas wastewater rules could result in less control than

contemplated in the draft CTG. To assure creditable emissions

reductions, before the EPA's final action, the State should document

the actual emission reductions that can be expected from the State

rule.

Other Coatings

Reductions are projected in this category in the El Paso area but

there are no rules or documentation in the plan. Therefore, EPA cannot

agree with these projected emission reductions.

Acetone Substitution

These rules are designed to limit emissions from cultured

(synthetic) marble and fiber reinforced plastic (FRP) operations in the

Dallas/Fort Worth, El Paso, and Houston areas.

[[Page 2757]]

These operations typically used large quantities of acetone as a

cleaning solvent. These rules limit the use of acetone or require the

use of substitute materials with a low vapor pressure.

The EPA added acetone to the list of non-reactive compounds on June

16, 1995 (60 FR 31633). Therefore, the EPA will take no action on these

rules. As a result, the EPA cannot agree with the use of these

projected emission reductions toward the 15 Percent Rate of Progress

Plan.

Stage II in El Paso

In the SIP revision, Texas assumed an in-use efficiency of 88

percent for Stage II in El Paso. In the other three areas, Texas

assumed an 81 percent in-use efficiency. The EPA believes that 81

percent in-use efficiency is appropriate based on the number of

inspections being performed and the percentage of exempted stations.

Therefore, the emission reductions from the higher in-use efficiency

were not documented and cannot be credited toward the rate of progress

plan for El Paso. The EPA can agree with emission reductions based on

an 81 percent in-use efficiency. The EPA cannot agree with the emission

reductions resulting from estimates of an in-use efficiency in excess

of 81 percent.

Shortfall

Tables 2 through 5 summarize the proposed creditable and

noncreditable reductions.

Table 2.--Summary of Creditable and Noncreditable Emission Reductions:

Dallas/Fort Worth (tons/day)

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

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

Required Reduction............................................ 145.93

---------

Creditable Reductions:

RACT Catch-up............................................... 4.19

Stage II.................................................... 18.19

Aircraft Stage III.......................................... 0.60

Other VOC storage, transport................................ 0.05

FMVCP Tier I................................................ 1.83

Bakeries.................................................... 0.12

Auto Refinishing............................................ 4.51

Municipal Landfills......................................... 3.49

Carswell Fire Training Pit Closure.......................... 1.20

RE Improvements............................................. 4.77

Gas Utility Engines......................................... 6.53

Reform:

On-Road..................................................... 33.18

Off-Road.................................................... 3.17

TCM's......................................................... 6.94

Consumer/Commercial Products.................................. 3.45

Gasoline Terminals............................................ 2.17

Fugitives..................................................... 0.07

Wood Furniture................................................ 1.35

AIM........................................................... 6.22

---------

Total................................................... 102.03

=========

Noncreditable Reductions:

AIM......................................................... 1.09

Inspection & Maintenance.................................... 43.79

Acetone Replacement......................................... 0.29

---------

Total noncreditable..................................... 45.17

=========

Short fall.................................................... 43.90

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

Table 3.--Summary of Creditable and Noncreditable Emission Reductions:

El Paso (tons/day)

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

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

Required Reduction............................................ 21.38

---------

Creditable Reductions:

RACT Catch-up............................................... 0.71

Stage II.................................................... 1.87

Aircraft Stage III.......................................... 0.02

FMVCP Tier I................................................ 0.25

Auto Refinishing............................................ 1.13

Offset Printing............................................. 0.56

Vessel Loading.............................................. 0.32

Fugitives................................................... 1.13

RE Improvements............................................. 0.61

Gas Utility Engines......................................... 0.84

TCM's....................................................... 0.30

Architectural Coatings...................................... 1.05

Consumer/Commercial Products................................ 0.61

Municipal Landfills......................................... 0.21

Industrial Wastewater....................................... 0.27

Bulk Gasoline Terminals..................................... 0.82

Outdoor Burning............................................. 0.40

Wood Furniture.............................................. 0.04

RVP (on-road)............................................... 2.61

RVP (off-road).............................................. 0.09

---------

Total................................................... 13.84

=========

Noncreditable Reductions:

AIM......................................................... 0.37

Inspection & Maintenance.................................... 6.72

Stage II.................................................... 0.16

Other Coatings.............................................. 0.30

---------

Total Noncreditable..................................... 7.55

=========

Short fall.................................................... 7.54

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

Table 4.--Summary of Creditable and Noncreditable Emission Reductions:

Beaumont/Port Arthur (tons/day)

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

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

Required Reduction............................................ 47.68

---------

Creditable Reductions:

