[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 189 (Tuesday, September 29, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60928-60933]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20849]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2020-0300; FRL-10014-58-Region 6]

Air Plan Approval; Texas; Reasonable Further Progress Plan for
the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Ozone Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions
to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) to meet the Reasonable
Further Progress (RFP) requirements for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria
(HGB) serious ozone nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Specifically, EPA is proposing to
approve the RFP demonstration and associated motor vehicle emission
budgets, contingency measures should the area fail to make RFP
emissions reductions or attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date, and a revised 2011 base year emissions inventory for
the HGB area.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 29, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2020-0300, at https://www.regulations.gov or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact Carrie Paige, 214-665-
exception occurred on : 2020-20849.htm
exception occurred on : 2020-20849.htm
6521, paige.carrie[email protected]. For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov. While all documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some information may not be publicly
available due to docket file size restrictions or content (e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carrie Paige, EPA Region 6 Office,
Infrastructure & Ozone Section,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Out
of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff, the
EPA Region 6 office may be closed to the public to reduce the risk of
transmitting COVID-19. We encourage the public to submit comments via
https://www.regulations.gov, as there may be a delay in processing mail
and courier or hand deliveries may not be accepted. Please call or
email the contact listed above if you need alternative access to
material indexed but not provided in the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

I. Introduction

    On May 13, 2020, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ or State) submitted to EPA a SIP revision addressing RFP
requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the two serious ozone
nonattainment areas in Texas (``the TCEQ submittal''). These two areas
are the HGB and the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) areas. The TCEQ submittal
also establishes motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the year
2020 and includes contingency measures for each of the HGB and DFW
areas, should the areas fail to make reasonable further progress, or to
attain

the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.
    In this rulemaking action, we are addressing only that portion of
the TCEQ submittal that refers to the HGB area. We are proposing to
approve the RFP demonstration and associated contingency measures for
RFP or failure-to-attain and MVEBs for the HGB area. We are also
proposing to approve a revised 2011 base year emissions inventory (EI)
for the HGB area. The portion of the TCEQ submittal that refers to the
DFW area will be addressed in a separate rulemaking action.

