[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 174 (Monday, September 9, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55037-55046]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21886]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0387; FRL-9900-80-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas;
Attainment Demonstration for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 1997 8-Hour
Ozone Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submittals from the State of Texas for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria
1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (HGB area). EPA is proposing
approval of the following SIP Clean Air Act required elements from
Texas for the HGB area: The attainment demonstration for the 1997 ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the reasonably
available control measures (RACM) demonstration for the NAAQS, the
contingency measures plan in the event of failure to attain the NAAQS
by the applicable attainment date, and a Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget
(MVEB) for 2018, which is the attainment year for the area. EPA is also
proposing to approve revisions to the air pollution control measures
and General Air Quality Definitions in the Texas SIP. The revisions to
the air pollution control measures include revisions to the Mass
Emissions Cap and Trade (MECT) program for nitrogen oxides
(NOX), revisions to the highly reactive volatile organic
compound (HRVOC) emissions cap and trade (HECT) program, Voluntary
Mobile Emissions Program (VMEP) measures, and Transportation Control
Measures (TCMs). EPA is proposing these actions in accordance with
section 110 and part D of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 9, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2013-0387, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please also send a copy by
email to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section below.
     Mail or delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning
Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2013-
0387. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information through
www.regulations.gov or email that you consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an email comment directly to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph below to make an appointment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Young, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. The 1997 Ozone NAAQS and the HGB Area
    B. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment SIPs
    C. State SIP Submittals
II. EPA's Evaluation
    A. Attainment Demonstration Modeling and Weight-of-Evidence
    1. Attainment Demonstration General
    2. Photochemical Grid Modeling
    3. Modeling Episodes
    4. Modeling Emissions Inventory
    5. Model Performance
    6. Future Year Modeling
    7. Results of 2018 Future Year Modeling

    8. Additional Evidence
    9. Attainment Demonstration Evaluation
    B. Control Measures Relied Upon in the Attainment Demonstration
    1. MECT
    2. HECT
    3. VMEP Measures and TCMs
    4. Previously Approved State Measures and Federal Measures
    5. Summary Regarding Control Measures Relied Upon in the
Attainment Demonstration
    C. RACM
    D. Contingency Measures
    E. MVEB
    F. General Air Quality Definitions
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. The 1997 Ozone NAAQS and the HGB Area

    Ground level ozone is formed when NOX and volatile
organic compounds (VOC) react in the presence of sunlight. These two
pollutants, referred to as ozone precursors, are emitted by many types
of pollution sources, including on-road and non-road motor vehicles and
engines, power plants and industrial facilities, and smaller area
sources such as lawn and garden equipment and paints. See 77 FR 30088,
30089 (May 21, 2012). Breathing ozone can trigger a variety of health
problems including chest pain, coughing, throat irritation, and
congestion. It can worsen bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma. Ground
level ozone also can reduce lung function and inflame the linings of
the lungs. Repeated exposure may permanently scar lung tissue. See 77
FR 30088, 30089 (May 21, 2012). For more information on ground level
ozone please see http://epa.gov/airquality/ozonepollution.
    In 1979, under section 109 of the CAA, EPA established primary and
secondary NAAQS for ozone at 0.12 parts per million (ppm) averaged over
a 1-hour period. See 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). Primary standards
are set to protect human health while secondary standards are set to
protect public welfare. On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the primary and
secondary NAAQS for ozone to set the acceptable level of ozone in the
ambient air at 0.08 ppm, averaged over an 8-hour period. See 62 FR
38856 (July 18, 1997). EPA set the 8-hour ozone standard based on
scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone causes adverse health
effects at lower concentrations and over longer periods of time than
was understood when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone standard was set. EPA
determined that the 8-hour standard would be more protective of human
health, especially children and adults who are active outdoors, and
individuals with a pre-existing respiratory disease, such as asthma.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Subsequently, we lowered the 8-hour ozone NAAQS to 0.075 ppm
and classified the Houston area as a marginal nonattainment area for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008); 77 FR 30088,
30089 (May 21, 2012). This rulemaking does not address the 2008
ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2004, we classified the HGB area (Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend,
Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery and Waller counties) as a
moderate ozone nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. See 69 FR
23858 (April 30, 2004). In 2007, at the request of the State, and under
CAA section 181(b)(3), we reclassified the HGB area to severe calling
for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no later than June
15, 2019. See 73 FR 56983 (October 1, 2008). Since 2018 is the first
full year before the attainment deadline, we will judge attainment
based on data through the end of 2018 and therefore, we refer to 2018
as the attainment year.

