Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; Texas Low-Emission Diesel Fuel Program, 58325-58328 [05-20108]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 193 / Thursday, October 6, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 05–20005 Filed 10–5–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[R06–OAR–2005–TX–0020; FRL–7982–2]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Texas;
Texas Low-Emission Diesel Fuel
Program
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Texas making
changes to the Texas Low-Emission
Diesel (TXLED) Fuel program. With one
exception, the changes are either
administrative in nature, clarify existing
provisions, add more specific reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, or
update references. These changes meet
section 110(l) of the Federal Clean Air
Act (the Act) because they improve the
quality of the SIP and make it more
enforceable.
The more substantive change is the
repeal of the state sulfur standard. This
repeal being approved does not change
the ultimate requirements regarding the
reductions to be achieved because Texas
did not rely upon the sulfur standard
when EPA originally approved the
program as part of the Houston ozone
attainment demonstration SIP. Also,
there are no sulfur dioxide (SO2) or
particulate matter (PM) nonattainment
areas in the affected area and no
monitored violations. As a result, in
accordance with section 110(l) of the
Act, this removal will not interfere with
attainment of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS), Rate of
Progress, reasonable further progress or
any other applicable requirement of the
Act. Under section 553(d)(1) of the
Administrative Procedure Act, EPA is
making this action effective upon
publication because it relieves a
restriction.
This rule is effective on October
6, 2005.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Regional
Material in EDocket (RME) Docket ID
No. R06–OAR–2005–TX–0020. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the Regional Material in EDocket (RME)
index at https://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/,
once in the system, select ‘‘quick
DATES:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:31 Oct 05, 2005
Jkt 208001
search,’’ then key in the appropriate
RME Docket identification number.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
i.e., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in RME or
in hard copy at the Air Planning Section
(6PD–L), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700,
Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. The file will
be made available by appointment for
public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA
Review Room between the hours of 8:30
a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for
legal holidays. Contact the person listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT paragraph below or Mr. Bill
Deese at (214) 665–7253 to make an
appointment. If possible, please make
the appointment at least two working
days in advance of your visit. There will
be a 15 cent per page fee for making
photocopies of documents. On the day
of the visit, please check in at the EPA
Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.
The State submittal is also available
for public inspection at the State Air
Agency listed below during official
business hours by appointment:
Texas Commission on Environmental
Quailty, Office of Air Quality, 12124
Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sandra Rennie, Air Planning Section
(6PD–L), Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733,
telephone (214) 665–7367; fax number
214–665–7263; e-mail address
rennie.sandra@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document wherever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
the EPA.
Outline
I. What Action Is EPA Taking?
II. What Is the Background for This Action?
III. What Comments Were Received During
the Public Comment Period, August 10,
2005, to September 9, 2005?
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Action Is EPA Taking?
Today we are approving revisions to
the TXLED rule submitted to EPA for
approval as a SIP revision on March 23,
2005, except two portions on which we
are taking no action and one portion for
which we already took action on April
6, 2005. The Executive Director of the
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
58325
TCEQ submitted a letter to EPA on July
5, 2005, requesting that we not act on
certain portions of the rule revision as
it was submitted on March 23, 2005. We
are approving revisions of those aspects
of the rule on which the TCEQ has not
requested that EPA postpone action.
II. What Is the Background for This
Action?
We approved the original TXLED rule
on November 14, 2001, (66 FR 57196) as
part of the Houston-Galveston
Attainment Demonstration SIP. On
December 15, 2004, the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ) Commissioners proposed to
revise the TXLED rule and adopted the
rule changes on March 9, 2005. The
TCEQ submitted the TXLED rule
changes on March 23, 2005 to EPA for
approval into the SIP. We approved the
compliance date rule changes, 30 TAC
114. 319, of the March 23, 2005 SIP
revision for TXLED on April 6, 2005 (70
FR 17321). This was done under parallel
processing at the request of the State.
The compliance date was changed from
April 1, 2005, to a phased schedule of
implementation starting October 1,
2005, until January 1, 2006. On August
10, 2005 (70 FR 46448), we proposed
approval of the remaining portions of
the March 23, 2005, SIP revision
submittal—30 TAC 114.6 and 114.312,
114.314–114.316, 114.318, and
114.319—except Approved Test
Methods in section 114.315(b) and
Alternative V in section
114.315(c)(4)(C)(ii)(V). The State
requested that we take no action on
these two portions of the SIP revision
submittal. Please see the proposal notice
and its associated Technical Support
Document for more information.