II. Background

    In 2008, we revised the 8-hour ozone primary and secondary NAAQS to
a level of 0.075 parts per million (ppm) to provide increased
protection of public health and the environment (73 FR 16436, March 27,
2008).\1\ The HGB area was classified as a marginal ozone nonattainment
area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS \2\ and initially given an attainment
date of no later than December 31, 2015 (77 FR 30088 and 77 FR 30160,
May 21, 2012). The HGB area consists of Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend,
Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery and Waller counties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On October 1, 2015, the EPA promulgated a more protective 8-
hour ozone standard of 0.070 ppm (80 FR 65292, October 26, 2015). On
April 30, 2018, the EPA promulgated designations under the 2015
ozone standard (83 FR 25776, June 4, 2018) and in that action, the
EPA designated Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, and
Montgomery counties as a marginal ozone nonattainment area. The RFP
plan is not required for a marginal nonattainment area under the
2015 ozone standard. The TCEQ submittal does not specifically
address the 2015 ozone standard, but provides progress toward
attaining the new standard. For more information on ozone, see our
Technical Support Document (TSD) in the docket for this rulemaking
and visit https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution.
    \2\ Throughout this document, we refer to the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS as the ``2008 ozone NAAQS.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit Court issued a decision
rejecting, among other things, our attainment deadlines for the 2008
ozone nonattainment areas, finding that we did not have statutory
authority under the CAA to extend those deadlines to the end of the
calendar year. NRDC v. EPA, 777 F.3d 456, 464-69 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
Consistent with the court's decision we modified the attainment
deadlines for all nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and set
the attainment deadline for all 2008 ozone marginal nonattainment
areas, including the HGB area as July 20, 2015 (80 FR 12264, March 6,
2015). The HGB area qualified for a 1-year extension of the attainment
date and we revised the attainment date to July 20, 2016 (81 FR 26697,
May 4, 2016). The HGB area did not meet the revised attainment deadline
and we reclassified the area to moderate with an attainment date no
later than July 20, 2018 (81 FR 90207, December 14, 2016).
Subsequently, the HGB area did not meet the moderate attainment date
and was reclassified as a serious ozone nonattainment area (84 FR
44238, August 23, 2019).\3\ Accordingly, the State was required to
submit revisions to the HGB SIP to meet serious area requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For more on the history of ozone in the HGB area, see our
TSD in the docket for this rulemaking and visit https://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/sip/hgb/hgb-ozone-history.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CAA requires that areas designated as nonattainment for ozone
and classified as moderate or worse demonstrate RFP by reducing
emissions of ozone precursors (nitrogen oxides or NOX and
volatile organic compounds or VOC).\4\ On March 6, 2015 (80 FR 12264),
EPA published the final rule to implement the 2008 ozone standard (the
``SIP Requirements Rule'' or ``SRR'') that addressed, among other
things, the RFP control and planning obligations as they apply to areas
designated nonattainment for the 2008 ozone standard. In the SRR, RFP
was defined (for the purposes of the 2008 ozone standard) as meaning
the progress reductions required under sections 172(c)(2) and 182(b)(1)
and (c)(2)(B) and (c)(2)(C) of the CAA (80 FR 12264, 12313).\5\ RFP
plans must also include a MVEB, which provides the allowable on-road
mobile emissions an area can produce and continue to demonstrate RFP
(57 FR 13498, 13558, April 16, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See CAA sections 172(c)(2) and 182(b)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1110.
    \5\ See 40 CFR 51.1110.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The RFP plan for the HGB moderate ozone nonattainment area for the
2008 ozone NAAQS was approved on February 13, 2019 (84 FR 3708) and it
demonstrated required emissions reductions through the end of calendar
year 2017. Because the HGB area was reclassified as a serious ozone
nonattainment area, pursuant to CAA section 182(c)(2) and 40 CFR
51.1110, the RFP SIP for the HGB area must demonstrate NOX
and/or VOC emissions reductions of at least an average of 3 percent per
year for the calendar years 2018, 2019, and 2020 for a total of 9
percent and an additional 3 percent for contingency measures in 2021,
should the area fail to meet RFP or fail to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS
by the July 20, 2021 attainment date. Finally, the emissions reductions
must occur within the HGB area.

III. EPA's Evaluation of the TCEQ Submittal

    We reviewed the TCEQ submittal for consistency with the
requirements of the CAA and EPA regulations and guidance. A summary of
our analysis and findings are provided below. For a more detailed
discussion of our evaluation, please see our TSD in the docket for this
rulemaking action.

A. Revised 2011 Base Year Emissions Inventory

    An emissions inventory (EI) is a collection of data that lists, by
source, the amount of air pollutants discharged into the atmosphere,
during a year or other time period. The EI includes estimates of the
emissions associated with the air quality problems in the area (in this
case, NOX and VOC) from various pollution sources. The State
submitted a 2011 base year EI for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, which we
approved for the HGB area (80 FR 9204).\6\ The State later revised the
2011 base year EI for the HGB area, which we approved (84 FR 3708). In
the TCEQ submittal, the State further refined the 2011 base year EI for
the HGB area. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.1110(b), the values in the
submitted 2011 base year EI are actual ozone season day emissions.
Pursuant to CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(b)(1), the submitted 2011
base year EI consists of NOX and VOC emissions from all
sources inside the nonattainment area. Compared with that approved at
84 FR 3708, the submitted 2011 base year NOX emissions
decrease by 17.02 tons per day (tpd) and VOC emissions increase by 3.66
tpd. The revised 2011 base year EI was developed using EPA-approved
guidelines for point, mobile, and area emission sources. Point source
emissions data for 2011 were pulled from the State of Texas Air
Reporting System (STARS) database--these data also include all
authorized/planned Startup, Shutdown and Maintenance emissions.\7\ On-
road and nonroad mobile source emissions were calculated using the
EPA's MOVES2014a model \8\ combined with