B. CAA and Regulatory Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment SIPs

    States must implement the 1997 8-hour ozone standard under Title 1,
Part D of the CAA, which includes section 172, ``Nonattainment plan
provisions,'' and subpart 2, ``Additional Provisions for Ozone
Nonattainment Areas'' (sections 181-185). We promulgated a regulation
to implement the 1997 ozone NAAQS at 40 CFR part 51, subpart X
(Provisions for Implementation of 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard). The regulation addresses the requirements for
modeling and attainment demonstrations, reasonably available control
technology and measures (RACT and RACM), reasonable further progress
(RFP), contingency measures, and new source review.
    When we reclassified the HGB area, we also identified the SIP
requirements for the area. The requirements being addressed in this
notice are: (1) An attainment demonstration (40 CFR 51.908), (2)
provisions for RACM (40 CFR 51.912), and (3) contingency measures to be
implemented in the event of failure to attain the standard by the
applicable attainment date (CAA 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9)). In order to
approve the attainment demonstration for the area we must also approve:
(1) The measures relied on as necessary to demonstrate attainment, (2)
an attainment MVEB for transportation conformity purposes, and (3) the
RFP plan and the RFP contingency measures. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 294
F.3d 155, 163, (D.C. Cir. 2002). Some measures, relied upon as
necessary for attainment, have been previously approved (section
II.B.5). We are proposing to approve additional measures relied on as
necessary to demonstrate attainment, and an attainment MVEB for 2018.
In a separate proposal, we are addressing the RFP and RFP contingency
measures requirements.\2\ Current information on the status of HGB area
SIP requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS can be found at: http://epa.gov/air/urbanair/sipstatus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See docket EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0333 in www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 172(c)(6) requires the attainment demonstration to
include enforceable emission limitations, and such other control
measures, means or techniques as well as schedules and timetables for
compliance, as may be necessary to provide for attainment by the
applicable attainment date. In order to be considered in the modeling,
the measures must be permanent, enforceable and quantifiable. See 57 FR
13498, 13567 (April 16, 1992).
    CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 110(l) require a state to
provide reasonable public notice and opportunity for public hearing
prior to the adoption and submission of a SIP or SIP revision. To meet
this requirement, every SIP submittal should include evidence that
adequate public notice was given and an opportunity for a public
hearing was provided consistent with EPA's implementing regulations in
40 CFR 51.102.

C. State SIP Submittals

    On April 6, 2010, Texas submitted for the HGB area: (1) An
attainment demonstration, (2) revisions to the MECT program to protect
the integrity of the NOX cap in the HGB area, (3) revisions
to the HECT program to reduce the HRVOC cap by 25% in Harris County and
provide for a more equitable distribution of the HECT allowances, and
(4) revisions to the General Air Quality definitions applicable to the
entire Texas SIP.
    On May 6, 2013, Texas submitted an update to the attainment
demonstration. The update included: (1) Revised on-road mobile source
emissions inventories and MVEBs using the more recent EPA MOVES mobile
source emissions estimation model, (2) an update of the contingency
measures analysis, and (3) updated discussions of emissions inventory,
photochemical modeling, control strategies and required elements, and
weight-of-evidence that the area will attain by its attainment date.
    In addition to the revisions submitted on April 6, 2010, Texas
previously

submitted SIP revisions to the General Air Quality Definitions (30 TAC
101.1) on August 16, 2007. Texas later submitted additional revisions
to 30 TAC 101.1 on March 11, 2011.
    Each of the above identified submittals was given proper hearing
and public notice by Texas as required by 40 CFR 51.102 and evidence of
this was provided in the SIP submittal. Please see the submittals found
in the electronic docket and our technical support document (TSD).

II. EPA's Evaluation

    We have prepared a TSD for this rulemaking which details our
evaluation. Our TSD may be accessed online at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0387.

A. Attainment Demonstration Modeling and Weight-of-Evidence

    Below, we briefly discuss the steps necessary to build an
attainment demonstration, including photochemical modeling and
supplemental weight of evidence and our evaluation of Texas'
performance of these steps. Please see the TSD for this action for our
full evaluation and conclusions.
    1. Attainment Demonstration General. CAA 182 (c)(2)(A), and 40 CFR
51.908, 51.112, and Part 51 Appendix W--Guideline on Air Quality Models
require that attainment demonstrations for ozone nonattainment areas
classified as moderate or higher (severe in this case) be conducted
with photochemical grid modeling or an equivalent technique approved by
EPA. The CAA and regulations (including Appendix W) do not prescribe a
specific photochemical grid model, but allow for EPA to judge the
suitability of a model by considering multiple factors. These factors
include choice of episode(s), emissions and meteorological inputs,
model formulation, databases used, and how the model is used in the
attainment test. Texas used the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with
Extensions (CAMx) photochemical grid model in its demonstration that
the control strategies for the HGB area will achieve attainment by
2018. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) also
included a TSD, a number of appendices, and numerous electronic files
that document model formulation, databases used, assumptions,
judgements, evaluations of control strategy impacts, etc. EPA reviewed
the available information and concluded that the use of CAMx is
acceptable and TCEQ's modeling and documentation meets the
photochemical modeling demonstration requirements of the CAA and 40 CFR
51.908, 51.112, and Part 51 Appendix W. Also, as allowed under EPA
policy, TCEQ has introduced other evidence, referred to as weight of
evidence, to supplement the modeling analysis.
    2. Photochemical Grid Modeling. Photochemical grid models are the
state-of-the-art method for predicting the effectiveness of control
strategies in reducing ozone levels. The model uses a three-dimensional
grid to represent conditions in the area of interest. In this case,
TCEQ has developed a grid system that stretches from beyond Austin to
the West, to the Atlantic Ocean to the East, to southern Canada to the
North and into the Gulf of Mexico to the South. The model uses nested
grid cells of 36 kilometers (km) on the outer portions, 12 km in east
Texas and portions of nearby States, a 4 km grid cell covering the HGB
and Beaumont Port Arthur (BPA) areas and a refined 2 km grid covering
the HGB area. For more information on the modeling domain, please see
Appendix A of the TSD. The model simulates the movement of air and
emissions into and out of the three-dimensional grid cells (advection
and dispersion); mixes pollutants upward and downward among layers;
injects new emissions from sources such as point, area, mobile (both
on-road and non-road), and biogenic into each cell; and uses chemical
reaction equations to calculate ozone concentrations based on the
concentration of ozone precursors and incoming solar radiation within
each cell. Running the model requires large amounts of data regarding
the emissions and meteorological conditions during an episode. Air
quality planners choose historical episodes with high ozone levels to
test the model. Modeling to duplicate conditions during a historical
episode is referred to as the base case modeling and is used to verify
that the model system can predict the historical ozone levels with an
acceptable degree of accuracy. If the model can predict the ozone
levels in the base case, it can then be used to project future ozone
levels and the response of future ozone levels to proposed emission
control strategies.
    3. Modeling Episodes. Texas chose six recent historical episodes
(2005: 5/19-6/3, 6/17-6/30, and 7/26-8/8; 2006: 5/31-6/15, 8/13-9/15,
9/16-10/11) that encompassed much of the time period of the Texas Air
Quality Study (TexAQS II) 2005/6. During this study period, researchers
from around the country participated in an intensive study of ozone
formation in the HGB area, collecting additional meteorological and
chemical data with the last two episodes occurring when the intensive
field campaign occurred. This study provided a wealth of information to
test the assumptions in the model. EPA believes that these episodes are
acceptable episodes for development of the 1997 8-hour attainment plan.
The episodes encompass a large number of exceedance days (55 days) and
contain a variety of meteorological conditions which resulted in high
concentrations of ozone in the area as measured on both a 1-hour and 8-
hour basis. Day specific evaluation of these episode days confirms that
overall, these episodes are representative of the conceptual model for
high ozone in the HGB area. In summary, these episodes include most
meteorological conditions that occur when ozone exceedances are
monitored in HGB and the modeling and analyses were enhanced by having
the TexAQS II field study data.
    4. Modeling Emissions Inventory. TCEQ followed acceptable
procedures for the development of the basecase inventory, following or
building upon EPA guidance. They also included emissions during upsets
and other day specific emissions. Despite these efforts, one of the
original findings of the TexAQS 2000 study was that observed
concentrations of certain compounds, especially light olefins such as
ethylene and propylene, were much larger than represented in the
reported emission inventory. As a result, TCEQ created an `imputed'
inventory (approximately 5.8 times the reported levels for these HRVOC
species) in its 1-hour ozone attainment SIP. TCEQ also instituted rules
to better regulate the industrial point sources that emit these
compounds with ``HRVOC rules'' in a 2004 SIP modification approved by
EPA (71 FR 52656, September 6, 2006). The more recent 2005/6 field
study confirmed that these measures resulted in lower levels of these
pollutants (approximately 42% lower on average than 2000 levels) but
the HRVOC levels were still under reported with ambient measurements
indicating that actual emissions were an average of 2-3 times reported
levels. Field study data also confirmed that emission inventory
estimates of other VOCs, in addition to the HRVOCs, were also under
estimated, but these VOCs are harder to attribute to a specific
category as they could be emitted from mobile, area, and non-road
categories in addition to industrial point sources. As a result, TCEQ
adjusted the estimates of the HRVOCs in the 2005/6 basecase emission
inventories. This reconciliation with ambient data was performed using
a combination of wind data and measurements from the Auto Gas
Chromatographs that measure 56

