Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality State Implementation Plans (SIP); Texas: 1990 Base Year Emissions Inventories, 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plans and Contingency Plans

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[TX80-1-7329; FRL-5856-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality State Implementation

Plans (SIP); Texas: 1990 Base Year Emissions Inventories, 15 Percent

Rate of Progress Plans and Contingency Plans

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed conditional interim rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing a conditional interim approval of the 15

Percent Rate of Progress Plans and associated Motor Vehicle Emissions

Budgets (MVEB) for the Dallas/Fort Worth, El Paso and Houston ozone

nonattainment areas. In addition, the EPA is proposing to fully approve

revisions to the 1990 base year emissions inventory and contingency

plans for these three areas.

On January 29, 1996, the EPA published a proposed limited approval/

limited disapproval of the 15 Percent Plans and contingency measures in

the Federal Register. Also, on January 29, 1997, the EPA published a

limited approval of the control measures contained in the 15 Percent

Plans. Today's proposed action replaces the January 29, 1996, proposed

limited approval/limited disapproval of the 15 Percent Plans and

contingency measures. The proposed limited approval of the control

measures is not affected by this proposal.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 11, 1997.

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

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

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

are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the

following locations. Persons interested in examining these documents

should make an appointment with the appropriate office at least 24

hours before the visiting day.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Planning Section (6PD-

L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, 12100 Park 35 Circle,

Austin, Texas 78711-3087.

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

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

2733, telephone (214) 665-7242.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Clean Air Act Requirements

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

1990, requires ozone nonattainment areas with classifications of

moderate and above to develop plans to reduce area-wide Volatile

Organic Compound (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 by 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 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 Act 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 (moderate 1), Dallas/Fort Worth

(moderate), El Paso (serious), and the Houston/Galveston (severe)

areas.

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

\1\ Previously classified Serious, on April 2, 1996, the EPA

corrected the classification of Beaumont/Port Arthur to moderate (61

FR 14496).

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

B. Previous 15 Percent Rate of Progress SIP Revisions

Texas first 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 by

the Phase I measures. The combination of the Phase I and Phase II

measures was ruled complete by the EPA on May 12, 1994.

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

and determined that the measures included in the plan did not achieve

the required amount of reductions. Among other reasons, there was a

shortfall in reductions because the I/M program relied on in the plans

had been repealed by the State. On January 29, 1996, the EPA published

a proposed limited approval/limited disapproval of the 15 Percent Plans

included in the November 13, 1993, and May 9, 1994, submittals (61 FR

2751). The EPA also proposed a limited approval of the measures that

were included with the plans because they resulted in a strengthening

of the SIP. For a complete discussion of the deficiencies in the

State's plans, please see the January 29, 1996 Federal Register

document.

[[Page 37176]]

C. Current 15 Percent SIP Revision

The Governor of Texas submitted in a letter dated August 9, 1996,

revisions to the 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plans for Beaumont/Port

Arthur, Dallas/Fort Worth, El Paso and Houston Areas. The SIP revision

also included revisions to the 1990 Base Year Inventory, El Paso

Section 818 analysis, the Post 96 Rate of Progress Plan for Houston and

the Employee Commute Options SIP. In this Federal Register, the EPA is

taking action on only the Emissions Inventories, 15 Percent Rate of

Progress Plans and Contingency measures for the Dallas/Fort Worth, El

Paso and Houston areas. The EPA is taking no action on the other

portions of the August 9, 1996, submittal including the Beaumont/Port

Arthur 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plan. The other portions of the SIP

submittal will be acted on in separate Federal Register documents.

II. The EPA's Analysis of Texas's Submittal

A. General

Texas has made the following changes to address the shortfalls that

were identified in the January 29, 1996, limited approval/limited

disapproval. First, Texas made several revisions to its emissions

estimates. These revisions were based on more recent information or

source surveys. From these studies, Texas concluded that, in some

instances, better estimates of emissions were available based on

locally derived emission factors rather than defaults based on national

data. Second, these same studies resulted, in some instances, in lower

projections of emissions in 1996 resulting in less growth to be offset.

Third, by better segregating the emission points that were subject to

specific rules, Texas identified additional emission reductions from

measures in the original 15 Percent Plan. Finally, Texas introduced a

new tail pipe I/M program called Texas Motorist Choice to replace the

previous vehicle I/M Program. The EPA is proposing that the combination

of the Texas Motorist Choice Program and the revisions to the Emission

Inventory and Growth Projections eliminate the shortfall identified in

the January 29, 1996, limited disapproval/limited approval.