local activity inputs including vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and
average speed data, as well as local fleet, age distribution, and fuels
information. Area sources include many categories of emissions. The EPA
finds that these sources were adequately accounted for in the revised
2011 base year EI. The methodology used to calculate emissions for each
respective category followed relevant EPA EI guidance \9\ and was
sufficiently documented in the TCEQ Submittal.\10\ We are proposing to
approve the revised 2011 base year EI. Table 1 summarizes the revised
EI for the HGB area. See our TSD for more detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See also the EI regulations at 40 CFR 51.1115.
    \7\ States are not obligated to include malfunction emissions in
the base year inventory for RFP plans. See the discussion beginning
on page 83 of Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of
Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations EPA-454/B-17-003, available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-07/documents/ei_guidance_may_2017_final_rev.pdf (hereinafter referred to as
``EPA's EI Guidance'') (July 2017).
    \8\ EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) is a state-
of-the-science emission modeling system that estimates emissions for
mobile sources at the national, county, and project level for
criteria air pollutants, greenhouse gases, and air toxics. See
https://www.epa.gov/moves.
    \9\ In addition to EPA's EI Guidance, see MOVES2014 and
MOVES2014a Technical Guidance: Using MOVES to Prepare Emission
Inventories for State Implementation Plans and Transportation
Conformity, EPA-420-B-15-093, available at https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100NN9L.PDF?Dockey=P100NN9L.pdf (Nov. 2015).
    \10\ See our TSD and the TCEQ submittal with appendices in the
docket for this rulemaking.

                                       Table 1--HGB RFP 2011 Base Year EI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    2011 Base year inventory, reported in tpd
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                NOX                             VOC
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                   Source type                    Approved at 84      Revised     Approved at 84      Revised
                                                      FR 3708        inventory        FR 3708        inventory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................          108.33          108.33           95.99           95.97
Area............................................           21.15           21.15          304.90          308.53
Non-road Mobile.................................          142.44          144.84           49.78           50.11
On-road Mobile..................................          188.02          168.60           80.73           80.45
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................          459.94          442.92          531.40          535.06
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Reasonable Further Progress Demonstration

    To calculate the required RFP emission reductions, CAA section 182
and 40 CFR 51.1110(b) require that the percent reduction be calculated
from the base year EI. The required reductions are then subtracted from
the 2011 base year EI to provide the RFP emissions target numbers. See
our TSD and the TCEQ submittal for more detail. The RFP calculations
are shown in Table 2.

   Table 2--Calculation of RFP Target Emission Reductions Through 2020
                                  [tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Description                      NOX             VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. 2011 Emissions Inventory (totals from          442.92          535.06
 Table 1)...............................
b. Percent of NOX and VOC to meet 15%              10.0%            5.0%
 reduction \11\ (percentages must total
 15, and 10 + 5 = 15)...................
c. Percent of NOX and VOC to meet 9%                6.2%            2.8%
 reduction (percentages must total 9,
 and 6.2 + 2.8 = 9).....................
d. 15% NOX and VOC reduction, 2011-2017            44.29           26.75
 (row a multiplied by row b) (442.92 x
 0.1 = 44.29) and (535.06 x 0.05 =
 26.75).................................
e. 9% NOX and VOC reduction, 2018-2020             27.46           14.98
 (row a multiplied by row c) (442.92 x
 0.062 = 27.46) and (535.06 x 0.028 =
 14.98).................................
f. Total emissions reductions for 2011-            71.75           41.73
 2020 (row d plus row e)................
g. 2020 Target Level of Emissions (row a          371.17          493.33
 minus row f)...........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine whether the area is able to meet the RFP target, the
State must establish the future year (2020) EI and subtract any control
measures that will be applied to sources in the HGB area. Section
182(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires that states provide sufficient control
measures in their RFP plans to offset growth in emissions. The controls
identified by the State to achieve RFP are listed in Table 3. For more
detail on these controls, see our TSD and the TCEQ submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ To account for the reductions required and taken under the
moderate area RFP plan, we reduce emissions by 15% between 2011 and
2017. See 84 FR 3708.