different VOC species. The reconciliation resulted in upward
adjustments of facility HRVOC emissions better match the ambient data.
The adjustments ranged from less than two times greater than reported
to more than ten times greater than reported in some cases.
    We believe that the method TCEQ has used to reconcile ambient HRVOC
emissions data with reported emissions is a reasonable approach to
addressing the concern that reported emissions, despite being based on
accepted estimation technologies, do not result in emission estimates
that are consistent with ambient measurements. In addition, the
``reconciliation'' approach is more sophisticated and more accurate
than the ``imputed'' approach used in past SIP revisions for the HGB
area. The inventory, based on this reconciliation technique, also
improved model performance. We continue to encourage TCEQ to find and
resolve the issues that are resulting in these discrepancies between
reported and actual emissions. As TCEQ works on attaining the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS, resolving these underestimated emissions of HRVOCs
and other VOCs will continue to be very important.
    5. Model Performance. Model performance is a term used to describe
how well the basecase model predicts the ozone levels in a historical
episode(s). As models have to make numerous simplifying assumptions and
the system being modeled is very complex, model predictions will never
be perfect. EPA and TCEQ evaluate a number of times series, diagnostic,
and statistical metrics for the meteorological analysis that is used in
the photochemical modeling analysis. EPA has developed various
diagnostic, statistical and graphical analyses that TCEQ employed to
evaluate the model's performance and determine if the model is working
adequately to test control strategies. Overall the modeling over-
predicted some maxima on lower ozone days and under-estimated some
maxima on the higher ozone days. In addition, modeled ozone values at
night do not drop as much as monitored ozone levels. EPA notes that the
model's general tendency to under-predict on high days and over-predict
on low days raises some uncertainty in the control strategy modeling.
While the model had some problems with predicting the maxima in the HGB
area, overall, the performance was adequate for moving forward using 37
of the initial 55 exceedance days in the control strategy analysis.
    6. Future Year Modeling. Once the basecase/baseline modeling of
historical episodes has been completed, the periods (days) with
acceptable model performance can then be used to project future year
ozone levels by replacing the basecase/baseline emissions with
emissions estimates for future years. TCEQ developed a 2018 emission
inventory using recent emission data information and projection tools.
TCEQ used the meteorology files from the basecase episodes for the 2018
modeling estimates. Using meteorology from historical episodes allows
one to assess whether the lower projected 2018 emission levels would be
expected to result in attainment of the standard if the same
meteorology occurs. For further details about 2018 emissions estimates
and how they were generated, see our TSD and TCEQ's materials
supporting this action.
    7. Results of 2018 Future Year Modeling. The results of 2018
modeling are shown in Table 1. In estimating if the modeling is
predicting attainment or nonattainment in the future year, we use a
ratio that is based on the average of the 8-hour daily maximums
predicted around a monitor in the future divided by the average of the
8-hour daily maximum predicted in the basecase. This ratio is called a
Relative Response Factor (RRF). The RRF for a monitor is multiplied by
the basecase 5-year average Design Value (DV) to obtain a future 5-year
average DV.
    Table 1 shows that all of the regulatory monitors except Deer Park
and Bayland Park are predicted to have 2018 DVs below the 1997 8-hour
NAAQS. For a full explanation of how these projections were calculated,
see our TSD. Table 1 also shows that the Wallisville Rd. monitor that
TCEQ has labeled as non-regulatory is also projected to be above the
1997 8-hour NAAQS in 2018 modeled DV projections. We have evaluated
TCEQ's DV projections and confirm that they followed EPA's attainment
demonstration guidance and methods as required by 40 CFR 51.112 and
Appendix W of Part 51.