Changes to the rule are to definitions,
low emission diesel standards,
registration of producers and importers,
approved test methods, monitoring,
reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, testing and approval
requirements for alternative fuel
formulation, and alternative emission
reduction plans. Except the removal of
the sulfur standard, the rule changes
either are administrative in nature,
clarify existing provisions, update
existing references, add more stringent
reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, or improve the new diesel
formulation testing requirements. These
types of changes improve the existing
SIP and make it more enforceable.
The sulfur standard was removed
because the federal ultra-low sulfur
diesel standards are now promulgated
and will reduce sulfur in on-highway
diesel in 2006 and in non-road
equipment starting in 2007. Reducing
E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM
06OCR1
58326
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 193 / Thursday, October 6, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
sulfur emissions does not directly
reduce NOX and VOC emissions that are
precursors to ozone formation.
Consequently, there will be no increase
in ozone concentration levels in the
eastern and central parts of Texas from
the period of the previous state sulfur
standard to the federal sulfur standard.
Moreover, none of the ozone attainment
demonstration SIPs relied upon the
sulfur emission reductions from the
TXLED program.
Reducing sulfur emissions does
reduce sulfur dioxides and particulate
matter emissions but there are no SO2
and PM nonattainment areas in the
eastern and central parts of Texas. There
also are no monitored violations of these
three standards in the affected areas and
no upward trends. Moreover, there is
only a three-month difference for
implementation of the on-road sulfur
standard. The attainment areas are in
attainment of these standards before the
new Federal sulfur standard dates.
III. What Comments Were Received
During the Public Comment Period,
August 10, 2005, to September 9, 2005?
Comments were received from ExxonMobil Refining and Supply Company
and from Oryxe Energy International,
Inc.
Exxon-Mobil commented in support
of the approval of the rule. We
appreciate the support.
Oryxe Energy had the following
comments:
1. Testing of Alternative Diesel Fuel
Formulations
1.1 Comment: Oryxe believes that
the use of the most up-to-date ASTM or
EPA methods is not itself sufficient to
ensure the integrity of the program for
the protection of the consumer and
assurance of achieving clean air goals.
Test protocols and laboratories used to
run the tests on alternative diesel fuel
formulations must be assured of the
highest order in order [for the test
results] to qualify for SIP credit.
Alternately, the same assurance could
be accomplished by EPA recognition of
laboratory capabilities, or oversight by
another appropriate governmental
entity.
1.1 Response: We agree in principle
that the use of ASTM or EPA methods
does not in itself provide all assurances
with regard to data produced using
them. We also agree that how a
laboratory operates with regard to
quality assurance and quality control
procedures is of critical importance in
generating data that can be viewed with
confidence. In the context of this rule,
as part of a replicable procedure, we
believe that ASTM or EPA methods are
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:31 Oct 05, 2005
Jkt 208001
trusted methods that will, with the
proper application, produce data of high
quality.
1.2 Comment: The commenter
recommends that testing be done in a
process open to public review and
comment, and includes a list of testing
elements they believe are most critical
to effective review and comment. These
elements include engine selection, fuel
selection, additive information,
emission testing laboratory selection,
and emission testing protocol.
1.2 Response: See our response to
4.2 that addresses public review and
comment.
Regarding the list, many of the
specific points listed under the general
categories are already covered in 30
TAC 114.315. The only general category
not included in the TXLED rule is
emissions testing laboratory selection.
Using guidance provided by the State, a
company should use good judgement in
selecting a laboratory for testing. EPA
does not formally recognize, certify, or
qualify laboratories. Currently EPA may
recognize data produced by some
laboratories with more confidence than
data from others because of our past
experience with those laboratories. EPA,
along with Texas, is asking for quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC)
plans from laboratories with which we
have little experience that are planning
to test under 30 TAC 114.315. Good QA/
QC plans will help ensure the validity
of the data and preserve the integrity of
the program.
1.3 Comment: Oryxe recommended
language changes to the Texas
Administrative Code at 30 TAC
§ 114.315 in five places.
1.3 Response: We did not propose
changes to the Texas rule, therefore new
language changes are not the subject of
this rulemaking. Oryxe should contact
Texas during rule development to voice
its concerns regarding regulatory
language. We cannot change the content
of State regulations in our approval
actions.