  Table 3--HGB Area Control Measures and Projected Emission Reductions
                            (tpd), 2011-2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Control strategy description              NOX             VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program             561.84          245.62
 (FMVCP)................................
Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) \12\/Low              101.55           16.96
 Sulfur Gasoline/Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel
 (ULSD).................................
Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) (66 FR             5.13            7.39
 57261, 11/14/2001).....................
On-road Texas Low-Emission Diesel                   2.39            0.00
 (TxLED) \13\...........................
Tier I and II locomotive NOX standards..           21.02            0.81
Small non-road spark-ignition (SI)                 -3.17           25.60
 engines (Phase I)......................
Heavy duty non-road engines.............           26.71           13.71
Tiers 2 and 3 non-road diesel engines...           30.22            2.62
Small non-road SI engines (Phase II)....            2.22           23.67
Large non-road SI and recreational                 37.37           16.51
 marine.................................
Non-road TxLED..........................            1.36            0.00

Non-road RFG............................            0.01            0.73
Tier 4 non-road diesel engines..........           17.70            0.78
Small SI (Phase III)....................            2.16           15.43
Drilling rigs: Federal engine standards             0.43            0.09
 and TxLED..............................
Commercial Marine Vessel engine                    14.76            0.12
 certification standards and fuel
 programs...............................
                                         -------------------------------
    Total Projected Emission Reductions.          821.70          370.04
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine whether the area will meet the RFP targets, we
subtract the projected emission reductions (Table 3) from the projected
EI of uncontrolled emissions for 2020. This projected EI will reflect
emissions resulting from anticipated changes in activity from 2011 to
2020, such as emissions increases due to growth in population and VMT.
NOX emissions from sites with equipment applicable to the
Mass Emissions Cap and Trade (MECT) Program were projected using the
MECT cap. Major stationary sources of VOC emissions were projected by
adding emissions growth allowed under the nonattainment New Source
Review NSR major modification thresholds. The projected EI was also
adjusted to account for available (unused) emissions credits.\14\ For
more detail on the projected EI, please see our TSD and the TCEQ
submittal. The methodology used to forecast the 2020 emissions for each
respective category followed relevant EPA EI guidance and was
sufficiently documented in the TCEQ submittal. The projected EI data in
Table 4 are labeled as ``uncontrolled'' emissions. To achieve RFP, the
amount of emissions remaining after subtracting the emissions
reductions from the control measures must be equal to or less than the
target inventories calculated in Table 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The RFG program is implemented in all 8 counties identified
elsewhere in this proposal as the HGB area. For more information on
the RFG program, visit https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards/reformulated-gasoline.
    \13\ The TxLED fuel rules apply to highway (on-road) and non-
road vehicles and were approved into the Texas SIP on November 14,
2001 (66 FR 57196). Subsequent revisions were approved April 6, 2005
(70 FR 17321), October 6, 2005 (70 FR 58325), October 24, 2008 (73
FR 63378), and May 6, 2013 (78 FR 26255).
    \14\ Emissions credits are banked emissions reductions that may
return to the air shed in the future when these emissions credits
are used either to modify existing facilities, construct new
facilities, or demonstrate compliance with source-specific emissions
limit obligations where provided for in Texas SIP rules.

   Table 4--Summary of RFP Demonstration for the HGB Area Through 2020
                                  [tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Description                      NOX             VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. 2020 Uncontrolled emissions..........        1,165.66          854.65
b. Projected emissions reductions                 821.70          370.04
 through 2020 (total from Table 3)......
c. Projected Emissions after Reductions           343.96          484.61
 (subtract line b from line a)..........
d. 3% reductions reserved for prior                13.29  ..............
 (2017-2018) RFP milestone contingency
 measures...............................
e. Projected emissions, including prior           357.25          484.61
 contingency requirement (add lines c
 and d).................................
f. 2020 Target (from Table 2)...........          371.17          493.33
If the projected emissions (line e) are              Yes             Yes
 less than the RFP target (line f), the
 area demonstrates RFP. Is line e less
 than line f?...........................
g. Subtract line e from line f for                 13.92            8.72
 surplus................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Table 4, we see that the projected emissions in row e, after
accounting for reductions from controls and the 2017-2018 contingency
measures, are less than the 2020 RFP target emissions and thus,
demonstrate RFP. We are proposing that the emissions reductions
projected for 2020 are sufficient to meet the 2020 RFP targets.