                               Table 1--Future Year (2018) Projected Design Values
                                       [Using the RRFs from the modeling]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2006 DVB (ppb)                  2018 DVF (ppb)
               Monitor designation                   Site code          **              RRF             **
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Houston East (CAMS 1)...........................            HOEA            80.3           0.942            75.6
Aldine (CAMS 8).................................            HALC            85.0           0.916            77.9
Channelview (CAMS 15)...........................            HCHV            82.7           0.937            77.5
Northwest Harris County (CAMS 26)...............            HNWA            89.0           0.877            78.1
Galveston Airport (CAMS 34).....................            GALC            81.7           0.927            75.7
Deer Park (CAMS 35).............................            DRPK            92.0           0.936            86.1
Seabrook Friendship Park (CAMS 45)..............            SBFP            85.3           0.924            78.8
Bayland Park (CAMS 53)..........................            BAYP            96.7           0.899            87.0
Conroe Relocated (CAMS 78)......................            CNR2            83.0           0.877            72.8
Houston Regional Office (CAMS 81)...............            HROC            79.7           0.949            75.6
Manvel Croix Park (CAMS 84).....................            MACP            90.7           0.890            80.7
Clinton (CAMS 403)..............................            C35C            79.0           0.947            74.8
North Wayside (CAMS 405)........................            HWAA            76.3           0.932            71.2
Swiss and Monroe (CAMS 406).....................            HSMA            90.3           0.917            82.9
Lang (CAMS 408).................................            HLAA            77.7           0.897            69.6
Croquet (CAMS 409)..............................            HCQA            87.0           0.897            78.1
Shell Westhollow (CAMS 410).....................            SHWH            92.3           0.868            80.1
Houston Texas Avenue (CAMS 411).................            HTCA            79.3           0.937            74.3
Haden Road (CAMS 603) *.........................            H03H            84.0           0.943            79.2
Wallisville Road (CAMS 617) *...................            WALV            92.0           0.935            86.0
Danciger (CAMS 618) *...........................            DNCG            80.3           0.881            70.8
Mustang Bayou (CAMS 619) *......................            MSTG            84.7           0.901            76.2
Texas City (CAMS 620) *.........................            TXCT            84.3           0.921            77.7

Lynchburg Ferry (CAMS 1015).....................            LYNF            81.7           0.942            76.9
Lake Jackson (CAMS 1016)........................            LKJK            77.0           0.891            68.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Non-regulatory, industry-sponsored monitor.
** Values 85 parts per billion (ppb) or greater are shown in bold. The 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS is 0.08 ppm,
  which equates to 84 ppb when rounding is considered.