RACT Catch-up............................................... 18.84

Benzene NESHAP.............................................. .28

TSDF........................................................ .04

Stage II.................................................... 1.94

FMVCP Tier I................................................ .22

Vessel Cleaning/Degassing................................... 0.02

Fugitive Controls........................................... 15.61

RE Improvements............................................. 5.98

Gas Utility Engines......................................... 1.05

AIM......................................................... 0.59

Consumer/Commercial Products................................ 0.33

---------

Total................................................... 44.90

=========

Noncreditable Reductions:

AIM......................................................... 0.21

Inspection & Maintenance.................................... 3.16

---------

Total noncreditable..................................... 3.37

---------

Short fall.................................................... 2.78

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

Table 5.--Summary of Creditable and Noncreditable Emission Reductions:

Houston/Galveston (tons/day)

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

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

Required Reduction............................................ 232.24

---------

Creditable Reductions:

RACT Catch-up............................................... 27.09

TSDF........................................................ .80

Stage II.................................................... 16.89

VOC Storage, Transportation................................. 0.46

Reform Gas:

On Road..................................................... 19.33

Off Road.................................................... 6.53

FMVCP Tier I.................................................. 1.49

Auto Refinishing.............................................. 7.15

Vessel Cleaning/Degassing..................................... 2.74

SOCMI Rct. & Dist............................................. 5.55

Fugitive Controls............................................. 34.61

RE Improvements............................................... 8.56

Gas Utility Engines........................................... 9.08

TCMs.......................................................... .10

Consumer/Commercial Products.................................. 3.85

Marine Vessel loading......................................... \1\ 13.7

3

Gasoline Terminals............................................ .81

Wood Coating.................................................. .37

Bakeries...................................................... .23

AIM........................................................... 7.31

Industrial Wastewater......................................... \2\ 6.20

---------

Total................................................... 171.88

=========

Noncreditable Reductions:

AIM......................................................... 1.83

Indust. Wastewater.......................................... 7.16

Inspection & Maintenance.................................... 34.49

Marine Vessel Loading....................................... 13.64

Acetone Replacement......................................... 1.43

Employee Commute Options.................................... 1.81

---------

Total Noncreditable..................................... 60.36

=========

Short fall.................................................... 60.36

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

\1\ Texas should demonstrate that emission reductions are not being

shown here for sources that emit less than 100 tons/year.

\2\ EPA believes these emission reductions may be overstated. Texas

should show a control efficiency of 42 percent is appropriate in light

of control that is less stringent than the HON. (See the Technical

Support Document).

Contingency Measures

Ozone areas classified as moderate or above must include in their

submittals, under section 172(c)(9) of the CAA, contingency measures to

be implemented if Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) is not achieved or

if the standard is not attained by the applicable date. The General

Preamble to Title I, (57 FR 13498) states that the contingency measures

should, at a minimum, ensure that an appropriate level of emissions

reduction progress continues to be made if attainment or RFP is not

achieved and additional

[[Page 2758]]

planning by the State is needed. Therefore, the EPA interprets the CAA

to require States with moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas to

include sufficient contingency measures in the November 1993 submittal,

so that upon implementation of such measures, additional emissions

reductions of up to three percent of the adjusted base year inventory

(or a lesser percentage that will make up the identified shortfall)

would be achieved in the year after the failure has been identified.

States must show that their contingency measures can be implemented

with minimal further action on their part and with no additional

rulemaking actions such as public hearings or legislative review .

Analysis of Specific Contingency Measures

The following is a discussion of each of the contingency measures

that have been included in the SIP submittals and an analysis of their

acceptableness.

Degassing or Cleaning of Vessels

As discussed previously, this measure was adopted as part of the 15

percent rate of progress plans for the Houston and Beaumont areas. It

was also adopted as a contingency rule in the El Paso and Dallas/Fort

Worth areas. The EPA believes the reductions that have been projected

if this measure is needed as a contingency measure are appropriate. The

EPA proposes limited approval of these rules as a strengthening of the

SIP.

Dry Cleaning Naphtha

These rules adopted at 30 TAC 115.552 as a contingency measure

would call for control of dry cleaners that use petroleum naphtha. This

rule was adopted as a contingency measure in the Dallas/Fort Worth, El

Paso, and Houston areas. The EPA has evaluated this rule and believes

that it will achieve the projected reductions in the event it must be

implemented. The EPA proposes to give limited approval to these rules

as a strengthening of the SIP.

