[Federal Register: August 10, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 153)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 46448-46452]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10au05-20]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[R06-OAR-2005-TX-0020; FRL-7950-7]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Texas; Texas Low-Emission Diesel Fuel Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for the state of Texas. This revision makes
changes to the Texas Low-Emission Diesel (TXLED) Fuel program. On April
6, 2005 EPA
[[Page 46449]]
approved the compliance date change that was part of this submittal.
None of the revisions being proposed for approval change the ultimate
requirements regarding the reductions to be achieved. 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, reasonable
further progress or any other applicable requirement of the Clean Air
Act.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 9, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Regional Material in
EDocket (RME) ID No. R06-OAR-2005-TX-0020, by one of the following
methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
Agency Web site: http://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 on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
U.S. EPA Region 6 ``Contact Us'' Web site: http://epa.gov/region6/r6coment.htm.
Please click on ``6PD'' (Multimedia) and select
``Air'' before submitting comments.
E-mail: Mr Thomas Diggs at diggs.thomas@epa.gov. Please
also cc the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section below.
Fax: Mr. Thomas Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), at fax number 214-665-7263.
Mail: Mr. Thomas Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Thomas Diggs, Chief, Air
Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are
accepted only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays except
for legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries
of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Regional Material in EDocket
(RME) ID No. R06-OAR-2005-TX-0020. EPA's policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public file without change, and may be
made available online at http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/, including any
personal information provided, unless the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Do not
submit information through Regional Material in EDocket (RME),
regulations.gov, or e-mail if you believe that it is CBI or otherwise
protected from disclosure. The EPA RME Web site and the Federal
regulations.gov are ``anonymous access'' systems, 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 e-mail comment directly to EPA
without going through RME or regulations.gov, your e-mail address will
be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public file 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 electronic docket are listed in the
Regional Material in EDocket (RME) index at http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/.
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 the official file which is
available 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: Ms. 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. This document concerns
control of Air Pollution of NOX and VOCs from mobile sources
in 110 counties of east Texas where the rule applies.
What Action Are We Taking Today?
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. The revisions
were adopted on March 9, 2005, and submitted to EPA on March 23, 2005.
On February 16, 2005, the Executive Director of the TCEQ submitted
a letter to EPA requesting parallel processing of the compliance date
portion of the SIP revision for TXLED. EPA proposed action prior to
completion of the State rulemaking process and, after completion of the
State process, approved the compliance date portion of the SIP revision
for TXLED on April 6, 2005 (70 FR 17321).
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. These exceptions
are noted below in the discussion of the rule. We are proposing to
approve those aspects of the rule on which the TCEQ has not requested
that EPA postpone action.
What Did the State Submit?
The State submitted revisions to TXLED rules found in 30 TAC 114.6
and 114.312, 114.314-114.316, 114.318, and 114.319. These include
revisions to definitions; low emission diesel standards; registration
of producers and importers; approved test methods; monitoring,
recordkeeping, and
[[Page 46450]]
reporting requirements; alternative emission reduction plans; and
affected counties and compliance dates.
Why Are These Revisions Approvable?
We thoroughly analyzed the rule revisions to ensure that they did
not compromise the integrity of the approved SIP. Many changes were
nonsubstantive editorial or format changes. Some substantive changes
are considered minor. Major substantive changes that needed a more
thorough analysis are discussed below. A detailed analysis can be found
in the Technical Support Document that accompanies this action.
Section 114.312. Low Emission Diesel Standards
In 114.312(b) the sulfur standard is removed. The sulfur standard
is no longer needed in this rule because the federal ultra-low sulfur
diesel standards are now promulgated and will reduce sulfur in on-
highway diesel in 2006 and in nonroad equipment starting in 2007.
Removal of sulfur by itself does not influence NOX emissions
when the fuel is combusted unless advanced technology equipment is
used. This equipment is not required to be manufactured until federal
compliance dates beginning in 2006 and 2007. While the delay in
achieving sulfur reductions does not impact NOX emissions
and therefore does not impact ozone plans in Texas, it does impact
SO2 and PM emissions. However, there are no PM or
SO2 nonattainment areas in the area covered by the rule so
the delay in the sulfur requirement will not interfere with attainment
of these standards. Because the affected areas are in attainment of
these standards before the compliance date of these standards, these
revisions will not interfere with any applicable requirements
concerning nonattainment nor will they have an adverse impact on
reasonable further progress. Therefore, the repeal of the sulfur
standard will not interfere with attainment, reasonable further
progress or any other applicable requirement of the Act.
Renumbered 114.312(f) removes EPA from approval of alternative
formulations. This revision is not approvable unless the executive
director discretion is removed from the replicable test procedures in
114.315. The State requested that EPA not act upon the executive
director discretion portions of 114.315 because the State plans to
remove these references in future rulemakings.
Section 114.314. Registration of Diesel Producers and Importers
The previously approved SIP required registration with the State by
all suppliers of diesel fuel in the affected area as of December 1,
2004, to gather data on suppliers and potential suppliers. In the
revisions approved on April 6, 2005, the deadline to register was
changed to May 1, 2005.