2. Monitoring Requirements
2.1 Comment: Oryxe suggests adding
language at the end of 30 TAC
§ 114.316(e) to ensure that the benefits
from Nox reductions are verified.
2.1 Response: We cannot change the
content of State regulations in our
approval actions. A process for
verification of fuel additive technologies
exists in EPA’s Environmental
Technology Verification (ETV) program
in cooperation with the Voluntary
Diesel Retrofit Program. With these
programs in place, protocols and
processes already exist for verifying a
product’s emission reduction
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
capabilities, and there is no need for
Texas to duplicate such a program at the
expense of the State and Federal
government. The ETV/VDRP process is
more thorough than the comparative
testing proposed by the commenter. The
ETV/VDRP processes provide an even
greater degree of assurance to the
consumer and the general public.
3. Proposed Revisions to Alternate
Emission Reduction Plans
3.1 Comment: The commenter
supports the revision to the Alternate
Emission Reduction Plans language at
30 TAC § 114.318.
3.1 Response: We appreciate the
support.
4. EPA Approval of Alternative Diesel
Fuel Formulations
4.1 Comment: Oryxe raises concerns
about the removal of EPA from 30 TAC
§ 114.312(f). They assert that this
removal would have no effect on EPA’s
continuing oversight of the TXLED
program. The commenter acknowledges
that this is not an approvable provision.
4.1 Response: EPA continues to have
oversight of the TXLED alternative fuel
formulation testing by the addition of
EPA consultation in § 114.315(c)(6).
This consultation can include the
review of test protocols, quality
assurance/quality control plans, as well
as test data. EPA has been consulting
with the State, test laboratories, and
vendors regarding test protocols, QA/AC
plans, and test data. As the commenter
notes, Texas has agreed to remove this
Executive Director discretion in a future
rulemaking.
4.2 Comment: Oryxe suggests that
removal of EPA approval makes it
absolutely essential that testing under
the alternative formulations process be
open and subject to public notice and
comment.
4.2 Response: EPA disagrees with
this comment. The approved test
method laid out in 30 TAC § 114.315 is
a replicable procedure that was
originally approved by EPA in
November 2001 and now is revised after
being subject to public notice and
comment by the State. We believe that
a replicable procedure can be subject to
public notice and comment when it is
being adopted and approved. The
concept is to avoid treating each
alternative fuel formulation and its
testing process as a separate SIP revision
by establishing a generic testing
protocol that is subject to notice and
comment, and approving that generic
protocol. The State has the regulatory
process establishing the test procedure.
In advance of setting a test protocol for
a new product, the State will consult
E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM
06OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 193 / Thursday, October 6, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
with EPA in case it is evident that slight
deviations from the established test
methods may be warranted due to the
nature of the product being tested.
IV. Final Action
EPA is granting approval of the
revisions to the TXLED rule as
submitted March 23, 2005, with the
following exceptions: (1) The
compliance date changes that were
already approved on April 6, 2005; (2)
revisions to Approved Test Methods in
§§ 114.315(b) and 114.315(c)(4)(C)(ii)(V)
that the State specifically requested we
not process at this time as specified
above. None of the revisions being
proposed for approval change the
ultimate requirements regarding the
reductions to be achieved. There will be
no increase in ozone concentration
levels because of approving the
revisions. The affected 110 counties are
in attainment of the SO2 and PM
standards, are not monitoring
exceedances, are not experiencing any
upward trends, and are in attainment
before the date for the federal sulfur
standard. As a result and in accordance
with section 110(l) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.
section 7410(l), these revisions will not
interfere with attainment of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS), Rate of Progress, reasonable
further progress, or any other applicable
requirement of the Clean Air Act.
Section 553(d) of the Administrative
Procedure Act generally provides that
rules may not take effect earlier than 30
days after they are published in the
Federal Register. However, section
553(d)(1) allows a rule to take effect
earlier if it relieves a restriction. We are
making this action effective upon
publication because it relieves a
restriction.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), this action is
not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and
therefore is not subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget. For
this reason, this action is also not
subject to Executive Order 13211,
‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001). This action merely approves
state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:31 Oct 05, 2005
Jkt 208001
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this
rule approves pre-existing requirements
under state law and does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond
that required by state law, it 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).