Offset Printing

As discussed previously, regulation of emissions from offset

printing was adopted as a 15 percent measure in the El Paso area. It

was also adopted as a contingency measure in the Houston and Dallas/

Fort Worth areas. The EPA believes that the emission reductions that

have been projected if it is necessary to implement these rules are

appropriate. The EPA proposes limited approval of these rules as a

strengthening of the SIP.

Commercial Bakeries

As discussed previously, Texas adopted control measures for major

source bakeries in Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston. Texas also adopted

for Dallas, Houston and El Paso, a contingency measure for minor source

bakeries to be controlled in the event a milestone demonstration or

attainment date is missed. The EPA believes the reductions that are

projected if these rules are implemented are appropriate. The EPA is

proposing limited approval of these rules as a strengthening of the

SIP.

Transportation Control Measures

In Dallas/Fort Worth and El Paso, Texas has projected that

additional emission reductions will come from transportation control

measures that will be implemented in the 1997 time frame. These

additional reductions serve as a contingency measure if these areas

miss a milestone or fail to attain the standard. The EPA is proposing

limited approval of these Transportation Control Measures as a

strengthening of the SIP.

Gas Utility Engines

Texas has relied on emission reductions from the State small

utility engine rule toward the contingency plan from new, cleaner,

engines placed in service during 1997. As discussed previously, the

State rule has been revised to have a later compliance date. While the

EPA believes that the data provided by the small engine manufacturers

provides the needed reductions during 1994, 1995 and 1996; it is

unclear whether the necessary reductions will occur during 1997 to be

creditable in the contingency plans. Again, the EPA is taking no action

on the State Small utility engine rule. Texas, in future submittals,

will have to revise its emission reduction estimates to be consistent

with the data provided by the small engine manufacturers and subsequent

EPA policy.

Automobile Refinishing

As discussed previously, regulations on emissions from automobile

refinishing were adopted in Dallas/Fort Worth, El Paso and Houston.

These same rules were adopted as contingency measures in the Beaumont/

Port Arthur area. The EPA believes that the projected emission

reductions will occur if it is necessary to implement this rule.

Therefore, the EPA is proposing limited approval of this rule as a

strengthening of the SIP in the Beaumont area.

Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance

All of the contingency plans relied to some extent on reductions

from the previously planned vehicle inspection and maintenance program.

As discussed previously, these reductions cannot be expected to occur.

In addition, the State has combined the projected emission reductions

from Tier I FMVCP with the projected I/M reductions. The EPA cannot

determine what portion of the combined reductions are attributable to

the Tier I program. Therefore, the EPA cannot agree with the projected

reductions from the Tier I program.

Pesticide Application

The contingency plan for El Paso includes reductions from the

control of emissions during pesticide application. The plan does not

include any supporting documentation for these reductions or rules for

the control of emissions from pesticide application. Therefore, the EPA

cannot agree with these reductions toward the contingency plan.

Tables 6 through 9 summarize the reductions that the EPA agrees

with and disagrees with in each of the contingency plans. Because Texas

has submitted measures for each of the four nonattainment areas that

will result in reductions in emissions if implemented, the EPA is

proposing a limited approval of the four contingency plans because,

overall, they would strengthen the SIP. However, none of the

contingency plans will result in the required three percent reduction.

Therefore, the EPA is also proposing a limited disapproval of the

contingency plans. The EPA is proposing limited approval of the control

measures in the contingency plans because they strengthen the SIP. The

control measures cannot be completely approved because they do not meet

all of the underlying Clean Air Act requirements.

Table 6: Summary of Creditable and Noncreditable Contingency Measure

Reductions: Dallas/Fort Worth (tons/day)

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

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

Required Contingency.......................................... 16.28

=========

Creditable Contingency Reductions:

Vessel Cleaning............................................. 0.20

Dry Cleaning Naphtha........................................ 1.96

Offset Printing............................................. 0.85

Commercial Bakeries......................................... 0.15

TCMs........................................................ 2.03

Gas Utility Engines......................................... \1\ 6.65

---------

Total................................................... 11.84

=========

Noncreditable Contingency Reductions:

I/M Improvements............................................ 3.83

I/M and Tier I FMVCP........................................ 6.65

---------

[[Page 2759]]

Total noncreditable..................................... 10.48

=========

Short fall.................................................... 4.44

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

\1\ These reductions will need to be reevaluated in light of the

emisssion reductions information provided by the small engine

manufacturers.