Section 114.315. Approved Test Methods
We are taking no action on subsection Sec. 114.315(b) nor
Alternative V at Sec. 114.315(c)(4)(C)(ii)(V) at the request of the
State. These citations give the executive director discretion for
changing test methods. The State requested in the letter dated July 5,
2005, that we not act on these portions of the submittal.
Subsection (c) contains the methods and procedures for getting an
alternative fuel formulation tested and approved. The adopted
amendments to Sec. 114.315(c) clarify and update existing references
and provide additional flexibility in the testing of alternative
formulations. Adopted revisions to Sec. 114.315(c)(1)(C) and also to
Sec. 114.315(c)(4) replace or add language to reference the active
version of the appropriate test methods or procedures rather than the
date-specific versions. These revisions will ensure the use of the most
accurate and up-to-date testing methods or procedures by ASTM or EPA.
The adopted revision to Sec. 114.315(c)(1)(C) clarifies the diesel
grades and sulfur content of the reference fuel for the testing of
alternative formulations. Because the sulfur requirements were removed
from Sec. 114.312, revisions to Sec. 114.315(c)(3)(A) set the sulfur
limit of the reference fuel at a maximum value of 15 parts per million
(ppm). This limit matches the federal sulfur requirements starting in
2006.
The revision to Sec. 114.315(c)(4)(C) provides additional
flexibility in the testing of new diesel formulations under Sec.
114.312(f). These revisions amend the test sequences to now include
sequences for testing with cold and hot start exhaust emission testing
cycles. The revisions also contain sequences for testing only with hot
start exhaust emission test cycles, including a new sequence for
testing formulations that require an extended duration conditioning
cycle. Alternative I at Sec. 114.315(c)(4)(C)(ii)(I) is retained from
the approved rule. Clarification that 20 or 21 hot-start tests must be
run with each fuel is now included for the first three alternatives.
These revisions allow increased flexibility in test procedures while
assuring adequate data is available for a determination of emission
reductions from the proposed alternatives and, therefore, are
approvable.
Alternative IV at Sec. 114.315(c)(4)(C)(ii)(IV) does not clearly
specify that at least 20 tests must be run as in the first three
alternatives. If only a few tests were run on each fuel, it would not
be similar enough to the first three alternatives for us to say it is
effectively the same as the others. At least 20 tests must be run on
each fuel for Alternative IV. In addition, the conditioning cycle must
include four tests on the candidate fuel but not count them toward the
data used to evaluate the emission impacts of the candidate fuel. This
sets a new baseline from which to make the determination. The State is
currently providing guidance on the testing requirements, clarifying
that 20 tests must be run for Alternative IV and 4 additional tests are
necessary as a conditioning cycle.
The major revision to Sec. 114.315(c)(5) is a new formula that
specifies the measurement tolerances per pollutant type that will be
acceptable when calculating whether the emissions generated by a
candidate fuel are comparable to the emissions generated by the
reference fuel. This formula is essentially the same as the one in the
California diesel fuel rules.
The revision to Sec. 114.315(c)(6) adds consultation with the EPA
into the process to approve an alternative fuel formulation. This
provides EPA input into the process to ensure the adequacy of the
alternative fuel formulations and is approvable.
By letter dated July 5, 2005, the State has asked that EPA not
consider Alternative V at Sec. 114.315(c)(4)(C)(ii)(V). This provision
gives the executive director discretion to approve other test sequences
considered to be equivalent. We are taking no action on this provision
in this action.
The revision adopted in Sec. 114.315(d) adds requirements for what
must be included in the application for approval of alternative diesel
fuel formulations using additives. Adopted new paragraph (1) outlines
that the application provided to the executive director must include
the identity, chemical composition, and concentration of each additive
used in the formulation, and the test method by which the presence and
concentration of the additive may be determined. Adopted new paragraph
(2) outlines what will be included in the executive director's approval
notification of an alternative diesel fuel
[[Page 46451]]
formulation. The adopted paragraph requires an approval notification to
identify the total aromatic hydrocarbon content, cetane number, and
other parameters as appropriate and as determined in accordance with
the test methods identified in Sec. 114.315(a). For alternative diesel
fuel formulations using additives, the approval notice must specify, at
a minimum, the identity, the minimum concentration, and the treatment
rate of the additives used, along with the minimum specifications for
the base fuel to be used in the approved formulation as determined by
the test method identified in Sec. 114.315(d)(1).
