Federal Register, Volume 74, Number 76, April 22, 2009, Pages 18285-18448 Page: 18,301
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. 76/Wednesday, April 22, 2009/Rules and Regulations
Non-road emission reductions are
from federal controls on non-road
engines. The mobile non-road emission
reductions were estimated using the
NONROAD 2005 model, with
customized data files to reflect
emissions generated by non-road mobile
equipment in Texas. Emissions from
locomotives, aircraft and support
equipment, and commercial marine
vessels were calculated outside of the
NONROAD 2005 model using EPA
approved methodologies. EPA finds that
Texas' projected emissions and
emission reductions for these three non-
road mobile sources are acceptable.
Reductions in mobile on-road
emissions resulted from the post-1990
FMVCP, reformulated gasoline, Texas'
inspection and maintenance program,
and the Texas low emission diesel
program. Each of the State measures
relied upon in this plan have been
approved in separate actions. See the
TSD for more details.
As a result, for NOx the target level
of emissions is 670.11 tpd, and the 2008
projected emissions inventory (after RFP
reductions are applied) is 553.96 tpd.
Since all reductions are accomplished
with NOx reductions, there is no VOC
reduction requirement for the area. As
illustrated in Table 3, the 2008
projection inventory after RFP
reductions is less than the target level of
emissions. Therefore, the control
measures included in the 2008 projected
emissions are adequate to meet the 15%
TABLE 3-SUMMARY OF RFP
DEMONSTRATION FOR HGB
2008 Target ..... .................... 670.11.
2008 Uncontrolled Emissions ..... 1026.63.
2008 RFP Emission Reductions 472.67.
2008 Projected Emissions after 553.96.
RFP M et? ................................ Yes.
D. The Reasonable Further Progress
Plan Includes Acceptable RFP
The 1997 8-hour ozone RFP plan for
a moderate nonattainment area must
include contingency measures, which
are additional controls to be
implemented if the area fails to make
reasonable further progress.
Contingency measures are intended to
achieve reductions over and beyond
those relied on in the RFP
demonstration and could include
federal and state measures already
scheduled for implementation. The
CAA does not preclude a state from
implementing such measures before
they are triggered. EPA interprets the
CAA to require sufficient contingency
measures in the RFP submittal, so that
upon implementation of such measures,
additional emission reductions of up to
3% of the adjusted base year inventory
(or a lesser percentage that will make up
the identified shortfall) would be
achieved between the milestone year of
2008 and the next calendar year, i.e.,
Texas used federal and state measures
currently being implemented to meet
the contingency measure requirement
for the HGB RFP SIP. These measures,
which are the same measures used for
RFP, provide reductions that are in
excess of those needed for RFP. As
shown in Table 4, the excess reductions
are greater than 3% of the adjusted base
year inventory. Therefore these
reductions are sufficient as contingency
TABLE 4-RFP CONTINGENCY MEAS-
URE DEMONSTRATION FOR HGB
a. Adjusted Base Year Inventory 788.37.
(from Table 2).
b. 3% Needed for Contingency 23.65.
(a x 0.03).
c. Excess Reductions Used for 47.25.
d. Contingency Met? ........... Yes.
E. The RFP Milestone 2008 MVEBs Are
The 1997 8-hour ozone RFP plan must
include MVEBs for transportation
conformity purposes. The MVEB is the
mechanism to determine if the future
transportation plans conform to the SIP.
Conformity to a SIP means that
transportation activities will not
produce new air quality violations,
worsen existing violations, delay
reaching reasonable further progress
milestones, or delay timely attainment
of the NAAQS. A MVEB is the
maximum amount of emissions allowed
in the SIP for on-road motor vehicles.
The MVEB establishes an emissions
ceiling for the regional transportation
network. The HGB RFP SIP contains
VOC and NOx MVEBs for the RFP
milestone year 2008. The emissions
budget for VOC is 86.77 tpd, and the
NOx emissions budget is 186.13 tpd.
On-road emissions must be shown in
future transportation plans to be less
than the MVEBs for 2008 and
subsequent years. The VOC and NOx
RFP emissions budgets are acceptable:
when added to the other components of
the 2008 emissions inventory (including
non-road, stationary source, and area
source emissions), the total level of
emissions is below the 2008 RFP
emissions target level. We found the
RFP MVEBs (also termed transportation
conformity budgets) adequate, and on
June 28, 2007, the availability of these
budgets was posted on our Web site for
the purpose of soliciting public
comments. The comment period closed
on July 30, 2007, and we received no
comments. On March 21, 2008, we
published the Notice of Adequacy
Determination for these RFP MVEBs (73
FR 15152). Once determined adequate,
these RFP budgets must be used in
future HGB transportation conformity
determinations. The adequacy
determination represents a preliminary
finding by EPA of the acceptability of
the MVEBs. Today, we are finding the
MVEBs are fully consistent with RFP,
and the RFP plan is fully approvable, as
it sets the allowable on-road mobile
emissions the HGB area can produce
and continue to demonstrate RFP.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Under the Clean Air Act, 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
approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
* 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,
Here’s what’s next.
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
United States. Office of the Federal Register. Federal Register, Volume 74, Number 76, April 22, 2009, Pages 18285-18448, periodical, April 22, 2009; Washington D.C.. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc132938/m1/23/: accessed September 20, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.