B. Emission Inventory Revisions

The EPA approved the Texas 1990 base year inventory on November 8,

1994 (59 FR 55586). In the August 23, 1996, SIP revision, Texas

included revisions to the approved VOC inventory. The revisions have

been made based on more recently available information from source

surveys and other methods. Much of the information was developed as

part of bottom up surveys of area source categories performed as part

of the 1993 intensive ozone study in the Houston and Beaumont areas.

This study, called the Coastal Oxidant Assessment for Southeast Texas

(COAST), included a study of area source emissions. Traditional

emission inventory techniques use national or state level statistics

for the level of activity of a source category. For example, gallons of

gasoline sold statewide might be used to determine emissions from

Gasoline Stations. These emissions would be apportioned geographically

using a surrogate such as population. In the bottom-up approach,

surveys of actual facilities are used to determine emission levels. In

addition to the data collected from bottom up surveys, other

improvements were made to the 1990 inventory. A brief discussion of the

changes made to the inventory follows.

Other Product Coatings, High Performance Maintenance and Other Special

Purpose Coatings

These categories are all surface coating categories that were

estimated for the 1990 inventory using per capita emission factors

provided by the EPA. The per capita factors were developed from

national level estimates of usage of a product divided by the 1989

population. The documentation of the coatings and emissions covered by

these categories was not initially available. The Texas Natural

Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC), with EPA approval, removed

these categories from the 1993 periodic emissions inventory. After

further study, documentation of the specific categories and coatings

was identified and the 1990 inventory has been adjusted appropriately.

Once the categories had been accurately identified, overlap with the

point source inventory could be accounted for and an improved area

source estimate was obtained.

Marine Vessel Loading Losses

Area source emissions in this category were based on estimates of

the total amount of VOCs loaded at Texas ports. Texas determined that

individual point sources had under reported emissions from this

category. When the revised point source emissions are considered, it

was determined that all of the emissions from this category in the

Houston area and the bulk of the emissions in the Beaumont area were

covered in the point source emission inventory. Therefore, the area

source estimate could be reduced in both areas.

Surface Cleaning

A contractor performed a bottom up survey of this category. This

survey was later expanded by TNRCC staff. The results of the survey

indicated that the national default estimate of emissions for this

category should be revised for the nonattainment areas in Texas.

Architectural Coatings

Texas revised emissions estimate by using more recent information

from the National Paint and Coatings Association combined with data

from surveys on thinner usage.

Automobile Refinishing

Texas used more recent information from the National Paint and

Coatings Association and source surveys to revise the emission

estimates for this category. In addition, using data from the

Department of Commerce on paint shipments, Texas projected a

substantial decrease in emissions between 1990 and 1994.

Sheet, Strip and Coil

This category was estimated for the 1990 emission factor of 1.5

tons/employee. The number of employees related to this industry was

obtained from the County Business Patterns for Standard Industrial

Classification (SIC) 3479. This SIC code includes many businesses not

engaged in coil coating operations. A list of companies involved in

coil coating operations was obtained from the national coil coaters

association. It was determined that all of the companies involved in

these operations were outside the nonattainment areas or were reporting

their emissions in the point source inventory. Therefore, including

their emissions in the area source emissions would be double counting.

Therefore, the area source emissions were removed from the inventory.

Vessels With Outboards

A telephone survey of pleasure craft owners in the Houston

Galveston and Beaumont Port Arthur areas was conducted. The survey

showed that 62 percent of boat usage occurs on weekends rather than on

weekdays. Previous emission estimates had allocated pleasure craft

emissions equally to each day of the week. It is important to know when

emissions occur in developing control strategies. In this case,

according to the EPA guidance, emissions are to be reduced from their

1990 summer time weekday levels. Therefore, Texas reduced the

[[Page 37177]]

expected weekday emissions based on the results of the survey.

Correspondingly, the weekend emissions were increased. A similar

adjustment had previously been made to the Dallas/Fort Worth inventory.

Commercial Vessels

This category of emission results from fuel combustion by ocean

going vessels, harbor vessels and the fishing fleet. Emissions were

originally estimated by using information from the Army Corps of

Engineers on freight traffic at harbors and allocating national fuel

usage to Texas. These emissions were revised based on a more recent

study performed by an EPA funded contractor in 1992. The revised

emission levels are based on estimates of activity levels for specific

categories of vessels.

