Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; Reasonable Further Progress Plan, Enhanced Monitoring, Clean Fuel Fleets and Failure-to-Attain Contingency Measures for the Dallas/Fort Worth 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area; and Transportation Conformity |
|---|
|
Samuel Coleman
Environmental Protection Agency
November 12, 2014
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 218 (Wednesday, November 12, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67068-67073]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26625]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R06-OAR-2012-0099; FRL-9919-02-Region 6]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Texas; Reasonable Further Progress Plan, Enhanced Monitoring, Clean
Fuel Fleets and Failure-to-Attain Contingency Measures for the Dallas/
Fort Worth 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area; and Transportation
Conformity
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
revisions to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) on January 17, 2012,
which contain a reasonable further progress (RFP) plan and associated
contingency measures and motor vehicle emission budgets; a revised 2002
base year emissions inventory for the RFP; enhanced ambient monitoring;
and the clean-fuel fleet programs for the Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW)
Serious nonattainment area under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. The
EPA is also approving revisions to the DFW Moderate area attainment
demonstration SIP submitted by the TCEQ on April 6, 2010, which address
the failure-to-attain contingency measures. The EPA is also approving
revisions submitted by the TCEQ on July 25, 2007, March 25, 2010 and
April 13, 2012, which address the Texas transportation conformity rules
and the Texas Diesel Emissions Reduction Incentive Program for On-Road
and Non-Road Vehicles. The EPA is approving these SIP revisions in
accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).
DATES: This final rule is effective on December 12, 2014.
ADDRESSES: The EPA established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R06-OAR-2012-0099. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information 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 through http://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. To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment with the person listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph below or Mr. Bill
Deese at 214-665-7253.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carrie Paige, Air Planning Section
(6PD-L); telephone (214) 665-6521; email address paige.carrie@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' means the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
The background for this final rule is discussed in the May 13, 2014
Federal Register (FR) where we proposed to approve revisions to the
Texas SIP (79 FR 27257), henceforth referred to as our ``Proposal.'' We
proposed to approve all or parts of six SIP revisions submitted by the
TCEQ, which we organized into three categories. First, we proposed to
approve revisions to the Texas SIP submitted on January 17, 2012, to
meet certain Serious area requirements of section 182(c) of the Act for
the DFW nonattainment area under the 1997 ozone standard: The
reasonable further progress (RFP) plan; the RFP contingency measure
provisions; the revised 2002 base year emission inventory (EI);
enhanced ambient monitoring; and the clean-fuel fleet programs (CFFPs).
Our proposed approval of the RFP includes the associated motor vehicle
emission budgets (MVEBs) for 2011 and 2012--once the EPA approves the
submitted MVEBs, they must be used by local, state and Federal agencies
in determining whether transportation activities conform to the SIP as
required by section 176(c) of the CAA and 40 CFR 93.102. Second, we
proposed to approve revisions to the DFW SIP's failure-to-attain
contingency measures plan for the Moderate ozone nonattainment area
under the 1997 ozone standard, submitted on April 6, 2010. Third, we
proposed to approve into the SIP revisions submitted on July 25, 2007,
March 25, 2010, and April 13, 2012, that make the Texas transportation
conformity rules consistent with the Federal Surface
[[Page 67069]]
Transportation Reauthorization Act \1\ and expand the Diesel Emissions
Reduction Incentive Program for On-Road and Non-Road Vehicles (DERIP,
also often referred to as the Texas Emission Reduction Plan or TERP) to
include additional projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Federal Surface Transportation Reauthorization Act is
commonly known as the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act--A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our Proposal and the technical support documents (TSDs) that
accompanied the proposed rule provide detailed descriptions of the
revisions and the rationale for our proposed decisions. Please see the
docket for these and other documents regarding our Proposal. The public
comment period for our Proposal closed on June 12, 2014.
II. Response to Comments
We received one comment letter dated June 12, 2014, from the Sierra
Club (the Commenter) regarding our Proposal. A summary of the comments
and our responses to those comments follow.
A. The Failure-to-Attain Contingency Measures
The Commenter provided the following statements regarding the
failure-to-attain contingency measures:
The EPA is approving measures that do not ``cure the
identified failure [to attain]'' or do not provide a ``backup plan of
action,'' and the measures had already taken place without air quality
benefit, prior to the 2010 attainment finding.