    EPA's 2007 Modeling Guidance also recommends that areas not near
monitoring locations (unmonitored areas) in a nonattainment area be
analyzed in an ``unmonitored area (UMA) analysis'' to determine if
these areas would be expected to reach attainment. The standard
attainment test (results in the table above) only applies at monitor
locations, and the UMA analysis is intended to identify any areas not
near a monitoring location that are at risk of not reaching attainment.
The TCEQ chose to use its own procedure to conduct the UMA analysis
instead of using EPA's Modeled Attainment Test Software (MATS). TCEQ's
analysis uses similar approaches and we propose to accept its use for
this SIP. TCEQ's UMA indicates that there are no areas in the HGB
nonattainment area outside of the specific areas evaluated in the
monitor based attainment test analysis that are at risk of not reaching
attainment. In summary, EPA finds that TCEQ's photochemical modeling
analysis indicates that all the monitors in HGB area will either be
attaining or near attainment levels in 2018, all HGB unmonitored areas
will be attainment, and TCEQ's evaluations conform with EPA's
regulations and guidance.
    8. Additional Evidence. The EPA's 1996 guidance entitled ``Guidance
on Use of Modeled Results to Demonstrate Attainment of the Ozone
NAAQS'' allows for the use of alternative analyses, called weight-of-
evidence (WOE), to provide additional evidence that the proposed
control strategy, although not modeling attainment, is nonetheless
expected to achieve attainment by the attainment date. EPA continued to
support WOE analyses in the 2007 Modeling Guidance. The intent of these
guidance documents was to be cognizant of the fact that, under the
structure of the standard some exceedances of the ozone NAAQS are
allowed each year. Thus, even though the specific control strategy
modeling may predict some areas to be above the NAAQS, this does not
necessarily mean that with the implementation of the control strategy
monitored attainment will not be achieved. In addition, as with other
predictive tools, there are inherent uncertainties associated with
modeling and its results. For example, there are uncertainties in the
meteorological and emissions inputs and in the methodology used to
assess the severity of an exceedance at individual sites. The EPA's
guidance recognizes these limitations and provides a means for
considering other evidence to help assess whether attainment of the
NAAQS is likely. Since the future control case modeling in the Texas
SIP revision predicts some areas still exceeding the ozone NAAQS, the
TCEQ followed EPA Modeling Guidance to supplement the control strategy
modeling with WOE analyses.
    The strongest parts of the WOE analysis are the most recent 8-hour
ozone monitoring trends and the continued reductions expected from
vehicle fleet turnover. Ozone Design Value trends at most of the
monitors in the HGB area show significant decreases over time and many
of the monitors are currently attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
Furthermore, the ozone precursor trends are generally showing a
decrease that supports the HGB area's impact on ozone levels that
exceed the standard is continuing to decrease.
    The HGB area's most recent design value is 88 ppb through 2012.
Additional reductions of precursor emissions are expected with six more
years of fleet turnover bringing cleaner cars and off road equipment
into the fleet. EPA believes that these reductions will bring about the
additional 4 ppb of reduction necessary from 2012 monitored levels to
reach attainment--supporting the proposed finding that HGB will attain
by its attainment year.
    To further support its WOE argument Texas submitted many additional
analyses, which are discussed in the TSD for this action. These
include: Corroborative analysis of the modeling, process analysis,
application of source apportionment tools, highly detailed model
performance evaluations, and analysis of model response to simulated
emission reductions. Texas also provided an analysis of air quality
data including: Ozone design value trends, trends in strength of ozone
gradients, impact of Hurricane Ike on ozone levels, NOX and
VOC monitored trends, geographic patterns in HRVOC monitored values,
meteorological adjusted trends, regional and Texas background ozone
trends, and transport/surface wind trajectories.
    Finally, to support the finding that the area would attain the
standard, Texas documented additional control programs that were not
included in the model but will provide emission reductions that will
contribute to lower ozone levels. These include: Improved international
marine diesel and fuel standards, SmartWay transport initiatives, car
allowance rebates, improved control of VOCs from storage tanks, energy
efficiency and renewable energy measures, Texas Emission Reduction
Plan, Low Income Vehicle Repair Assistance/Retirement program, Clean
School Bus program, Best Management Practices for barge emissions, and
other local initiatives. In general, these measures are expected to
reduce ozone concentrations but are difficult to quantify and therefore
were not modeled. EPA agrees that these measures contribute to the
evidence that the area will attain the standard by its attainment date.
    One area of uncertainty in the attainment demonstration is the
treatment of flare emissions in the modeling. The destruction
efficiencies are projected to be high, with values from 98% to 99%
depending on the compound. It is likely that flares not achieving these
destruction efficiencies are one source of the documented under-
estimation of the emissions inventory and the need to impute emissions
based on ambient air concentrations for the base case/baseline emission
inventory. We note that TCEQ has been working with industry on flare
best management practices to try to insure good flare performance.
These efforts should result in reduced flare emissions compared to
current levels, but it is uncertain that all flares will achieve the
projected destruction efficiencies in 2018 as

assumed in the modeling. How successful TCEQ's initiative is in
reducing emissions of flares will likely have a significant impact on
the success of the HGB area in continued ozone improvement. The details
of our review of the WOE analysis and data can be reviewed in our TSD
Appendix A--HGB MOAAD, Chapter 6. In accordance with 40 CFR 51.908,
51.112, and Appendix W of Part 51, the WOE analysis supports our
proposed finding of attainment for HGB by its attainment date.
    9. Attainment Demonstration Evaluation. EPA believes that the
combination of photochemical modeling and other evidence (WOE)
indicates that the HGB area will attain the NAAQS by 2018. This SIP
revision represents a significant improvement over past efforts to
model the HGB area. Texas has greatly improved the representation of
the area's complex meteorology. In addition they have a much more
refined emission inventory because of the better reconciliation of
HRVOC emissions with ambient data. The modeling projects significant
improvement in air quality and all but three of the monitors are
projected to attain the standard and the three monitors not
demonstrating attainment to the standard are projected to be only
slightly above the standard. This modeling evidence taken together with
the WOE discussed above, demonstrates that HGB will reach attainment of
the 1997 8-hour NAAQS by the end of the ozone season of 2018. In
reaching this conclusion, we have considered the uncertainties
presented by discrepancies between reported emissions and ambient
measurements and uncertainties regarding the performance of flares. We
have also considered the significant improvements in ozone levels
documented by ambient ozone data and the expected future reductions
including those that were not modeled.
    In summary, our analysis of TCEQs photochemical modeling and WOE
concludes that the area will reach attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS by the end of 2018. Our review confirms that TCEQ's modeling and
WOE conform to 40 CFR 51.908, 51.112, Appendix W of Part 51, EPA's
guidance and methodologies. Our full evaluation of each modeling and
WOE elements of the attainment demonstration submitted by TCEQ in this
SIP revision is included in our TSD for this notice.