Generators 1 Projection................ 583.07 73.61 1026.27

Required Reduction............... 117.55 16.19 213.27

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

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

D. Projections of Growth

As can be seen from the calculations in Table 2, an important

component of calculating the required emission reductions is to project

the amount of growth in emissions that is expected between 1990 and

1996. Since the 1996 emissions are related to the 1990 emissions, the

changes in the 1990 emission inventory resulted in changes to the 1996

projections. In addition, as discussed previously, Texas has projected

reductions in the emissions from surface cleaning, auto refinishing and

military aircraft emissions from 1990 levels.

E. Deficiencies Identified in the January 29, 1996, Federal Register

In the January 29, 1996, Federal Register, the EPA identified

several areas where it was believed that Texas had projected too much

emission reduction for particular control measures. The EPA has

reviewed the

[[Page 37178]]

State's August 9, 1996, SIP revision and believes that it addresses the

EPA's previously identified concerns. A brief discussion of the

previously identified concerns and how they have been addressed

follows:

El Paso Stage II

In the previous submittal, the EPA believed that for the El Paso

area, too much emission benefit was projected for this control measure.

Texas, in the August 23, 1996, SIP revision, corrects this problem by

adjusting the projected control efficiency from 98 percent to 95

percent.

Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Rules

Texas projected emission reductions for this category based on past

EPA guidance. The guidance, however, was changed in a memorandum dated

March 22, 1995, (Credit for the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans for

Reductions from the Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM)

Coating Rule). In the August 9, 1996, SIP revision, the emission

reduction estimate is revised based on the more recent guidance.

Emission reductions from the AIM rule are based on the rule

proposed by the EPA on June 25, 1995, which expected compliance by

April 1997. Subsequently, the issuance of the rule has been delayed.

The EPA has negotiated a compliance date of no earlier than January 1,

1998. The previous guidance allowed States to take emission reduction

credit for the AIM rule even though the reductions were not expected to

occur until April 1997. The EPA believes that even though the

compliance date has been pushed back to January 1, 1998, the emission

reduction from the national AIM rule is creditable in State 15 Percent

Plans.

Industrial Wastewater

In the January 29, 1996, Federal Register, the EPA proposed that

Texas had projected too high a control efficiency for this control

measure. The EPA continues to believe that the control efficiency

projected by Texas for this measure is too high. Texas, however,

believes that the rule effectiveness originally used for this control

measure was too low. The EPA agrees that this is likely the case. The

combination of rule effectiveness and control efficiency determine the

overall reductions. Therefore, the EPA believes that the overall

reductions should be accurate. Texas has committed to study emissions

from this category to determine actual control efficiency and rule

effectiveness for the category. In light of the above, the EPA believes

that it is appropriate to propose approval of these projected emission

reductions. The EPA will work with Texas to further study the emissions

from this source category as part of determining whether RACT has been

instituted for this category of emissions.

Employee Commute Options (ECO)

In the Houston area, Texas previously relied on this program to

provide emission reductions. The EPA approved the State ECO program on

March 7, 1995 (60 FR 12442). Public Law 104-70, which was passed by

Congress in December 1995, gave flexibility to the states in meeting

the requirements of the ECO program. Specifically, the legislation

allowed states, that prior to its enactment were required to implement

ECO programs, to ``remove such provisions from the State Implementation

Plan, or withdraw its submission, if the state notifies the

Administrator, in writing, that the state has undertaken, or will

undertake, one or more alternative methods that will achieve emission

reductions equivalent to those to be achieved by the removed or

withdrawn provisions.'' The State of Texas has removed the ECO

emissions reduction credit from the Houston 15 Percent Plan and does

not rely on the emission reduction of 1.81 ton/day which was projected

under the ECO program. In addition, the Governor of Texas has notified

EPA and requested removal of the Texas ECO rule from the SIP. For the

purposes of the 15 Percent SIP, the State has satisfied the provisions

of the 1995 legislation. The EPA will act on the Governor's request

under a separate Federal Register action to address the specific

requirements of the ECO program and its removal from the SIP.