C. Contingency Measures

    As noted earlier, RFP plans for moderate and above nonattainment
areas must include contingency measures, which, consistent with CAA
section 172(c)(9), ``shall provide for the implementation of specific
measures to be undertaken if the area fails to make reasonable further
progress, or to attain the national primary ambient air quality
standard by the attainment date applicable under this part.'' EPA has
long interpreted the contingency measures provision to allow states to
rely on measures already in place and implemented so long as those
reductions are beyond those relied on for purposes of the attainment or
RFP planning SIP.\15\ In addition, the April 16, 1992 General Preamble
provided the following guidance: ``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. In general, EPA will expect all actions
needed to affect full implementation of the measures to occur within 60
days after EPA notifies the State of its failure.'' (57 FR 13512).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ This interpretation has been upheld by the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals (and the State of Texas is within the Fifth Circuit
jurisdiction). See LEAN v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575 (5th Cir. 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the CAA does not specify the type of measures or quantity of
emissions reductions required, EPA interprets the CAA to mean that
implementation of these contingency measures would provide additional
emissions reductions of up to 3 percent of the adjusted base year
inventory (or a lesser percentage that will make up the identified
shortfall) in the year following the missed milestone, whether it be
RFP or attainment.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See the April 16, 1992 General Preamble section III.A.3.c
(57 FR 13498 at 13511).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The TCEQ submittal provides NOX reductions for the HGB
contingency measures. These contingency measure reductions for the HGB
area are not

relied upon for RFP or for attainment. The TCEQ submittal includes but
is not limited to surplus emissions reductions from the 2020 RFP
demonstration (see Table 4, line g) for the HGB area contingency
measure demonstration. The TCEQ submittal also includes emission
reductions that will take place during calendar year 2021 for the HGB
area contingency measure demonstration--these contingency measures
consist of State mobile source measures that are already approved in
the SIP (I/M, RFG, and TxLED) \17\ and federal measures (FMVCP and
ULSD). Thus, the contingency measures for 2021 are reliable, permanent,
and enforceable. The contingency measures are listed in Table 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ As noted earlier in this rulemaking, the I/M program was
approved into the SIP in 2001 (66 FR 57261). See footnotes 14 and 15
regarding approval of RFG and TxLED in the SIP.

    Table 5--Demonstration for 2021 for the HGB Area RFP Contingency
                                Measures
                                  [tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                NOX             VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. 2011 Base year Emissions Inventory             442.92          535.06
 (from Table 1).........................
b. Percent of NOX and VOC to meet                     3%               0
 contingency measure requirement (total
 must equal 3%).........................
c. 3% NOX reduction for 2021 (row a                13.29               0
 multiplied by row b) (442.92 x 0.03 =
 13.29).................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Excess reductions to meet contingency requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Surplus RFP reductions (from Table 4)           13.92            8.72
e. Subtract 2020 RFP MVEB safety margin            -8.21           -5.49
 \18\...................................
f. 2020 to 2021 emission reductions                24.19           13.05
 (FMVCP, I/M, RFG, 2017 low sulfur
 gasoline standard on-road TxLED, and
 ULSD)..................................
g. 2020 to 2021 emission reductions                 4.59            2.29
 (federal non-road mobile new vehicle
 certification standards, non-road RFG,
 and non-road TxLED)....................
h. Total projected emissions, accounting           34.49           18.57
 for contingency measures (add lines d,
 e, f, and g)...........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Total surplus or shortfall
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Line h is greater than line c. Subtract            21.20           18.57
 line c from line h for surplus.........
Is the contingency measure requirement               Yes             Yes
 met?...................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Table 5, we see that the contingency measures provided for the
HGB area, after accounting for the MVEB safety margin, are more than
sufficient to meet the 3 percent contingency requirement. Indeed, if
the HGB area relied only on the contingency measures scheduled for
implementation during 2021 (Table 5, lines f and g), after accounting
for the MVEB safety margin, those contingency measures alone would be
adequate to meet the 3 percent contingency requirement. In addition,
the contingency measures that occur from 2020 to 2021 are State and
Federal measures that are already approved into the Texas SIP and as
such are expected to be implemented with no further action by the State
and with no additional rulemaking actions. Our evaluation of these
contingency measures finds that the full implementation of such
measures within 60 days after EPA notifies the State of its failure is
achievable as, the contingency measures that occur from 2020 to 2021
are State and Federal measures already approved into the Texas SIP and
as such are expected to be implemented with no further action by the
State. We are proposing to approve the contingency measures for the HGB
area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The safety margin allows for unanticipated growth in
vehicle miles traveled, changes, and uncertainty in vehicle mix
assumptions, etc., that will influence the emission estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets

    The MVEB is the mechanism to determine if future transportation
plans conform to the SIP. Transportation conformity is required by CAA
section 176(c) and mandates that future transportation plans must not
produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, delay
RFP milestones, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. Thus, pursuant
to CAA section 176(c), the RFP plan must include MVEBs for
transportation conformity purposes. The MVEB is the maximum amount of
emissions allowed in the SIP for on-road motor vehicles. The HGB RFP
SIP contains VOC and NOX MVEBs for RFP milestone year 2020
(see Table 6). On-road emissions must be shown in future transportation
plans to be less than the MVEBs for 2020 and subsequent years.
    EPA is evaluating the adequacy of the submitted MVEBs in parallel
to this proposed approval action. Once EPA finds the submitted MVEBs
are adequate for transportation conformity purposes, those MVEBs must
be used by State and Federal agencies in determining whether proposed
transportation projects conform to the SIP as required by section
176(c) of the CAA. EPA's criteria for determining adequacy of a MVEB
are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). The process for determining
adequacy is described in our TSD.
    EPA intends to make its determination on the adequacy of the 2020
RFP MVEBs for the HGB area for transportation conformity purposes soon,
by completing the adequacy process that was started on June 3,
2020.\19\ After EPA finds the 2020 MVEBs adequate or approves them, the
new MVEBs for NOX and VOC must be used for future
transportation conformity determinations. For required regional
emissions analysis years 2020 and beyond, the applicable budgets will
be the new 2020 MVEBs. We are proposing to approve the 2020 MVEBs for
the HGB area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ On June 3, 2020, EPA posted the HGB area NOX and
VOC MVEBs on EPA's website for the purpose of soliciting public
comments, as part of the adequacy process. The comment period closed
on July 3, 2020, and we received no comments. For more information,
visit https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/state-implementation-plans-sip-submissions-currently-under-epa#houston-texas-rea.

          Table 6--RFP Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for HGB
                                  [tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Year                         NOX              VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020..................................           87.69            57.70
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed Action

    We are proposing to approve revisions to the Texas SIP that address
the RFP requirements for the HGB serious ozone nonattainment area for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Specifically, we are proposing to approve the RFP
demonstration and associated MVEBs, contingency measures for RFP or
failure-to-attain, and the revised 2011 base year EI for the HGB area.
Further, as part of today's action, EPA is describing the status of its
adequacy determination for the NOX and VOC MVEBs for 2020 in
accordance with 40 CFR 93.118(f)(2). Within 24 months from the
effective date of EPA's adequacy determination for the MVEBs or the
publication date for the final rule for this action, whichever is
earlier, the transportation partners will need to demonstrate
conformity to the new NOX and VOC MVEBs pursuant to 40 CFR
93.104(e)(3).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will
not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November
9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: September 16, 2020.
Kenley McQueen,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2020-20849 Filed 9-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P