This rule also does not have tribal
implications because it will not have a
substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This
action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This action merely
approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard, and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power
and responsibilities established in the
Clean Air Act. This rule also is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
‘‘Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
because it is not economically
significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the
absence of a prior existing requirement
for the State to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for
failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,
to use VCS in place of a SIP submission
that otherwise satisfies the provisions of
the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. This rule does
not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by
the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
58327
may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a
rule report, which includes a copy of
the rule, to each House of the Congress
and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
House of Representatives, and the
Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. section 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by December 5,
2005. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of
this final rule does not affect the finality
of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time
within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not
postpone the effectiveness of such rule
or action. This action may not be
challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Lead, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: September 28, 2005.
Lawrence E. Starfield,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
I
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart SS—Texas
2. The table in § 52.2270(c) entitled
‘‘EPA Approved Regulations in the
Texas SIP’’ is amended by revising the
entries for Sections 114.6 under Chapter
114, Subchapter A, and 114.312,
114.314, 114.315, 114.316, and 114.318
under Chapter 114, Subchapter H,
Division 2, to read as follows:
I
§ 52.2270
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(c) * * *
E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM
06OCR1
*
*
58328
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 193 / Thursday, October 6, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
EPA APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE TEXAS SIP
State citation
*
State approval/submittal date
Title/subject
*
*
EPA approval date
*
*
Explanation
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Chapter 114 (Reg 4)—Control of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles
Subchapter A—Definitions
*
*
*
Section 114.6 .......................... Low Emission Fuel Definitions
*
*
*
03/09/05
*
*
10/6/05. [Insert FR page
number where document
begins].
*
Subchapter H—Low Emission Fuels
*
*
*
*
Division 2—Low Emission Diesel
Section 114.312 ......................
Low Emission Diesel Standards.
03/09/05
10/6/05. [Insert FR page
number where document
begins].
*
*
*
Section 114.314 ...................... Registration of Diesel Producers and Importers.
*
03/09/05
*
Section 114.315 ......................
Approved Test Methods ........
03/09/05
Section 114.316 ......................
Monitoring, Recordkeeping,
and Reporting Requirements.
03/09/05
*
10/6/05. [Insert FR page
number where document
begins].
10/6/05. [Insert FR page
number where document
begins].
10/6/05. [Insert FR page
number where document
begins].
*
10/6/05. [Insert FR page
number where document
begins].
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Section 114.318 ...................... Alternative Emission Reduction Plan.
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 05–20108 Filed 10–5–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 62
[R01–OAR–2005–MA–0002; FRL–7981–5]
Approval and Promulgation of State
Plans For Designated Facilities and
Pollutants: Massachusetts; Negative
Declaration
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is approving the Sections
111(d) and 129 negative declaration
submitted by the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:10 Oct 05, 2005
*
03/09/05
Jkt 208002
*
*
(MADEP) on August 23, 2005. This
negative declaration adequately certifies
that there are no existing hospital/
medical/infectious waste incinerators
(HMIWIs) located within the boundaries
of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
EPA publishes regulations under
Sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air
Act requiring states to submit control
plans to EPA. These state control plans
show how states intend to control the
emissions of designated pollutants from
designated facilities (e.g., HMIWIs). The
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
submitted this negative declaration in
lieu of a state control plan.
DATES: This direct final rule is effective
on December 5, 2005 without further
notice unless EPA receives significant
adverse comment by November 7, 2005.
If EPA receives adverse comment, we
will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
EPA took no action on Section 114.315(b) and section
114.315(c)(4) (C)(ii)(V).
and inform the public that the rule will
not take effect.
Submit your comments,
identified by Regional Material in
EDocket (RME) ID Number R01–OAR–
2005–MA–0002 by one of the following
methods:
A. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
B. Agency Web site: https://
docket.epa.gov/rmepub/ Regional
Material in EDocket (RME), EPA’s
electronic public docket and comment
system, is EPA’s preferred method for
receiving comments. Once in the
system, select ‘‘quick search,’’ then key
in the appropriate RME Docket
identification number. Follow the onADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\06OCR1.SGM
06OCR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 193 (Thursday, October 6, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58325-58328]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[R06-OAR-2005-TX-0020; FRL-7982-2]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Texas; Texas Low-Emission Diesel Fuel Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Texas making changes to the Texas Low-
Emission Diesel (TXLED) Fuel program. With one exception, the changes
are either administrative in nature, clarify existing provisions, add
more specific reporting and recordkeeping requirements, or update
references. These changes meet section 110(l) of the Federal Clean Air
Act (the Act) because they improve the quality of the SIP and make it
more enforceable.