Marine Vessel Loading

In the January 29, 1996 Federal Register, the EPA noted that Texas

had projected reductions from their Marine Vessel Loading Rule for area

sources (sources with less than 25 tons/year emissions) in this

category. The rule, however, only covered facilities with emissions

greater than 100 tons/year. Therefore, the emission reductions for area

sources could not be credited. As discussed previously, in subsequent

studies, Texas has learned that there are no area source emissions in

this category in the Houston area. Therefore, Texas has revised its

emission reduction estimates to remove the area source emission

reductions.

Acetone Substitution

Texas had projected emission reductions for the rules to regulate

the cultured (synthetic) marble and fiber reinforced plastic

operations. The EPA, however, has added acetone to the list of non-

reactive substances. Texas, in the August 9, 1996, submittal, has

removed emission reduction credit for these rules.

Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M)

The January 29, 1996 proposed limited approval/limited disapproval

did not agree with the emission reductions projected for Vehicle I/M

because Texas had discontinued the program after submittal of the 15

Percent Plan. On June 27, 1996, the Region received the State's revised

I/M plan. The plan contained provisions for the implementation of a

decentralized two-speed idle testing program. Testing is required

annually in the counties of Harris, Dallas, Tarrant, and El Paso. The

plan was submitted under the provisions of the National Highway Systems

Designations Act of 1995 (NHSDA). The plan also allows for, but does

not require, loaded mode testing in which case the test would be

biennial. There are no loaded mode testing commitments or credits

contained in the I/M or 15% plan SIPs.

In the Houston area, this is largely a new program. In the El Paso

and Dallas/Fort Worth areas the existing program is strengthened by

provisions for remote sensing, a real time data link of test stations,

auditing and enforcement, repair effectiveness support, performance

monitoring and evaluation and gas cap pressure testing. The plan start

dates were July 1, 1996, for Dallas/Fort Worth and January 1, 1997, for

Houston and El Paso.

On October 3, 1996, the Region proposed conditional interim

approval of the revised I/M plan (61 FR 51651). The proposal was

conditional because the State needed additional legal authority to

implement portions of its plan including, test on resale provisions,

enforcement of remote sensing, and authority for re-registration

denial. The approval was interim because under the provisions of the

NHDSA the State's estimates regarding network type were to be based on

good faith estimates with the credits to be evaluated at the end of an

18 month interim approval period.

The EPA has reviewed the modeling of the projected emission

reductions for the revised I/M program provided by Texas. With the

exception of the gas cap check, Texas has projected emissions

[[Page 37179]]

reductions that are consistent with EPA guidance.

However, it is the EPA's position that Texas projected more

emission reductions than the EPA feels is appropriate for their gas cap

check. The EPA has performed modeling to assess the amount of over

estimation. For the Houston, Dallas/Fort Worth and El Paso areas, the

amount of over estimation is estimated to be 0.5 tons/day, 0.8 tons/

day, and 0.2 tons/day respectively. In each of these areas there are

excess emission reductions that are sufficient to cover this over

estimation.

The I/M Program was challenged in state court. The Court recently

ruled that the two Senate Bills (19 and 178) challenged were an

unconstitutional ``taking'' and an unconstitutional interference with

contract, Texas Testing Technologies I, et al. v. The State of Texas,

No. 95-1462 (126th Dist. Court, Travis County, Texas) (April 21, 1997).

The suit is essentially a contract dispute with the State and is hence

irrelevant to today's proposal to accept the State's projected emission

reductions in the 15% SIP. The State has adequate legal authority

without the two Senate Bills' language to implement and enforce an I/M

program (except for the condititons noted in the October 1996 Federal

Register proposal). Therefore, EPA is proposing to accept the State's

projected emissions reductions with the exception of the projected

emissions from the gas cap check.

F. Impact of Vehicle I/M Start Dates

Section 182(b)(1) of the Act requires that States containing ozone

nonattainment areas classified as Moderate or above prepare SIPs that

provide for a 15 percent VOC emissions reduction by November 15, 1996.

Most of the 15 percent SIPs originally submitted to the EPA contained

enhanced I/M programs because this program achieves more VOC emission

reductions than most, if not all other, control strategies. However,

because most States experienced substantial difficulties with these

enhanced I/M programs, only a few States are currently actually testing

cars using their original enhanced I/M protocols.

In September, 1995, EPA finalized revisions to its enhanced I/M

rule allowing states significant flexibility in designing I/M programs

appropriate for their needs (60 FR 48029). Subsequently, Congress

enacted the NHSDA, which provides States with more flexibility in

determining the design of enhanced I/M programs. The substantial amount

of time needed by States to re-design enhanced I/M programs in

accordance with the guidance contained within the NHSDA, secure state

legislative approval when necessary, and set up the infrastructure to

perform the testing program precluded States that revise their I/M

programs from obtaining emission reductions from such revised programs

by November 15, 1996.