The EPA has not provided any information or support to
show that the state's projection of reductions resulting from fleet
turnover from 2009-2010 are accurate, provide a ``continuing surplus''
and whether the projections would be accurate on a continuing basis.
The fleet turnover measure is not enforceable and therefore is not
permissible as a contingency measure.
Rather than holding Texas accountable for its failure to
attain the 1997 ozone standard on multiple deadlines, and thus
requiring that stronger contingency measures be put in place, the EPA
in this action credits the state for reductions that will take place
naturally and requires nothing more.
The EPA should recommend for Texas's consideration
emissions reductions from large, uncontrolled sources contributing to
DFW ozone levels, even where they are not within the nonattainment
area. The DFW failure-to-attain contingency measures should include
tighter emission limits on the East Texas coal-fired power plants.
Including selective catalytic reduction (SCR) on the
cement kilns in Midlothian as a failure-to-attain contingency measure
would give Texas a greater incentive to ensure that it meets a new
attainment deadline than would allowing it to rely on naturally
occurring fleet turnover. The EPA should recommend that Texas consider
the EPA's Natural Gas STAR Program and other practices recommended by
the EPA as voluntary measures to reduce emissions from oil and natural
gas operations and improve efficiency.
Response: The Commenter mischaracterizes the action EPA is taking.
The SIP already includes failure-to-attain contingency measures: (1)
Fleet turnover for 2009 to 2010 and, (2) three other measures that
reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds or VOC--Degassing, Dry
Cleaning, and Offset Lithographic Printing (OLP) rules. See 74 FR 1903
(January 14, 2009). And, in this action EPA is not approving any new or
different measures into the SIP for purposes of the failure-to-attain
contingency measure requirement. Rather, our Proposal only addresses
the removal of the OLP rule as a failure-to-attain contingency measure.
As of March 1, 2012, the OLP rule is being implemented in the DFW
area pursuant to EPA's issuance of a control technique guideline (CTG)
\2\ and for that reason it is no longer eligible for use as a failure-
to-attain contingency measure. As a result, the State submitted a SIP
revision to demonstrate that the remaining failure-to-attain
contingency measures would still achieve 3% in emissions reductions
without the OLP rule.\3\ Fleet turnover for 2009-2010 by itself
satisfies the 3% emissions reductions (fleet turnover is estimated at
3.68 percent reduction of the base year emissions, which includes the
NOX and VOC emissions reductions, as discussed in our TSD-B,
beginning on p. 13), so removal of the OLP rule as a failure-to-attain
contingency measure does not reduce the remaining emissions reductions
to less than the 3%.\4\ Our Proposal recognizes that the Moderate area
failure-to-attain contingency measures already approved in the SIP meet
the Act's requirement in section 182(c)(9) for failure-to-attain
contingency measures. Thus, the elimination of OLP as a contingency
measure does not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable
requirement of the Act. See CAA section 110(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ March 1, 2012 is the implementation date for minor sources.
The implementation date for major sources is March 1, 2011. See 79
FR 45105, August 4, 2014.
\3\ As described in our Proposal and TSD-B, EPA interprets
sections 172 and 182 of the Act to require States with Moderate or
above ozone nonattainment areas to include contingency measures to
implement additional emission reductions of 3% of the adjusted base
year inventory in the year following the year in which the failure
has been identified. See 57 FR 13498, 13510, April 16, 1992.
\4\ Although EPA has not re-opened the issue of whether this
already-approved contingency measure is appropriate, we note that
EPA has long interpreted the contingency measures provision to allow
states to rely on measures already in place and implemented so long
as those reductions are beyond those relied on for purposes of the
attainment or RFP planning SIP. This interpretation has been upheld.