The more substantive change is the repeal of the state sulfur
standard. This repeal being approved does not change the ultimate
requirements regarding the reductions to be achieved because Texas did
not rely upon the sulfur standard when EPA originally approved the
program as part of the Houston ozone attainment demonstration SIP.
Also, there are no sulfur dioxide (SO2) or particulate
matter (PM) nonattainment areas in the affected area and no monitored
violations. As a result, in accordance with section 110(l) of the Act,
this removal will not interfere with attainment of the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), Rate of Progress, reasonable further
progress or any other applicable requirement of the Act. Under section
553(d)(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act, EPA is making this
action effective upon publication because it relieves a restriction.
DATES: This rule is effective on October 6, 2005.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Regional
Material in EDocket (RME) Docket ID No. R06-OAR-2005-TX-0020. All
documents in the docket are listed in the Regional Material in EDocket
(RME) index at https://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/, once in the system,
select ``quick search,'' then key in the appropriate RME Docket
identification number. Although listed in the index, some information
is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in RME or in hard copy at
the Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445
Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made
available by appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA
Review Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays
except for legal holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at (214) 665-7253
to make an appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at
least two working days in advance of your visit. There will be a 15
cent per page fee for making photocopies of documents. On the day of
the visit, please check in at the EPA Region 6 reception area at 1445
Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.
The State submittal is also available for public inspection at the
State Air Agency listed below during official business hours by
appointment:
Texas Commission on Environmental Quailty, Office of Air Quality,
12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra Rennie, Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-7367; fax
number 214-665-7263; e-mail address rennie.sandra@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.
Outline
I. What Action Is EPA Taking?
II. What Is the Background for This Action?
III. What Comments Were Received During the Public Comment Period,
August 10, 2005, to September 9, 2005?
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Action Is EPA Taking?
Today we are approving revisions to the TXLED rule submitted to EPA
for approval as a SIP revision on March 23, 2005, except two portions
on which we are taking no action and one portion for which we already
took action on April 6, 2005. The Executive Director of the TCEQ
submitted a letter to EPA on July 5, 2005, requesting that we not act
on certain portions of the rule revision as it was submitted on March
23, 2005. We are approving revisions of those aspects of the rule on
which the TCEQ has not requested that EPA postpone action.
II. What Is the Background for This Action?
We approved the original TXLED rule on November 14, 2001, (66 FR
57196) as part of the Houston-Galveston Attainment Demonstration SIP.
On December 15, 2004, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ) Commissioners proposed to revise the TXLED rule and adopted the
rule changes on March 9, 2005. The TCEQ submitted the TXLED rule
changes on March 23, 2005 to EPA for approval into the SIP. We approved
the compliance date rule changes, 30 TAC 114. 319, of the March 23,
2005 SIP revision for TXLED on April 6, 2005 (70 FR 17321). This was
done under parallel processing at the request of the State. The
compliance date was changed from April 1, 2005, to a phased schedule of
implementation starting October 1, 2005, until January 1, 2006. On
August 10, 2005 (70 FR 46448), we proposed approval of the remaining
portions of the March 23, 2005, SIP revision submittal--30 TAC 114.6
and 114.312, 114.314-114.316, 114.318, and 114.319--except Approved
Test Methods in section 114.315(b) and Alternative V in section
114.315(c)(4)(C)(ii)(V). The State requested that we take no action on
these two portions of the SIP revision submittal. Please see the
proposal notice and its associated Technical Support Document for more
information.
Changes to the rule are to definitions, low emission diesel
standards, registration of producers and importers, approved test
methods, monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements, testing
and approval requirements for alternative fuel formulation, and
alternative emission reduction plans. Except the removal of the sulfur
standard, the rule changes either are administrative in nature, clarify
existing provisions, update existing references, add more stringent
reporting and recordkeeping requirements, or improve the new diesel
formulation testing requirements. These types of changes improve the
existing SIP and make it more enforceable.
The sulfur standard was removed because the federal ultra-low
sulfur diesel standards are now promulgated and will reduce sulfur in
on-highway diesel in 2006 and in non-road equipment starting in 2007.