B. Control Measures Relied Upon in the Attainment Demonstration

    1. MECT. The MECT is a portion of the SIP-approved control strategy
for the HGB area that caps NOX emissions beginning January
1, 2002, with a final reduction to the cap occurring in 2007 for
stationary sources. The cap represents an approximate reduction in
NOX emissions of 80% from the applicable stationary sources
(with some sources reducing more and some reducing less). Facilities
are required to demonstrate compliance with the MECT on an annual basis
by having sufficient allowances, or other credits as provided in the
SIP, to equal the annual NOX emissions from the previous
year. EPA published a final rule approving the MECT program in 66 FR
57252 (November 14, 2001). We have subsequently approved revisions to
the MECT on September 6, 2006 and July 16, 2009. See 71 FR 52698 and 74
FR 34503.
    On March 10, 2010, TCEQ adopted revisions to the MECT Program at 30
TAC Chapter 101, Subchapter H, Division 3, Sections 101.350, 101.351,
and 101.353. These revisions amend the SIP-approved MECT program to
protect the integrity of the NOX cap in HGB. Specifically,
the TCEQ adopted revisions to 30 TAC 101.350 to revise the definition
of ``uncontrolled design capacity'' to ``uncontrolled design capacity
to emit'' to allow more flexibility for stationary diesel engines to
determine how to comply with NOX emission requirements in
Chapter 117--either through participation in the MECT or through
purchasing banked emission credits. The adopted revisions also revise
the applicability of the MECT program at 30 TAC 101.351 to require
subject sites to first determine the status as a major or minor source
under 30 TAC Chapter 117. If the source is major, then it must
participate in the MECT. If the source is minor then it can choose to
participate under the MECT or meet reduction requirements through the
purchase and retirement of banked emission credits. Finally, the
adopted revisions modify the allocation of allowance requirements at 30
TAC 101.353 to discontinue the acceptance of late Level of Activity
certification forms that could have inflated the cap. The TCEQ also
adopted non-substantive revisions throughout to correct typographical
errors and Texas Register formatting requirements.
    EPA's complete evaluation of the revisions to the MECT adopted on
March 10, 2010 and submitted April 6, 2010, is available in our TSD. In
summary, we find that the revisions to the MECT will continue to
achieve the reduction in stationary source NOX emissions
relied upon in the attainment demonstration.
    2. HECT. The HECT program is a mandatory cap and trade program of
HRVOCs for covered facilities including vent gas streams, flares, and
cooling tower heat exchange systems that emit HRVOCs, as defined in 30
TAC Section 115.10, and that are located at a site subject to Chapter
115, Subchapter H. Facilities are required to meet HRVOC allowances on
an annual basis. Facilities may purchase, bank, or sell their
allowances for use in the following control period. EPA published final
approval of the HECT program on September 6, 2006, as an integral
component of the HGB 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration. See 71 FR
52659.
    On March 10, 2010, the TCEQ adopted revisions to HECT Program at 30
TAC Chapter 101, Subchapter H, Division 6, Sections 101.390-101.394,
101.396 and 101.399-101.401. These revisions reduce the HRVOC cap in
Harris County by 25%--a step taken to achieve the reductions shown
necessary by the photochemical modeling for HGB 8-hour ozone attainment
demonstration discussed in section II. The revisions also change the
allocation methodology to promote equitable distribution of allowances
as a result of comment and add necessary definitions to implement the
allocation methodology changes. The TCEQ also adopted non-substantive
revisions throughout to correct typographical errors and Texas Register
formatting requirements.
    EPA's complete evaluation of the revisions to the HECT adopted on
March 10, 2010 and submitted April 6, 2010, is available in our TSD. In
summary, we find that the revisions to the HECT to implement the
reduction in the Harris County HRVOC cap by 25% will reduce ozone
levels and achieve the reductions relied upon in the photochemical
modeling for the attainment demonstration.
    3. VMEP Measures and TCMs. The SIP included VMEP measures to reduce
mobile source emissions of ozone precursors. VMEP measures consist of
voluntary mobile source strategies that complement existing regulatory
programs through voluntary, non-regulatory changes in local
transportation activities or changes in in-use vehicle and engine
composition. The types of HGB VMEP measures and NOX emission
reductions are listed in Table 2 and are expected to reduce
NOX emissions by 2.25 tons per day.

             Table 2--VMEP Types and NOX Emission Reductions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         NOX reductions
                     Program type                        (tons per day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative Commuting.................................              0.20

Regional Traffic Flow Improvements....................              0.05
Vehicle Retrofit and Replacement......................              1.30
Off-road Measures.....................................              0.70
                                                       -----------------
  Total...............................................              2.25
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Authority for our approval of VMEP measures is primarily grounded
in section 110(a)(2) of the CAA, as well as sections 182(g)(4)(A) and
108. Section 110(a)(2) establishes that a SIP must include
``enforceable emissions limits and other control measures, means or
techniques . . . as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as
may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of
this chapter.'' In interpreting 110(a)(2) of the CAA, EPA issued a
guidance document entitled, ``Guidance on Incorporating Voluntary
Mobile Source Emission Reduction Programs in State Implementation Plans
(SIPs),'' Memorandum from Richard D. Wilson, Acting Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 24, 1997, which
allows for SIP credit for voluntary measures.\3\ The Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals upheld, as a reasonable interpretation of the Act,
EPA's VMEP policy and allowed the State to consider estimated emissions
reductions from a VMEP in the HGB area 1-hour ozone attainment
demonstration. See BCCA Appeal Group v. EPA, 355 F.3d 817, 825 (5th
Cir. 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The 1997 guidance is available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/policy/general/vmep-gud.pdf .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Generally, to obtain credit for a VMEP, the SIP: (1) Identifies and
describes a VMEP, (2) Contains projections of emission reductions
attributable to the program, along with any relevant technical support
documentation, (3) Commits to evaluation and reporting on program
implementation and results, and (4) Commits to the timely remedy of any
credit shortfall should the VMEP not achieve the anticipated emission
reductions. The VMEP emission reduction credits should be quantifiable,
surplus (i.e., they are not credited twice), enforceable, permanent,
and adequately supported.\4\ In addition, the VMEP must be consistent
with attainment of the standard and with the reasonable further
progress requirements and not interfere with other CAA requirements.
The VMEP for an area can be revised by a SIP revision that substitutes
or adds other VMEP measures if needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As in past commitments, we interpret the VMEP portion of the SIP to
be enforceable because the State, through the Houston-Galveston Area
Council (H-GAC), has committed to fill any shortfall in credit, thus
any enforcement will be against the State. The H-GAC, as the regional
metropolitan transportation planning agency for the HGA area, has
committed to implement the projects and/or programs outlined in the HGA
VMEP submittal. The H-GAC will be responsible for monitoring and
reporting the emissions reductions to the TCEQ. The State, through the
H-GAC, has committed to cover any VMEP shortfall (of the 2.25 tpd of
NOX committed). The State, through the H-GAC, will remedy
any VMEP shortfall that might occur in the VMEP program.
    A detailed analysis of all the VMEP measures can be found in our
TSD. Each creditable VMEP measure was found to be quantifiable. The
VMEP emission reductions are surplus because they are not substitutes
for mandatory, required emission reductions. The commitment to monitor,
assess and timely remedy any shortfall from implementation of the
measures is enforceable against the State. The reductions will continue
at least for as long as the time in which they are used by this SIP
demonstration, so they are considered permanent. There is a commitment
that each measure is adequately supported by personnel and program
resources for implementation.
    The HGB area's ozone SIP VMEP meets the criteria for credit in the
SIP. The State has shown that the credits are quantifiable, surplus,
enforceable, permanent, adequately supported, and consistent with the
SIP and the CAA. We propose to approve the VMEP portion of the Texas
SIP.
    TCMs are transportation related projects or activities designed to
reduce on-road mobile source emissions. TCMs used as a control measure
in the attainment demonstration must be specific, permanent,
enforceable and quantifiable.\5\ We approved the Texas rule for
implementing TCMs in the SIP (30 TAC 114.270) in 67 FR 72379 (December
5, 2002). The SIP included six projects identified by the Houston-
Galveston Area Council to reduce mobile source emissions by enhancing
pedestrian and bicycle pathways (table 3). The emission reductions
estimated from these projects are 0.015 tons per day of NOX
. These projects would reduce NOX emissions by facilitating
non-automobile travel. As the TCMs are part of the SIP, the commitment
to implement the TCMs is enforceable through the SIP. Because these
projects are specific, permanent, enforceable, and quantifiable we
propose to approve them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Transportation Control Measures: State Implementation Plan
Guidance, September 1990 (EPA 450/2-89-020), http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/policy/transp/tcms/state_plan_guidance.pdf.