Table 7.--Summary of Creditable and Noncreditable Contingency Measure

Reductions: El Paso (tons/day)

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

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

Required Contingency.......................................... 2.22

---------

Creditable Contingency Reductions:

Vessel Cleaning............................................. 0.09

Dry Cleaning Naphtha........................................ 0.28

Commercial Bakeries......................................... 0.05

TCMs........................................................ 0.53

Gas Utility Engines 1997.................................... 1 0.79

---------

Total................................................... 1.74

=========

Noncreditable Contingency Reductions:

I/M & Tier I FMVCP.......................................... 0.63

Pesticides.................................................. 0.08

---------

Total Noncreditable..................................... 0.71

=========

Short fall.................................................... 0.48

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

1 These reductions will need to be reevaluated in light of the emisssion

reductions information provided by the small engine manufacturers.

Table 8.--Summary of Creditable and Noncreditable Contingency Measure

Reductions: Beaumont/Port Arthur (tons/day)

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

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

Required Contingency.......................................... 9.93

=========

Creditable Contingency Reductions:

Gas Utility Engines......................................... 1 1.05

Auto Refinishing............................................ 0.68

---------

Total................................................... 1.73

=========

Noncreditable Contingency Reductions:

I/M & Tier I FMVCP.......................................... 0.66

---------

Total Noncreditable..................................... 0.66

=========

Short fall.................................................... 8.20

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

1 These reductions will need to be reevaluated in light of the emission

reductions information provided by the small engine manufacturers.

Table 9--Summary of Creditable and Noncreditable Contingency Measure

Reductions: Houston/Galveston (tons/day)

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

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

Required Contingency.......................................... 32.73

---------

Creditable Contingency Reductions:

Municipal Landfills......................................... 3.99

Dry Cleaning-Naphtha........................................ 1.77

Offset Printing............................................. 2.21

Utility Engines 1997........................................ ........

9.20 \1\

---------

Total................................................... 17.17

---------

Noncreditable Contingency Reductions:

I/M & Tier I................................................ 7.80

---------

Total Noncreditable..................................... 7.80

---------

Short fall.................................................... 15.56

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

\1\ These reductions will need to be reevaluated in light of the

emisssion reductions information provided by the small engine

manufacturers.

Alternate Means of Control

The EPA is approving Texas' AMOC rule contained in 115.901, 910,

911-918 as a strengthening of the SIP.

This rule establishes procedures for a facility to request use of

an AMOC plan in lieu of complying with control requirements of Chapter

115, relating to the control of air pollution from volatile organic

compounds. The rule provides flexibility for a facility to identify

alternative emission reductions. The intent is to allow the regulated

community flexibility to control air pollution through less costly

control strategies while achieving environmental standards.

The rule contains the nine program elements required by the EPA's

Economic Incentive Program (EIP) rules (59 FR 16690-16717). The program

elements are a Statement of Purpose, Scope, Baseline, Quantification,

Source Requirements, Uncertainty/Reconciliation, Implementation,

Administrative System, and Enforcement. The EPA is proposing limited

approval of the rule under the two-step process described in the EPA

rule (59 FR 16694), which permits a State to submit a rule containing

the general framework for the elements and a specific trade which

provides the regulatory details for similar trades. Texas submitted the

rule to the EPA Region 6 on August 3, 1994. A proposed AMOC plan from

Du Pont was submitted to the EPA in a letter dated September 19, 1995.

The EPA believes that this trade meets the requirements of the AMOC

rule and the EIP rule. Having received the general framework and a

specific trade providing the regulatory details, the EPA proposes

limited approval of the AMOC provision as strengthening of the SIP.

Proposed Action

The EPA has evaluated these submittals for consistency with the

Act, EPA regulations, and EPA policy. The 15 Percent Plans in these SIP

submittals will not achieve enough reductions to meet the 15 percent

rate of progress requirements of section 182(b)(1) of the CAA. In

addition, the contingency plans in these SIP submittals will not

achieve enough emission reductions, if implemented, to meet the three

percent reduction requirement under 172(c)(9) of the CAA. In light of

this shortfall, the EPA cannot grant full approval of these plan

revisions under Section 110(k)(3) and Part D. However, the EPA may

grant a limited approval of the submitted plans under Section 110(k)(3)

and section 301(a) since the 15 Percent Plans and the Contingency Plans

will result in a certain percentage of VOC emission reductions. Thus,

the EPA is proposing a limited approval of Texas' 15 Percent Plans and

Contingency Plans under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the CAA. The

EPA is also proposing a limited disapproval of the Texas submittals

under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) because the submittals do not fully

meet the requirements of section 182(b)(1) of the CAA for the 15

Percent Rate of Progress Plans, and the plans do not achieve the

required emission reductions. In addition, the plans do not meet the

requirement of section 172(c)(9) for contingency measures because the

plans will not achieve the required 3 percent emission reductions, if

implemented.