See LEAN v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575 (5th Cir. 2004). In addition, section
172(c)(9) of the CAA states that contingency measures are to be
``specific measures to be undertaken if the area fails to make
reasonable further progress, or to attain . . . by the attainment
date. . . . Such measures shall be included in the plan revision as
contingency measures to take effect in any such case without further
action by the State or the Administrator.'' The April 16, 1992
General Preamble provided the following guidance: ``States must show
that their contingency measures can be implemented with minimal
further action on their part and with no additional rulemaking
actions such as public hearings or legislative review. In general,
EPA will expect all actions needed to affect full implementation of
the measures to occur within 60 days after EPA notifies the State of
its failure.'' (57 FR 13512). This could include Federal measures
and local measures already scheduled for implementation. See 70 FR
71612, 71651 (November 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We evaluated and described the methodologies used to calculate each
of the measures used in the failure-to-attain contingency plan at 74 FR
1903. The methodologies were consistent with EPA guidance. The Federal
Motor Vehicle Control programs (FMVCP or ``fleet turnover'') are
federal rules and as such, are enforceable by the EPA, the State and
the public (see 74 FR 1903).
We disagree that we have not held the State accountable for its
failure to attain the 1997 ozone standard in the DFW area. Consistent
with our duties under the CAA, on December 20, 2010, we reclassified
the DFW area from Moderate to Serious after it failed to meet the June
15, 2010 attainment date for the Moderate area (75 FR 79302). In that
reclassification rulemaking, the State was required to submit SIP
revisions addressing requirements for the Serious area no later than
one year after the effective date of the rulemaking and the TCEQ
submitted such revisions within the time allowed. As a matter of law,
the EPA is required to approve a SIP revision if it meets the Act's
requirements, regardless of the State's choices. It is not EPA's role
to rule out the State's choice of components of its SIP submittal,
including the contingency measures, so long as the
[[Page 67070]]
plan is adequate to meet the requirements of the Act. See Train v.
NRDC, 421 U.S. 60 (1975) and Union Electric v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246
(1976).
We appreciate the Commenter's suggestions regarding emissions
reductions for large, stationary sources and voluntary measures for oil
and gas operations. Regarding sources outside of the nonattainment
area, EPA policy does not allow emissions reductions from outside of
the nonattainment area to be included in attainment or RFP plans. On
December 22, 2010, the EPA proposed to set aside its earlier
interpretation of the RFP provisions at 74 FR 40074 (August 11, 2009)
and no longer permit states to rely on credit for emission reductions
from outside the ozone nonattainment area to meet the area's RFP
obligations (75 FR 80420). In light of the reasoning used in Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 571 F.3d (D.C. Cir. 2009),
NRDC's petition for reconsideration of the rule at 74 FR 40074, and the
language of the CAA, there is no legal basis for states to credit
emissions reductions from sources outside the nonattainment area for
satisfying RFP requirements.\5\ On June 6, 2013, the EPA proposed that
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS states may not take credit for VOC or
NOX reductions occurring outside the nonattainment area for
purposes of meeting the 15 percent and 3 percent RFP requirements of
sections 172(c)(2), 182(b)(1) and (c)(2)(B). See 78 FR 34178, 34191.
Finally, as previously noted, the State has discretion under the Act to
determine the components of its SIP submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 75 FR 80240 for more detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. The Serious Area Reasonable Further Progress Plan
Comment: The Commenter states that the TCEQ's January 17, 2012
submittal does not explicitly outline a reasonable further progress
plan or contingency measures specifically associated with missing a
reasonable further progress milestone, and that EPA instead considers
the total reductions Texas claims are available for contingency
measures as above and beyond the reductions the state claimed were
needed for attainment.
Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. The submittal \6\ by the
State and the EPA's technical analysis addressed both RFP and the
contingency measures that would be implemented if an RFP milestone is
not met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The submittal (and accompanying appendices) is available in
the docket for this rulemaking, on the TCEQ Web site (http://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/sip/dfw_revisions.html) and at http://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/implementation/air/sip/dfw/rfp_2011/2010023_ado.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with section 182(c)(2)(B) of the Act and the Final Rule
to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard--
Phase 2 (``the Phase 2 Rule'') at 70 FR 71612, 71650 (November 29,
2005), for each area classified as Serious or higher, the State's RFP
plan must demonstrate a 3-percent annual emission reduction averaged
over every 3-year period after the initial 6-year period. For the DFW
area, the first 3-year period runs from January 1, 2009 to December 31,
2011. The final increment of progress must be achieved no later than
the attainment date of the attainment year, which is June 15, 2012.\7\
As described in our Proposal and TSD-A, the State's RFP submittal
accounts for emissions reductions that average three percent per year,
from 2009 through 2011 and for 2012.\8\ Tables 8 and 9 in our TSD-A
list the measures that provide emissions reductions during years 2009
through 2011 and for 2012. These include federal measures and State
controls that reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) on
electric generating units (EGUs) and certain area source engines.\9\ As
shown in the TSD-A and in Tables 4 and 5 of our Proposal, the RFP plan
shows a net decrease in emissions for the period 2009-2011 and for 2012
that meets the RFP requirement of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The attainment year is the year immediately preceding the
attainment date (40 CFR 51.900(g)). The attainment date for the DFW
Serious area is June 15, 2013 (75 FR 79302), thus the DFW area's
attainment year is 2012. The target level of emissions must be met
by the attainment date of the attainment year. Section 182(c)(2)(B)
of the Act requires that RFP be continued out to the attainment
date. See 70 FR 71612 and 40 CFR 51.910.