       Table 3--Pedestrian and Bicycle TCM Projects in the HGB SIP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         NOX Reductions
           Project No.                 Description       (tons per day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0912-72-145.....................  Holman Street                0.0001862
                                   Pedestrian
                                   Improvements.
0912-72-146.....................  Pedestrian                   0.0004562
                                   Improvements for
                                   Elgin, Ennis, and
                                   Alabama Streets.
0912-72-147.....................  Pedestrian/Transit           0.0137628
                                   Improvement Program
                                   for Westheimer Road.
0912-71-544.....................  Columbia Tap Rail to         0.0002721
                                   Trail Bikeway.
0912-71-801.....................  Columbia Tap Union           0.0005840
                                   Station Trail
                                   Shared Use Path
                                   with Bike Lane.
0912-71-655.....................  Phase 2 West Houston         0.0001653
                                   On-Street Bikeway
                                   Network (Terry
                                   Hershey Park).
                                 ---------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ....................         0.0154266
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Previously Approved State Measures and Federal Measures. Texas
also identified other previously approved State ozone control measures
and Federal measures applicable to the HGB area which achieved
reductions that are relied upon in this attainment demonstration. The
State control measures included those approved by

EPA for: (1) The 1-hour ozone NAAQS (71 FR 52670, September 6, 2006)
and (2) additional VOC emission controls for storage tanks, transport
vessels and marine vessels in the HGB area (75 FR 15348, March 29,
2010). The Federal measures are regulations on vehicle emissions and
fuel. As we have already approved the State measures and promulgated
Federal measures to reduce ozone levels it is appropriate that they are
relied upon in the attainment demonstration.
    5. Summary Regarding Control Measures Relied Upon in the Attainment
Demonstration. As noted earlier we must approve the measures relied on
as necessary to demonstrate attainment in order to approve the
attainment demonstration. These measures must be permanent,
enforceable, quantifiable, and surplus. BCCA Appeal Group, 355 F.3d at
825. Our review of the control measures not yet approved found that
they meet these criteria. We propose to approve these measures and to
find that the SIP has sufficient measures to attain the 1997 ozone
NAAQS in the HGB area as expeditiously as practicable but no later than
June 15, 2019. Table 4 summarizes the measures relied upon for
attainment.

                    Table 4--Summary of Measures Relied Upon in the Attainment Demonstration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Measure                                                 Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-hour ozone NAAQS measures.........  Approved (71 FR 52670, September 6, 2006).
VOC emission controls for storage     Approved (75 FR 15348, March 29, 2010).
 tanks, transport vessels and marine
 vessels.
Federal measures....................  Federal regulations affecting vehicle emissions.
Revisions to the MECT...............  Proposed for approval.
Revisions to the HECT...............  Proposed for approval.
VMEP, Transportation Control          Proposed for approval.
 Measures.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. RACM

    Texas submitted a demonstration that the HGB area has adopted all
RACM necessary to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as
practicable with the attainment demonstration as required by CAA
section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.912(d). We consider a control measure
to be necessary under the RACM requirement if it: (1) Is
technologically feasible, (2) is economically feasible, (3) does not
cause ``substantial widespread and long-term adverse impacts'', (4) is
not absurd, unenforceable, or impracticable and (5) can advance the
attainment date.
    To demonstrate that the area meets the RACM requirement Texas (1)
identified potentially available control measures with input from
stakeholders and (2) analyzed whether the measure would be considered a
RACM measure. Texas determined that only one potential control measure,
reduction of the HRVOC cap for Harris County, should be adopted to meet
the RACM requirement. As discussed above, Texas has adopted a rule to
reduce the HRVOC cap for Harris County and we are proposing to approve
that rule. We reviewed Texas' RACM process and analysis and believe
that Texas has shown that the HGB area has met the CAA RACM
requirement. Therefore we propose to approve the demonstration of RACM
implementation. For more information please see our TSD.