Given the heavy reliance by many States upon enhanced I/M programs

to help achieve the 15 Percent VOC emissions reduction required under

section 182(b)(1) of the Act, and the recent NHSDA and regulatory

changes regarding enhanced I/M programs, the EPA recognized that it was

no longer possible for many states to achieve the portion of the 15

percent reductions that is attributed to I/M by November 15, 1996.

Under these circumstances, disapproval of the 15 percent SIPs would

serve no purpose. Consequently, under certain circumstances, the EPA

will propose to allow States that pursue redesign of enhanced I/M

programs to receive emission reduction credit from these programs

within their 15 Percent Plans, even though the emissions reductions

from the I/M program will occur after November 15, 1996.

Specifically, the EPA will propose approval of 15 percent SIPs if

the emissions reductions from the revised, enhanced I/M programs, as

well as from the other 15 Percent Plan measures, will achieve the 15

Percent target level as soon after November 15, 1996, as practicable.

To make this ``as soon as practicable'' determination, the EPA must

determine that the 15 Percent SIP contains all VOC control strategies

that are practicable for the nonattainment area in question and that

meaningfully accelerate the date by which the 15% level is achieved.

EPA does not believe that measures meaningfully accelerate the 15

Percent date if they provide only an insignificant amount of

reductions.

G. Acceptability of Texas 15 Percent Plans

In the case of the Dallas/Fort Worth, El Paso and Houston areas,

Texas has submitted 15 Percent SIP revisions that demonstrate they

achieve the necessary 15 Percent reductions from I/M by the end of

1997. The Texas I/M program is an annual program which began in Dallas/

Fort Worth on July 1, 1996, and in El Paso and Houston on January 1,

1997. Texas submitted 15 Percent SIPs for Dallas/Fort Worth, El Paso,

and Houston that included creditable control measures. Emission

reductions resulting from the implementation of the state adopted

control measures in the 15 Percent Plans have already occurred. Texas

has relied on reductions from the AIM rule. The AIM reductions are

expected to occur by January 1, 1998. Therefore, the EPA believes that

these plans will achieve the required reductions by January 1, 1998.

The EPA believes that these SIPs contain measures, including I/M, that

achieve the required reductions as soon as practicable for these

nonattainment areas.

The EPA has examined other potentially available SIP measures to

determine if they are practicable for the Dallas/Fort Worth, El Paso

and Houston Areas and if they would meaningfully accelerate the date by

which these areas reach the 15 Percent level of reductions. EPA

proposes to determine that the SIPs for the Dallas/Fort Worth, El Paso

and Houston Areas contain the appropriate measures. For the Dallas/Fort

Worth, El Paso and Houston area no additional measures were identified

that could be implemented to meaningfully accelerate the date by which

the 15 Percent target level could be attained. For a complete

discussion of the control measures considered, please see the Technical

Support Document for this action.

Tables 3 through 5 summarize the control measures and the

associated emission reductions used to achieve the 15 Percent targets.

Table 3.--Summary of Emission Reductions: Dallas/Fort Worth (Tons/Day)

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

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

Required Reduction......................................... 117.55

Creditable Reductions:

RACT Catch-up.......................................... 4.03

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

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

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

I/M, FMVCP Tier I, Reformulated Gas.................... 69.46

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

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

[[Page 37180]]

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

RE Improvements........................................ 4.86

Gas Utility Engines.................................... 7.76

Reform Off Road........................................ 4.23

TCMs................................................... 6.94

Consumer/Commercial Products........................... 4.09

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

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

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

AIM.................................................... 4.77

Traffic Markings....................................... 0.56

High Performance Maintenance........................... 0.96

Other Special Purpose Coatings......................... 1.18

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

Total.............................................. 136.07

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

Table 4.--Summary Emission Reductions: El Paso (Tons/Day)

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

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

Required Reduction......................................... 16.19

Creditable Reductions:

