Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans (SIP) for Texas: Houston Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Offset Plan

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[TX 57-1-7183: FRL-5911-6]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans (SIP) for

Texas: Houston Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Offset Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rulemaking.

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

[[Page 54599]]

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to disapprove the SIP revision submitted

by the State of Texas for the Houston/Galveston Area (HGA) severe ozone

nonattainment area to meet the VMT offset plan requirements of section

182 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (the Act). The EPA is proposing

disapproval because the State's VMT Offset SIP uses modeling which

relies upon an Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) program that was

halted. This action is being taken under sections 110 and 182 of the

Act.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 20, 1997.

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

Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section, at the EPA Region 6

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: Ms. Sandra G. Rennie, Air Planning

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

2733, telephone (214) 665-7367.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Section 182(d)of the Act, requires ozone nonattainment areas

classified as severe or above to develop plans for VMT offsets. Section

182(d)(1)(A) requires the State to submit plans which will identify and

adopt specific enforceable transportation control strategies and

Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) to offset growth in vehicle

emissions so that, as vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled

increase, vehicle emissions stay below an established ceiling as

projected out to the attainment date for the National Ambient Air

Quality Standards for the nonattainment area requiring the VMT Offsets

plan. The HGA is classified as a severe ozone nonattainment area with

an attainment deadline of 2007. Reduction in vehicle emissions is to be

attained as necessary, in combination with other emission reduction

requirements to comply with periodic emissions reduction requirements.

States were directed to consider, choose, and implement measures as

specified in section 108(f). The VMT Offsets Plans were due to be

submitted to EPA by November 15, 1992. The State submitted a

``committal'' SIP to the EPA for VMT offsets for the HGA nonattainment

area on November 15, 1992. This submittal committed to submitting

subsequent SIPs in 1993 and 1994 to parallel the development of the

Rate-of-Progress SIP revision due November 15, 1993 and the

demonstration of attainment SIP revision due by November 1994.

On November 12, 1993, and November 6, 1994, the State of Texas

submitted a revision to the SIP for the VMT Offsets Plan to fulfill the

``committal'' SIP requirement. The Plan was submitted using specific

modeling for vehicle emissions based on, among other things, a vehicle

inspection and maintenance test-only program with most vehicles

receiving an I/M loaded mode transient emission test known as the

``IM240.'' EPA approved the I/M program on August 22, 1994 (59 FR

43046). This program began operation in January 1995, before being

halted by the Texas Legislature and Governor.

Various states, including Texas, desired greater flexibility in

implementing their I/M programs. On September 18, 1995, EPA revised and

finalized I/M rules that gave states much greater flexibility in

implementing I/M programs. One element of the I/M flexibility

amendments included a provision for a new low enhanced performance

standard that would allow for less stringent I/M programs if overall

air quality goals were met. In addition, on November 28, 1995,

President Clinton signed the National Highway System Designation Act of

1995 (NHSDA) which allowed even greater flexibility in I/M programs for

states, especially in the area of emission reduction estimates.

In response to this additional flexibility, the State of Texas

submitted a revised I/M program to EPA. The EPA proposed conditional

interim approval of this new plan on October 3, 1996 (61 FR 51651). As

a result, the State of Texas has implemented a decentralized testing

network which allows for both test-and-repair and test-only stations,

and includes remote sensing. Vehicles are subject to a two-speed idle

test, and an optional Acceleration Simulation Mode (ASM) loaded mode

test. This program is referred to as the Texas Motorist Choice Program.

Therefore, the modeling in the VMT Offset SIP is no longer current. The

Plan's modeling does not reflect the Texas Motorist Choice I/M program;

it reflects a program no longer in use. The EPA believes this is a

significant deficiency which prohibits approval of the SIP under

sections 110 and 182 of the Act.

For further information regarding EPA's analysis of the State

submittal, refer to the Technical Support Document for this action

found in the official docket.

II. Evaluation of Houston VMT SIP

While the current Texas Motorist Choice vehicle emission testing

program appears to fulfill the requirements of the NHSDA, the Clean Air

Act, and Federal I/M Rules, it presents a significant inconsistency

within the VMT Offset SIP. This review compares the State's VMT Offset

SIP submittal with the Act to determine compliance with requirements in

the Act. The following narrative highlights the deficiency and

rationale for disapproving this SIP revision.

The EPA interprets 182(d)(1)(A) to require sufficient measures be

adopted so that projected motor vehicle volatile organic compound

emissions will stay beneath a ceiling level established through

modeling of mandated transportation-related controls. When growth in

VMT and vehicle trips would otherwise cause a motor vehicle emissions

upturn, this upturn must be prevented by VMT offset measures. If

projected total motor vehicle emissions during the ozone season in one

year are not higher than during the ozone season the year before due to

the control measures in the SIP, the VMT offset requirement is

satisfied.

In order to make these projections, two curves of vehicle emissions

are calculated. The upper curve includes the effects of mandated

controls such as reformulated gasoline, Reid Vapor Pressure control of

gasoline, the employer trip reduction program, transportation control

measures committed to in the 1993 TCM SIP, and an enhanced I/M program.

The lower curve is produced by using an enhanced I/M program expanded

into additional counties and other TCMs.

The November 15, 1993, VMT Offset SIP revision included a

projection of the mobile source emissions profile for the HGA

nonattainment area through the year 2010. The profile included the

effects of required reductions from the mandatory vehicle I/M program

in Harris and Galveston Counties, Reid vapor pressure controls,

reformulated gasoline, an employee trip reduction program, Stage II

vapor recovery for refueling, and a clean fuel fleets program. An

estimation of the lowest point in these emissions projections was

established as a ceiling for mobile source emissions. The lower curve

includes the expansion of the enhanced

[[Page 54600]]

I/M program into three additional counties in 1995 and another three

counties in 1997.