Reducing
[[Page 58326]]
sulfur emissions does not directly reduce NOX and VOC
emissions that are precursors to ozone formation. Consequently, there
will be no increase in ozone concentration levels in the eastern and
central parts of Texas from the period of the previous state sulfur
standard to the federal sulfur standard. Moreover, none of the ozone
attainment demonstration SIPs relied upon the sulfur emission
reductions from the TXLED program.
Reducing sulfur emissions does reduce sulfur dioxides and
particulate matter emissions but there are no SO2 and PM
nonattainment areas in the eastern and central parts of Texas. There
also are no monitored violations of these three standards in the
affected areas and no upward trends. Moreover, there is only a three-
month difference for implementation of the on-road sulfur standard. The
attainment areas are in attainment of these standards before the new
Federal sulfur standard dates.
III. What Comments Were Received During the Public Comment Period,
August 10, 2005, to September 9, 2005?
Comments were received from Exxon-Mobil Refining and Supply Company
and from Oryxe Energy International, Inc.
Exxon-Mobil commented in support of the approval of the rule. We
appreciate the support.
Oryxe Energy had the following comments:
1. Testing of Alternative Diesel Fuel Formulations
1.1 Comment: Oryxe believes that the use of the most up-to-date
ASTM or EPA methods is not itself sufficient to ensure the integrity of
the program for the protection of the consumer and assurance of
achieving clean air goals. Test protocols and laboratories used to run
the tests on alternative diesel fuel formulations must be assured of
the highest order in order [for the test results] to qualify for SIP
credit. Alternately, the same assurance could be accomplished by EPA
recognition of laboratory capabilities, or oversight by another
appropriate governmental entity.
1.1 Response: We agree in principle that the use of ASTM or EPA
methods does not in itself provide all assurances with regard to data
produced using them. We also agree that how a laboratory operates with
regard to quality assurance and quality control procedures is of
critical importance in generating data that can be viewed with
confidence. In the context of this rule, as part of a replicable
procedure, we believe that ASTM or EPA methods are trusted methods that
will, with the proper application, produce data of high quality.
1.2 Comment: The commenter recommends that testing be done in a
process open to public review and comment, and includes a list of
testing elements they believe are most critical to effective review and
comment. These elements include engine selection, fuel selection,
additive information, emission testing laboratory selection, and
emission testing protocol.
1.2 Response: See our response to 4.2 that addresses public review
and comment.
Regarding the list, many of the specific points listed under the
general categories are already covered in 30 TAC 114.315. The only
general category not included in the TXLED rule is emissions testing
laboratory selection. Using guidance provided by the State, a company
should use good judgement in selecting a laboratory for testing. EPA
does not formally recognize, certify, or qualify laboratories.
Currently EPA may recognize data produced by some laboratories with
more confidence than data from others because of our past experience
with those laboratories. EPA, along with Texas, is asking for quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) plans from laboratories with which we
have little experience that are planning to test under 30 TAC 114.315.
Good QA/QC plans will help ensure the validity of the data and preserve
the integrity of the program.
1.3 Comment: Oryxe recommended language changes to the Texas
Administrative Code at 30 TAC Sec. 114.315 in five places.
1.3 Response: We did not propose changes to the Texas rule,
therefore new language changes are not the subject of this rulemaking.
Oryxe should contact Texas during rule development to voice its
concerns regarding regulatory language. We cannot change the content of
State regulations in our approval actions.
2. Monitoring Requirements
2.1 Comment: Oryxe suggests adding language at the end of 30 TAC
Sec. 114.316(e) to ensure that the benefits from Nox reductions are
verified.
2.1 Response: We cannot change the content of State regulations in
our approval actions. A process for verification of fuel additive
technologies exists in EPA's Environmental Technology Verification
(ETV) program in cooperation with the Voluntary Diesel Retrofit
Program. With these programs in place, protocols and processes already
exist for verifying a product's emission reduction capabilities, and
there is no need for Texas to duplicate such a program at the expense
of the State and Federal government. The ETV/VDRP process is more
thorough than the comparative testing proposed by the commenter. The
ETV/VDRP processes provide an even greater degree of assurance to the
consumer and the general public.
3. Proposed Revisions to Alternate Emission Reduction Plans
3.1 Comment: The commenter supports the revision to the Alternate
Emission Reduction Plans language at 30 TAC Sec. 114.318.