\8\ The 2011 and 2012 targets are termed ``milestone'' years.
\9\ These are examples; for a complete list, see Tables 8 and 9
in our TSD-A and Appendix 1 in the State's submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the State's RFP submittal must include contingency
measures that would provide reductions of at least three percent of
baseline emissions in 2013. Three percent of the base year
NOX emissions (630.46 tpd) is 18.91 tpd and three percent of
the base year VOC emissions (481.97 tpd) is 14.46 tpd. The State's
contingency measures are listed in Table 10 of our TSD-A; these include
State and federal measures that will achieve reductions during 2013 of
41.60 tpd in NOX emissions and 15.62 tpd in VOC emissions.
Because the State and federal measures achieve at least as much in
emissions reductions as the three percent target values, the State's
contingency measures meet the RFP requirement of the Act.
Comment: The Commenter states that we failed to provide any
verification or support for Texas' projections of emissions reductions
and failed to include a real world check as to whether promised
reductions have occurred.
Response: The Commenter's second point--that EPA has not performed
a ``real-world'' check to ensure that promised reductions have
occurred--is not relevant for this action. This action is simply
evaluating the SIP to ensure that it provides for sufficient measures
to meet the reasonable further progress goals. Additionally, the
commenter did not present evidence to support the idea that the
reductions have not occurred and EPA has no reason to believe they have
not. EPA is not reviewing Texas' implementation of the SIP for purposes
of whether the area attained the standard by the attainment date as
part of this action. As to the first point--whether EPA has verified
Texas' projection of the emission reductions--we disagree. Consistent
with section 182(c)(2)(B), the plan needs to demonstrate emissions
reductions from the baseline emissions equal to the following amount
averaged over each consecutive 3-year period beginning 6 years after
[the effective date of designations], until the attainment date: (i) At
least 3 percent of baseline emissions each year; or (ii) an amount less
than 3 percent of such baseline emissions each year, if the State makes
certain additional demonstrations.\10\ In addition, section 182(c)(9)
of the Act requires contingency measures equal to 3% of the baseline to
be implemented if RFP is not met. Our TSD-A and Proposal describe how
the State's submittal meets these requirements. Texas projected
emissions reductions from mobile source controls, including, but not
limited to: Fleet turnover; inspection and maintenance; reformulated
gasoline; Texas low-emission diesel fuel; and Tier 2 and 3 non-road
diesel engines. The projected reductions were calculated using mobile
source emissions estimation models. The EPA Motor Vehicle Emissions
Simulator (MOVES) model was used to estimate from on-road mobile source
controls. A Texas-specific version of the EPA NON-ROAD model was used
to estimate emissions from non-road mobile source controls.\11\ The
area
[[Page 67071]]
source \12\ emissions were estimated using the 2008 National Emissions
Inventory data, back-calculated to 2002 (for the base year EI) and
projected to future dates, using the EPA's Economic Growth Analysis
System growth factors. This provided the most recent, complete set of
emissions data available at the time the TCEQ developed this RFP plan.
Point sources (for example, cement and power plants) are individually
inventoried and required to submit emissions data to TCEQ annually. The
data are reviewed by the TCEQ for quality assurance purposes and stored
in the State of Texas Air Reporting System. We reviewed the State's
methods for developing the projections of emissions and found them to
be adequate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See section 182(b)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act for further
explanation.