The EPA is aware that Texas has undertaken extensive efforts to

improve the accuracy of the 1990 base year emission inventory and the

accuracy of the emission projections being made for 1996. In addition,

the State has expressed its intention to submit a revised vehicle I/M

program during the 120 day time frame required by the recently adopted

National Highway System Designation Act of 1995. The improved emission

inventory and additional reductions from vehicle I/M may serve to

correct the shortfall identified in this proposed Federal Register

Action. To gain full approval, Texas will need to submit revised plans

that document changes to the emissions inventory and the necessary

enforceable reductions, such as those resulting from

[[Page 2760]]

a revised I/M program, to meet the 15 percent rate of progress

requirements and include sufficient contingency measures to achieve a 3

percent reduction.

The EPA believes that approval of the control measures in these

plans will strengthen the SIP. Therefore, the EPA is proposing limited

approval of the control measures in the 15 Percent Plans and

Contingency Plans. The EPA is not addressing whether these control

measures, being approved as a strengthening of the SIP, meet any other

underlying requirements of the Act such as the requirement for VOC RACT

under 182(b)(2). The EPA will address these requirements in separate

Federal Register notices.

Under section 179(a)(2), if the Administrator disapproves a

submission under section 110(k) for an area designated nonattainment

based on the submission's failure to meet one or more of the elements

required by the Act, the Administrator must apply one of the sanctions

set forth in section 179(b) unless the deficiency has been corrected

within 18 months of such disapproval. Section 179(b) provides two

sanctions available to the Administrator: highway funding and the

imposition of emission offset requirements. The 18-month period

referred to in section 179(a) will begin on the effective date

established in the final limited disapproval action. If the deficiency

is not corrected within 6 months of the imposition of the first

sanction, the second sanction will apply. This sanctions process is set

forth at 59 FR 39832 (Aug. 4, 1994), to be codified at 40 CFR 52.31.

Moreover, the final disapproval triggers the federal implementation

plan (FIP) requirement under section 110(c).

Also, 40 CFR 51.448(b) of the Federal transportation conformity

rules (40 CFR 51.448(b)) state that if the EPA disapproves a submitted

control strategy implementation plan revision which initiates the

sanction process under CAA section 179, the conformity status of the

transportation plan and transportation improvement plan shall lapse 120

days after the EPA's limited disapproval.

Nothing in this proposed rule should be construed as permitting or

allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for

revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to any SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and

environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

Regulatory Process

The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from

review under Executive Order l2866.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., the EPA

must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of

any proposed or final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604).

Alternatively, the EPA may certify that the rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small

entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,

and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than

50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the

Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements, but simply approve

requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the

federal SIP-approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify

that it does not have a significant impact on any small entities

affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship

under the CAA, preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State

action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning

SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v US EPA, 427 US 246, 256-66

(S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

The EPA's proposed limited disapproval of the State request under

section 110 and subchapter I, Part D of the CAA does not affect any

existing requirements applicable to small entities. Any pre-existing

Federal requirements remain in place after this proposed limited

disapproval. Federal disapproval of the State submittal does not affect

its State-enforceability. Moreover, the EPA's limited disapproval of

the submittal does not impose any new Federal requirements. Therefore,

the EPA certifies that this proposed limited disapproval action does

not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities

because it does not remove existing requirements, nor does it impose

any new Federal requirements.

Unfunded Mandates

Under sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform

Act of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22,

1995, the EPA must undertake various actions in association with

proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result

in estimated costs of $100 million or more to the private sector; or to

State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate.

Through submission of these SIP revisions which have been proposed

for limited approval in this action, the State and any affected local

or tribal governments have elected to adopt the program provided for

under section 175A of the CAA. The rules and commitments given limited

approval in this action may bind State, local and tribal governments to

perform certain actions and also require the private sector to perform

certain duties. To the extent that the rules and commitments being

given limited approval by this action will impose or lead to the

imposition of any mandate upon the State, local, or tribal governments,

either as the owner or operator of a source or as a regulator, or would

impose or lead to the imposition of any mandate upon the private

sector; the EPA's action will impose no new requirements. Such sources

are already subject to these requirements under State law. Accordingly,

no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the

private sector, result from this action. Therefore, the EPA has

determined that this proposed action does not include a mandate that

may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to State, local,

or tribal governments in the aggregate or to the private sector.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,

Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: December 12, 1995.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator (6RA).

[FR Doc. 96-1543 Filed 1-26-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P