As a final point in the discussion of this subsection, we would
like to clarify what could be included as ``demonstrated to the
satisfaction of * * * EPA'' in Sec. 114.315(d). Any fuel or fuel
additive that has been verified by EPA through our Voluntary Diesel
Retrofit Program/Environmental Technology Verification program could be
considered demonstrated to the satisfaction of EPA. Also, a fuel
prepared using EPA's Unified Model (the Model) could be included. The
Model was created to evaluate the emission reduction benefits of TXLED
in highway vehicles. In a memo from Bob Larson, EPA's Office of
Transportation and Air Quality to Carl Edlund, Director of the
Multimedia Permitting and Planning Divison, Region 6 of the EPA, dated
September 27, 2001, we stated that the Unified Model should not be used
to evaluate any other diesel fuel control program. Allowing the use of
the Unified Model by refiners to evaluate diesel that can achieve the
same NOX reductions as TXLED smooths the path to compliance.
Alternative emission reduction plans would not be required in this
case.
Along with this clarification, we make the following caveats
regarding the use of the Unified Model for this purpose:
(1) It is for use only in the Texas Low-Emission Diesel program
because it was developed specifically for evaluating TXLED. No other
state may adopt this Model as a compliance tool or to evaluate the
benefits of their own state-run diesel fuel program.
(2) The Unified Model allows the production of fuels using Cetane
improvers. It does not allow for the use of any other additive.
(3) The Unified model was created primarily for highway vehicles.
For highway vehicles the benefits decrease over time starting in 2004.
In running the Model to determine a formulation, the evaluation year
used in the Model will make a difference in the benefit. The Unified
Model can be used for nonroad without decreasing benefits over time
because nonroad engines do not have exhaust gas recirculation (EGR).
Section 114.316. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
New subsection (d) removes the sulfur testing requirement. The
proposed gallonage requirement was revised at adoption from 50,000
gallons of LED produced to 250,000 gallons. In the approved SIP, no
gallonage requirement was included, so this change is more stringent.
Sampling for sulfur was removed as a State requirement.
New subsection (e) contains additive sampling language that is more
stringent than what was previously approved.
Several administrative revisions were made. One is to provide
records to the executive director within 15 days instead of five days
of a written request. The other is a change to the 15 day requirement
for companies to send in quarterly reports after the end of a quarter.
This was changed at adoption to 45 days based on comments received
during the State public comment period. These changes were made to be
consistent with EPA requirements for these activities.
In Sec. 114.316(g)(7) two new certification statements were added
to account for diesel that may need further processing before becoming
TXLED, and alternative fuel formulations of TXLED. These replace one
certification that was deleted.
The sulfur requirement was removed from Sec. 114.316(h)(2). This
change is approvable for reasons discussed earlier.
New language in Sec. 114.316(k) adds specific recordkeeping and
reporting requirements for producers or importers that have Alternate
Emission Reduction Plans, thus enhancing enforcement of the program.
This language strengthens the SIP which previously required that plans
``contain adequate enforcement provisions.'' This includes information
that producers must put into quarterly reports, e.g., volume of diesel
fuel produced subject to the provisions of the alternative emission
reduction plan, the volume of diesel fuel not produced but sold or
supplied by the producer that is subject to provisions of the
alternative emission reduction plan, the volume of additive utilized by
the producer to produce diesel fuel subject to the provisions of the
alternative emission reduction plan. This is approvable because it
enhances enforcement of the program.
Section 114.318. Alternative Emission Reduction Plans
The meaning of this section remains essentially unchanged after
reformatting and minor substantive changes. Language now in (d) was
revised to allow plan implementation with executive director approval.
In the SIP-approved version, it was implied but not explicitly stated
that implementation of plans was allowed upon EPA and executive
director approval. This has now been clarified. The July 5, 2005 letter
from the State indicates that the language in 30 Tex. Admin. Code Sec.
114.318(d) is meant to reference the approval mentioned in Sec.
114.318(a) and therefore is interpreted to include EPA approval as
well. Ultimately, if the plans that the State submits to EPA for
approval as a SIP revision when implemented do not add up to equivalent
or comparable reductions in NOX, the State will be
responsible for replacing the lost reductions with other reductions not
yet claimed. It is also presumed that the State will take appropriate
enforcement action on any producer or importer that does not comply by
supplying equivalent or comparable NOX reductions through a
fuel strategy.
Section 114.319. Affected Counties and Compliance Dates
As stated previously, on February 16, 2005 the Executive Director
of the TCEQ submitted a letter to EPA requesting parallel processing of
the compliance date portion of the SIP revision for TXLED. We proposed
approval on February 24, 2005, and gave final approval on April 6, 2005
(70 FR 17321).
In Sec. 114.319(b)(1) five more counties were included in the
Dallas-Fort Worth area bringing the total to nine for that area. These
counties were part of the DFW Extended Compliance area under the 1-hour
ozone standard, and are now part of the DFW 8-hour nonattainment area.
Proposed Action
We are proposing 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. As a result
[[Page 46452]]
and in accordance with section 110(l) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. section
7410(l), these revisions will not interfere with attainment, reasonable
further progress or any other applicable requirement of the Clean Air
Act.
Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed 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
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this proposed 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 proposes to approve 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 proposed 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 proposes to approve 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
proposed 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 proposed 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.).
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.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: August 2, 2005.
Richard E. Greene,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 05-15830 Filed 8-9-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P