The November 6, 1994, submittal included a modification of the

mobile source emissions projections and ceiling level to reflect

updated information and methodology as well as TCMs and mobile source

controls necessary to achieve VMT offset at least through the year

2010.

The final emissions estimates for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

were obtained by multiplying the VMT times the vehicle emissions

factor. Vehicle miles traveled data was generated from the Texas Travel

Demand Package developed and maintained by the Texas Department of

Transportation. Transit mode-choice estimates were performed by the

Metropolitan Transit Authority using their mode choice models. Mobile

source emission factors were obtained using the MOBILE5a model approved

by EPA. Results of the updated modeling demonstration are found in

Appendix B of the 1994 SIP submittal. The MOBILE5a model estimated

emissions based on a number of input parameters. Among these were I/M

program type and test type. The estimates were obtained using a test

only I/M program type with either a loaded/idle test or a transient

test. The geographic coverage of the I/M program in the Houston area

was assumed to cover eight counties to include the commuting areas

surrounding Harris County.

In the Texas Motorist Choice I/M Program, adopted by the State and

in operation, not only has the program type changed to primarily a

test-and-repair format, but the majority of the test stations offer

only the loaded/idle test. In addition, the geographic area for

mandatory testing has been reduced to just Harris County, with remote

testing proposed, but not yet implemented, to monitor traffic coming

into Harris County from the surrounding counties. With these major

changes in mobile source emission parameters, the modeling may project

different estimates of mobile source emissions, thereby impacting the

emission levels projected to demonstrate the VMT Offset SIP

requirements of the Act. The submitted SIP does not reflect any of the

changes discussed above.

Employee Trip Reduction (ETR) programs are no longer required under

the Act. Texas has dropped its ETR program and requested a withdrawal

of the ETR program from the SIP. However, ETR credits were used in

modeling VMT offsets. The ETR credits can no longer be used in VMT

modeling, further emphasizing the need to revise the SIP submittal.

In summary, the HGA VMT SIP submittal is based on out-of-date

modeling and must be revised. Motor vehicle emission reductions claimed

for the vehicle I/M program will have changed since the SIP revision

was submitted in 1993 and 1994. Elimination of the ETR program by the

State eliminates the use of ETR emission reductions in the VMT SIP

modeling demonstration. Based on the above analysis, EPA cannot approve

the HGA VMT SIP.

III. Proposed Action

The EPA proposes to disapprove the HGA VMT Offset SIP under

sections 110(k) and 182 of the Act because one or more of the elements

of the VMT SIP submitted on November 12, 1993, and August 16, 1994, are

incorrect. The VMT SIP submittal represents vehicle emission credits at

one level based on modeling using a test-only I/M loaded mode transient

emission test (IM240). That particular program was halted after a few

weeks of operation. The State has since chosen to implement a different

program, the Texas Motorist Choice Program, which is a test and repair

program with a two-speed idle test or ASM loaded mode test, in a

reduced geographic area, plus remote sensing to cover the outlying

commuter areas. It is EPA's position that the emission reduction

credits for the Texas Motorist Choice Program will be significantly

different than those for an IM240 test only program. Consequently, the

projected motor vehicle emissions in the August 16, 1994, VMT Offset

SIP submittal are incorrect. They are based on an I/M program that is

not in existence. They also do not reflect the projections of the new

program.

In addition, due to the elimination of the ETR program, the

modeling is based on incorrect information. Therefore, the emission

reductions projected could not be reflecting the trends of VMT in the

Houston area.

The State recently approved and submitted a revision to the HGA VMT

offset SIP to correct concerns raised in this notice. We expect to

review and take appropriate action on the latest revision rather than

finalize this disapproval.

Under section 179(a)(2), if the EPA Administrator takes final

disapproval action on 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, and the deficiency is not

corrected within 18 months of the effective date of the final

disapproval action, the Administrator must apply one of the sanctions

set forth in section 179(b) of the Act. Section 179(b) provides two

sanctions available to the Administrator: revocation of highway funding

and the imposition of emission offset requirements. If the

administrator imposes the first sanction and the deficiency is not

corrected within six months, the second sanction shall apply. The

sanctions shall apply until the administrator determines that the State

has come into compliance. This sanctions process is set forth in 40 CFR

52.31. Today's action serves only to propose disapproval of the State's

revision, and does not constitute final agency action. Thus, the

sanctions process described above does not commence with today's

action. The 18 month period for the State to correct the deficiency

would begin upon the effective date of a final disapproval action.

Nothing in today's action 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 the SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and

environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order 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.

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

110 and 301, and subchapter I, part D of the Act does not affect any

existing requirements applicable to small entities. Any preexisting

Federal requirements remain in place after this proposed disapproval.

Federal disapproval of the State submittal does not affect its State-

enforceability. Moreover, the EPA's disapproval of the submittal does

not impose any new Federal requirements. Therefore, the EPA certifies

that this proposed

[[Page 54601]]

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.

C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

Under section 801(a)(1)(A) of the Administrative Procedures Act

(APA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness

Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. House of Representatives and the

Comptroller General of the General Accounting Office prior to

publication of the rule in today's Federal Register. This rule is not a

``major rule'' as defined by section 804(2) of the APA as amended.

D. Unfunded Mandates Act

Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandate 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 aggregate; or to the 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 proposed disapproval action 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 does not

impose new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State,

local, or tribal governments, or private sector, result from this

action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: October 8, 1997.

Jerry Clifford,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97-27848 Filed 10-20-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P