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

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

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

FMVCP Tier I, I/M, Low RVP............................. 7.37

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

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

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

RE Improvements........................................ 1.63

Gas Utility Engines.................................... 0.88

TCMs................................................... 0.35

Architectural Coatings................................. 0.80

Consumer/Commercial Products........................... 0.70

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

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

Bulk Gasoline Terminals................................ 0.77

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

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

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

Traffic Markings....................................... 0.09

High Performance Maintenance........................... 0.12

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

Total.............................................. 18.32

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

Table 5.--Summary Emission Reductions: Houston/Galveston (Tons/Day)

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

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

Required Reduction........................................ 213.27

Creditable Reductions:

RACT Catch-up......................................... 27.81

TSDF.................................................. 13.48

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

General Vent Gas...................................... 13.97

Reform Gas, I/M, Tier I FMVCP......................... 40.41

Reform (Off Road)..................................... 5.30

Vessel Cleaning/Degassing............................. 3.01

Stage I............................................... 6.26

SOCMI Rct. & Dist..................................... 1.68

Fugitive Controls..................................... 46.03

RE Improvements....................................... 12.82

Gas Utility Engines................................... 8.47

TCMs.................................................. 0.36

Consumer/Commercial Products.......................... 4.44

Marine Vessel loading................................. 15.73

Gasoline Terminals.................................... 3.36

Wood Coating.......................................... 0.37

Bakeries.............................................. 0.22

Architectural Coatings................................ 5.03

Industrial Wastewater................................. 8.56

Traffic Markings...................................... 0.56

Other Special Purpose................................. 1.24

High Performance Maintenance.......................... 0.99

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

[[Page 37181]]

Total............................................. 237

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

III. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

The Clean Air Act, section 176(c), and the transportation

conformity rule require the states to establish motor vehicle emissions

budgets (MVEB) in any control strategy SIP that is submitted for

attainment and maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality

Standards. These budgets will be used to determine if future

transportation plans conform with State air quality plans. The budget

for each area has been calculated by projecting the 1996 Motor Vehicle

emissions and subtracting the emission reductions from planned emission

control programs. The State of Texas has established a MVEB for VOC for

Dallas/Fort Worth, El Paso, and Houston. The EPA is proposing to give

conditional interim approval of the following MVEB:

Table 6.--1996 VOC Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

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

VOC (Tons

Area per Day)

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

Dallas/Fort Worth............................................ 165.49

El Paso...................................................... 21.63

Houston...................................................... 152.12

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

IV. Contingency Measures

Ozone areas classified as moderate or above must include in their

submittals, under section 172(c)(9) of the Act, 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 planning by the State is needed. Therefore, the

EPA interprets the Act 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

This measure was adopted as part of the 15 Percent Plans for the

Houston area. It was also adopted as a contingency measure 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.

Dry Cleaning Naphtha

This measure 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 measure and

believes that it will achieve the projected reductions in the event it

must be implemented.

Offset Printing

Regulation of emissions from offset printing was adopted as a 15

Percent Plan 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.

Commercial Bakeries

Texas adopted control measures for major source bakeries in Dallas/

Fort Worth and Houston as part of the 15 Percent Plans. Texas also

adopted for Dallas 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.

Transportation Control Measures (TCM)

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. TCMs are

measures such as High Occupancy Vehicle lanes that reduce emissions by

modifying the transportation system. The EPA believes the projected

emission reductions have been quantified appropriately.

Gas Utility Engines

In all three areas, Texas has projected emission reductions that

will occur from the small engine rule in the year following the

required milestone demonstration or 1997. The EPA believes that these

reductions have been quantified appropriately.

Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance and Tier I

All of the contingency plans rely to some extent on reductions from

the inspection and maintenance program. As discussed previously, the

planned I/M reductions are not expected to occur until the end of 1997.

Additional reductions from I/M cannot be expected to occur in the time

frame envisioned for contingency measures. Therefore, these reductions

cannot be credited toward the contingency measures.

However, reductions in excess of the 15 percent plans and

requirements achieved from measures enumerated above are sufficient to

ensure that the contingency measure target of three percent is met. If

Texas has to implement these measures for contingency purposes or for

future plans then the State will have one year to backfill the

contingency plan.