3.1 Response: We appreciate the support.
4. EPA Approval of Alternative Diesel Fuel Formulations
4.1 Comment: Oryxe raises concerns about the removal of EPA from 30
TAC Sec. 114.312(f). They assert that this removal would have no
effect on EPA's continuing oversight of the TXLED program. The
commenter acknowledges that this is not an approvable provision.
4.1 Response: EPA continues to have oversight of the TXLED
alternative fuel formulation testing by the addition of EPA
consultation in Sec. 114.315(c)(6). This consultation can include the
review of test protocols, quality assurance/quality control plans, as
well as test data. EPA has been consulting with the State, test
laboratories, and vendors regarding test protocols, QA/AC plans, and
test data. As the commenter notes, Texas has agreed to remove this
Executive Director discretion in a future rulemaking.
4.2 Comment: Oryxe suggests that removal of EPA approval makes it
absolutely essential that testing under the alternative formulations
process be open and subject to public notice and comment.
4.2 Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. The approved test
method laid out in 30 TAC Sec. 114.315 is a replicable procedure that
was originally approved by EPA in November 2001 and now is revised
after being subject to public notice and comment by the State. We
believe that a replicable procedure can be subject to public notice and
comment when it is being adopted and approved. The concept is to avoid
treating each alternative fuel formulation and its testing process as a
separate SIP revision by establishing a generic testing protocol that
is subject to notice and comment, and approving that generic protocol.
The State has the regulatory process establishing the test procedure.
In advance of setting a test protocol for a new product, the State will
consult
[[Page 58327]]
with EPA in case it is evident that slight deviations from the
established test methods may be warranted due to the nature of the
product being tested.
IV. Final Action
EPA is granting approval of the revisions to the TXLED rule as
submitted March 23, 2005, with the following exceptions: (1) The
compliance date changes that were already approved on April 6, 2005;
(2) revisions to Approved Test Methods in Sec. Sec. 114.315(b) and
114.315(c)(4)(C)(ii)(V) that the State specifically requested we not
process at this time as specified above. None of the revisions being
proposed for approval change the ultimate requirements regarding the
reductions to be achieved. There will be no increase in ozone
concentration levels because of approving the revisions. The affected
110 counties are in attainment of the SO2 and PM standards, are not
monitoring exceedances, are not experiencing any upward trends, and are
in attainment before the date for the federal sulfur standard. As a
result and in accordance with section 110(l) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.
section 7410(l), these revisions will not interfere with attainment of
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), Rate of Progress,
reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the
Clean Air Act.
Section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act generally
provides that rules may not take effect earlier than 30 days after they
are published in the Federal Register. However, section 553(d)(1)
allows a rule to take effect earlier if it relieves a restriction. We
are making this action effective upon publication because it relieves a
restriction.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it 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).
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
section 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 5, 2005. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Lead, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: September 28, 2005.
Lawrence E. Starfield,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart SS--Texas
0
2. The table in Sec. 52.2270(c) entitled ``EPA Approved Regulations in
the Texas SIP'' is amended by revising the entries for Sections 114.6
under Chapter 114, Subchapter A, and 114.312, 114.314, 114.315,
114.316, and 114.318 under Chapter 114, Subchapter H, Division 2, to
read as follows:
Sec. 52.2270 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
[[Page 58328]]
EPA Approved Regulations in the Texas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State approval/
State citation Title/subject submittal date EPA approval date Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------
Chapter 114 (Reg 4)--Control of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles
Subchapter A--Definitions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Section 114.6.................... Low Emission Fuel 03/09/05 10/6/05. [Insert FR
Definitions. page number where
document begins].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------
Subchapter H--Low Emission Fuels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------
Division 2--Low Emission Diesel
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 114.312.................. Low Emission Diesel 03/09/05 10/6/05. [Insert FR
Standards. page number where
document begins].
* * * * * * *
Section 114.314.................. Registration of 03/09/05 10/6/05. [Insert FR
Diesel Producers page number where
and Importers. document begins].
Section 114.315.................. Approved Test 03/09/05 10/6/05. [Insert FR EPA took no action
Methods. page number where on Section
document begins]. 114.315(b) and
section
114.315(c)(4)
(C)(ii)(V).
Section 114.316.................. Monitoring, 03/09/05 10/6/05. [Insert FR
Recordkeeping, and page number where
Reporting document begins].
Requirements.
* * * * * * *
Section 114.318.................. Alternative 03/09/05 10/6/05. [Insert FR
Emission Reduction page number where
Plan. document begins].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 05-20108 Filed 10-5-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P