D. Contingency Measures

    CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) require contingency measures
to be implemented in the event of failure to attain the standard by the
applicable attainment date. These contingency measures must be fully
adopted rules or measures which are ready for implementation quickly
upon failure to meet attainment. Implementation of the contingency
measures would provide additional emissions reductions of up to three
percent of the adjusted base year inventory.\6\ For more information on
contingency measures, please see the April 16, 1992 General Preamble
(57 FR 13498, 13510) and the November 29, 2005 Phase 2 8-hour ozone
standard implementation rule (70 FR 71612, 71650). As noted in the
November 29, 2005 rule, contingency measures could include Federal
measures already scheduled for implementation. In the May 6, 2013 SIP
submittal, Texas provided a demonstration that the contingency measures
requirement would be met through Federal rules affecting mobile
emissions. Table 5 summarizes the contingency measure analysis provided
by Texas. We reviewed the analysis provided in the SIP and found the
contingency measures provide the necessary reductions in ozone
precursor emissions for the year 2019 in the event that the area fails
to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS at the end of 2018. Therefore we propose
to approve the failure to attain contingency measures plan as meeting
the contingency measures requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and
182(c)(9). For more information please see our TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The adjusted base year inventory is that inventory specified
by CAA section 182(b)(1)(B).

       Table 5--2019 Contingency Demonstration for the HGB Area *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        NOX Emissions     VOC Emissions
             Description               (tons per day)    (tons per day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjusted 2018 Base Year Emissions              1003.92            935.59
 Inventory..........................
Percent for Contingency Calculation               2.00              1.00
 (total of 3%)......................
2018 to 2019 Required Contingency                20.08              9.36
 Reductions.........................
Federal On-Road Reformulated                      6.80             -0.25
 Gasoline (RFG).....................
Federal On-Road Mobile New Vehicle               22.28              9.50
 Certification Standards............
State Inspection and Maintenance and             -0.67             -0.26
 Anti-Tampering Programs............
Texas Low Emission Diesel (TxLED)...             -0.20                 0
Federal Non-Road Mobile New Vehicle               3.56              1.78
 Certification Standards............
Non-Road RFG Gasoline...............              0.00              0.03
Federal Tier I and II Locomotive                  0.68              0.01
 Standards..........................

Federal Tier 2 Marine Diesel                      0.55              0.02
 Standard...........................
Total Contingency Reductions........             33.20             10.83
Contingency Excess (+) or Shortfall             +12.92             +1.47
 (-)................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The reason for negative numbers for the RFG, Inspection and
  Maintenance/Anti-Tampering and TxLED programs is that there is a
  slightly higher benefit in 2018 than in 2019.

E. MVEB

    The SIP included an attainment MVEB for 2018 (table 6). The MVEB
represents the maximum level of on-road emissions of NOX and
VOC that can be produced in 2018--when considered with emissions from
all other sources--which demonstrate attainment of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. The attainment MVEB submitted on April 6, 2010 was updated
in the May 6, 2013 submittal using a more recent EPA mobile source
emissions estimation model (MOVES). Previously we determined that the
updated 2018 MVEB was ``adequate'' for transportation conformity
purposes and must be used for future conformity determinations in the
HGB area (78 FR 46947, August 2, 2013). All future transportation
improvement programs, projects and plans developed, funded, or approved
under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Laws for the HGB area will
need to show that they do not result in emissions which exceed the MVEB
(40 CFR 93.118). We propose to approve the 2018 MVEB into the SIP.

                    Table 6--2018 HGB Attainment MVEB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Summer weekday
                       Pollutant                         emissions (tons
                                                            per day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX...................................................            103.34
VOC...................................................             50.13
------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. General Air Quality Definitions

    The April 6, 2010, SIP submittal included revisions to the General
Air Quality Definitions at 30 TAC Section 101.1. The General Air
Quality definitions are applicable to the entirety of the Texas SIP.
While reviewing the April 6, 2010 SIP submittal, we also reviewed other
pending revisions to the General Air Quality definitions at 30 TAC
101.1 submitted on June 10, 2005, August 16, 2007, and March 11, 2011.
The revisions to the definitions were minor and non-controversial. Our
complete evaluation of these pending revisions is available in our TSD.
In summary, our analysis demonstrates that the revisions are consistent
with the CAA and EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 51, therefore we
propose approval of the revisions to 30 TAC 101.1 submitted on June 10,
2005, August 16, 2007, April 6, 2010 and March 11, 2011. Please see
Appendix C of our TSD for our analysis.

III. Proposed Action

    We are proposing to approve SIP submittals from the State of Texas
for the HGB ozone nonattainment area submitted on April 6, 2010, and
May 6, 2013. Specifically, we are proposing to approve the following
Texas SIP submittals for the HGB area:

 Attainment demonstration for the 1997 ozone NAAQS
 Revisions to the MECT air pollution control program
 Revisions to the HECT air pollution control program
 VMEP measures and TCMs
 A 2018 year MVEB
 Demonstration of RACM implementation
 Failure to attain contingency measures plan in the event of
failure to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date

    We are also proposing to approve SIP revisions to the General Air
Quality Definitions submitted by the State on June 10, 2005, August 16,
2007, April 6, 2010 and March 11, 2011. We are proposing these actions
in accordance with section 110 and part D of the CAA.

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, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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 Clean Air Act; 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, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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: August 28, 2013.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2013-21886 Filed 9-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P