\11\ We note that new and existing federal mobile source
regulations addressing emissions from automobiles, non-road
equipment and engines, locomotives and marine engines will continue
to provide additional emissions reductions as the current fleets are
replaced with newer vehicles, equipment and engines that are
certified to more stringent emissions standards or engines are re-
built to comply with any applicable requirements (78 FR 34178,
34181, June 6, 2013).
\12\ Area sources are also termed nonpoint sources and
collectively represent individual sources that have not been
inventoried as specific point or mobile sources. These include small
scale industrial, commercial and residential sources that generate
emissions, such as gas stations, bakeries, and solvent use (e.g.,
dry cleaners, automobile paint shops, print shops and house paints).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Final Action
The EPA is approving revisions to the Texas SIP submitted by the
TCEQ on January 17, 2012, which contain a RFP plan and associated
contingency measures and MVEBs; a revised 2002 base year EI for the RFP
plan; enhanced ambient monitoring; and the CFFPs for the DFW Serious
nonattainment area under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. We are also
approving revisions to the DFW Moderate area attainment demonstration
SIP submitted by the TCEQ on April 6, 2010, which address the failure-
to-attain contingency measures. We are also approving revisions
submitted by the TCEQ on July 25, 2007, March 25, 2010, and April 13,
2012, which address the Texas transportation conformity rules and the
Texas Diesel Emissions Reduction Incentive Program for On-Road and Non-
Road Vehicles. These revisions are consistent with the CAA, federal
transportation rules and EPA Guidance that addresses economic incentive
programs and transportation conformity.
We are also making a ministerial correction to the second table in
40 CFR 52.2270(e) to reflect accurately the date of EPA's approval of
the Transportation Control Measures SIP on December 5, 2002 (67 FR
72382).
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 CAA. 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, 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 CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation
land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 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 action 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.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by January 12, 2015. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposed 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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: October 29, 2014.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
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. In Sec. 52.2270:
0
a. The table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising the entries for
Section 114.260, Section 114.620, and Section 114.622.
0
b. The second table in paragraph (e) is amended by revising the entry
for
[[Page 67072]]
``Transportation Control Measures SIP Revision'' and adding three new
entries at the end of the table.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.2270 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
EPA-Approved Regulations in the Texas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
approval/
State citation Title/subject submittal EPA approval date Explanation
date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subchapter G--Transportation Planning
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 114.260.................. Transportation 6/27/2007 11/12/2014 [Insert ....................
Conformity. Federal Register
citation].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subchapter K--Mobile Source Incentive Programs
Division 3: Diesel Emission Reduction Incentive Program for On-road and Non-road Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 114.620.................. Definitions......... 2/24/2010 11/12/2014 [Insert ....................
Federal Register
citation].
* * * * * * *
Section 114.622.................. Incentive Program 3/28/2012 11/12/2014 [Insert ....................
Requirements. Federal Register
citation].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(e) * * *
EPA-Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Applicable submittal/
Name of SIP provision geographic or non- effective EPA approval date Comments
attainment area date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Transportation Control Measures All Nonattainment 5/9/2000 12/5/2002, 67 FR Chapter 1.
SIP Revision. and Maintenance 72382. Introduction,
Areas. Chapter 2. General,
and Chapter 3.
Criteria and
Procedures.
* * * * * * *
Failure-to-Attain Contingency Collin, Dallas, 3/10/2010 11/12/2014 [Insert ....................
Measures Plan. Denton, Ellis, Federal Register
Johnson, Kaufman, citation].
Parker, Rockwall
and Tarrant
Counties, TX.
Reasonable Further Progress Plan Collin, Dallas, 12/7/2011 11/12/2014 [Insert ....................
(RFP), RFP Contingency Measures, Denton, Ellis, Federal Register
RFP Motor Vehicle Emission Johnson, Kaufman, citation].
Budgets for 2011 and 2012, and Parker, Rockwall
Revised 2002 Base Year Emissions and Tarrant
Inventory. Counties, TX.
Enhanced Ambient Monitoring and Collin, Dallas, 12/7/2011 11/12/2014 [Insert ....................
the Clean-fuel Fleet Programs. Denton, Ellis, Federal Register
Johnson, Kaufman, citation].
Parker, Rockwall
and Tarrant
Counties, TX.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 67073]]
[FR Doc. 2014-26625 Filed 11-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P