Table 7.--Summary of Acceptable Contingency Measures: Dallas/Fort Worth

(Tons/Day)

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

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

Required Contingency....................................... 16.46

Creditable Contingency Reductions:

Vessel Cleaning........................................ 0.18

Dry Cleaning Naphtha................................... 2.22

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

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

[[Page 37182]]

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

Gas Utility Engines 1997............................... 0.73

Excess reductions from 15 Percent measures............. 18.52

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

Total.............................................. 24.68

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

Table 8.--Summary of Contingency Measure Reductions: El Paso (tons/day)

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

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

Required Contingency....................................... 2.08

Creditable Contingency Reductions:

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

Dry Cleaning Naphtha................................... 0.30

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

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

Gas Utility Engines 1997............................... 0.08

Excess reductions from 15 percent measures............. 2.13

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

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

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

Table 9.--Summary of Contingency Measure Reductions: Houston/Galveston

(tons/day)

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

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

Required Contingency....................................... 29.26

Creditable Contingency Reductions:

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

Dry Cleaning-Naphtha................................... 1.88

Offset Printing........................................ 2.20

Gas Utility Engines 1997............................... 0.76

Excess Reductions from 15% measures.................... 23.73

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

Total.............................................. 32.56

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

V. Rulemaking Action

The EPA has evaluated the Emissions Inventory, 15 Percent Plans and

contingency measures submitted as part of the August 23, 1996 SIP

revision for Texas. The EPA has also reviewed the MVEB associated with

these 15% plans. The EPA proposes to give full approval of the

revisions to the 1990 base year inventory for Dallas/Fort Worth, El

Paso and Houston/Galveston Areas. The EPA proposes to give Conditional

Interim approval of the 15 Percent Plans and associated MVEB for the

three areas. Finally, the EPA proposes to give full approval of the

contingency plans for these three areas.

The 15 Percent Plans for the three areas can only receive a

conditional interim approval because the plans all rely in part on

emission reductions from the revised I/M program. The EPA proposed

conditional interim approval of the I/M program for the three areas on

October 3, 1996. Therefore, the 15 Percent Plans can only receive

conditional interim approval.

Interim Approval

The NHSDA allows States to make a ``good faith'' estimate of the

reductions that will be achieved by the I/M program. The I/M program

can be given interim approval during an 18 month period during which

the program is evaluated to validate the ``good faith'' estimate. At

the end of the 18-month interim period, the interim approval status for

the I/M program will automatically lapse pursuant to the NHSDA. It is

expected that the State will, at that time, be able to make a

demonstration of the program's effectiveness using an appropriate

evaluation criteria. If the State fails to provide a demonstration of

the program's effectiveness to EPA within 18 months of the final

interim I/M rulemaking, the interim approval will lapse, and EPA will

be forced to disapprove the State's permanent I/M SIP revision. An I/M

disapproval will result in a 15 Percent Plan disapproval unless

substitute emission reductions are submitted. Information from the I/M

program evaluation showing the program achieves a lesser amount of

reductions than originally projected will be used in the final action

on the 15 Percent Plans. Further discussion of the requirements for

final approval of the

I/M program are discussed in the October 3, 1996, Federal Register (61

FR 51651).

Conditional Approval

The EPA is proposing a conditional approval of the 15 Percent Plans

contingent upon the State meeting the conditions outlined in the

proposed I/M conditional approval. These include the State obtaining

the appropriate legislative authority as needed to implement the

program outlined in the Governor's Executive Order. The EPA proposes

that if the State fails to obtain the needed additional legal authority

within 12 months of final conditional interim approval of the 15

Percent Plans, the 15 Percent Plan approval will convert to a

disapproval after a letter is sent notifying the State of the

conversion to disapproval.

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or

allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for

revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to

the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light

of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature

by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the

Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a

July 10, 1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator

for Air and

[[Page 37183]]

Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this

regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of

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

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

significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small

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

and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than

50,000.

Conditional approvals of SIP submittals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the 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 Act, preparation of a flexibility

analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of State action. The Act forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds. See Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA,

427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

If the conditional approval is converted to a disapproval under

section 110(k), based on the State's failure to meet the commitment, it

will not affect any existing State requirements applicable to small

entities. Federal disapproval of the State submittal does not affect

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

does not impose a new Federal requirement. Therefore, EPA certifies

that this disapproval action does not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities because it does not remove

existing requirements nor does it substitute a new Federal requirement.

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995,

signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact

statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a

Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or

tribal governments in the aggregate; or to private sector, of $100

million or more. Under Section 205, EPA must select the most cost-

effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

The EPA has determined that the conditional approval action

proposed does not include a Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or

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

Federal action approves preexisting requirements under State or local

law, and imposes no new Federal requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the

private sector, result from this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: July 1, 1997.

Jerry Clifford,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97-18244 Filed 7-10-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P