You are on page 1of 5

50208 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No.

165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

[FR Doc. 05–16933 Filed 8–25–05; 8:45 am] during official business hours by III. What Is the Background for This
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P appointment: Texas Commission on Action?
Environmental Quality, Office of Air In the Federal Register published on
Quality, 12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin, January 18, 2001 (66 FR 4756) we
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Texas 78753. proposed to approve a Voluntary Mobile
AGENCY
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emissions Reduction Program (VMEP)
40 CFR Part 52 Sandra Rennie, Air Planning Section in nine counties (including the DFW 4-
(6PD–L), Environmental Protection county area) as local initiatives. The
[TX 126–1–7690; FRL–7960–4] counties are Collin, Dallas, Denton, and
Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, Tarrant along with the surrounding
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; telephone (214) 665–7367; fax number counties of Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman,
Dallas-Fort Worth Voluntary Mobile 214–665–7263; e-mail address Parker, and Rockwall.
Emission Reduction Program rennie.sandra@epa.gov. Voluntary mobile source strategies
that attempt to complement existing
AGENCY: Environmental Protection SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: regulatory programs through voluntary,
Agency (EPA). Throughout this document wherever non-regulatory changes in local
ACTION: Final rule. ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean transportation activities or changes in
the EPA. in-use vehicle and engine composition
SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State constitute the VMEP. EPA concludes
Outline of Topics
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision that the Clean Air Act allows SIP credit
submitted by the State of Texas. This I. What Action Is EPA Taking and Why?
II. What Are the Federal Requirements? for new approaches to reducing mobile
revision approves the Dallas-Fort Worth source emissions. This flexible
III. What Is the Background for This Action?
(DFW) Voluntary Mobile Emission approach is consistent with section 110.
IV. What Did the State Submit?
Reduction Program (VMEP) which is V. What Does the DFW VMEP Include? Up to 3% of the total future year
relied upon to achieve the National VI. What Comments Did EPA Receive in emissions reductions required to attain
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) Response to the January 18, 2001, the appropriate NAAQS may be claimed
for ozone in the DFW nonattainment Proposed Rule? under the VMEP policy.1
area. VII. EPA’s Final Rulemaking Action
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Specifically, the guidance suggests
DATES: This rule is effective on key points be considered for approval of
September 26, 2005. I. What Action Is EPA Taking and credits. The credits should be
ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents Why? quantifiable, surplus, enforceable,
relevant to this action are in the official permanent, and adequately supported.
file which is available at the Air We are approving the DFW VMEP The State must timely assess and
Planning Section (6PD–L), into the Texas SIP. We are taking this backfill any shortfall pursuant to
Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 action because the State submitted a SIP enforceable commitments in the SIP in
Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas revision that relies on the VMEP to the event that the projected emission
75202–2733. The file will be made achieve the NAAQS in the DFW ozone reductions are not achieved. In addition,
available by appointment for public nonattainment area. VMEPs must be consistent with
inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review II. What Are the Federal Requirements? attainment of the standard and with the
Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m. Rate of Progress requirements and not
and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal Section 172 of the Act provides the interfere with other Clean Air Act
holidays. Contact the person listed in general requirements for nonattainment requirements.
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT plans. Section 172(c)(6) and section 110
paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at require SIPs to include enforceable IV. What Did the State Submit?
214–665–7253 to make an appointment. emission limitations, and such other The State submitted program
If possible, please make the control measures, means or techniques descriptions that projected emission
appointment at least two working days as well as schedules and timetables for reductions attributable to each specific
in advance of your visit. There will be compliance, as may be necessary to voluntary program. These program
a 15 cent per page fee for making provide for attainment by the applicable descriptions were included in the DFW
photocopies of documents. On the day attainment date. Today’s action involves 1-hour ozone SIP revision submitted
of the visit, please check in at the EPA approval of one of a collection of April 25, 2000.
Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross controls adopted by the State to achieve
the ozone standard in the DFW V. What Does the DFW VMEP Include?
Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.
Copies of any State submittals and nonattainment area as required under The following Table lists the
EPA’s technical support document are section 172. EPA approval of this SIP programs and projected credits.
also available for public inspection at revision is governed by section 110 of Programs submitted with no credit
the State Air Agency listed below the Act. assigned are also listed.

VOLUNTARY MOBILE EMISSION REDUCTION PROGRAMS AND CREDITS CLAIMED


VOC benefits NOX benefits
Program type (tons per day) (tons per day)

Alternative Fuel Program ......................................................................................................................................... 0.18 0.18


Employee Trip Reduction ........................................................................................................................................ 0.29 0.53
Public Education Campaign/Ozone Season Fare Reduction ................................................................................. 0.08 0.15

1 Memorandum from Richard D. Wilson, Acting dated October 24, 1997, entitled ‘‘Guidance on Reduction Programs in State Implementation Plans
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, Incorporating Voluntary Mobile Source Emission (SIPs).’’

VerDate Aug<18>2005 16:11 Aug 25, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26AUR1.SGM 26AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 50209

VOLUNTARY MOBILE EMISSION REDUCTION PROGRAMS AND CREDITS CLAIMED—Continued


VOC benefits NOX benefits
Program type (tons per day) (tons per day)

Tier II Locomotive Engines ...................................................................................................................................... 0–0.6 0–3.0


Vehicle Retirement Program/Vehicle Maintenance * ............................................................................................... 0.56 0.77
Sustainable Development ........................................................................................................................................ ........................ ........................
Non-Road Ozone Season Reductions .................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................
Off-Road Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Retrofits ........................................................................................................ ........................ ........................

Total Benefits (tpd) ........................................................................................................................................... 1.11–1.71 1.63–4.63


*Emission benefits quantified for the Vehicle Retirement Program only. Emission benefits for Vehicle Maintenance are credited in the Vehicle
Inspection and Maintenance Program.

The State commits to evaluating each Response: In the final decision on still be met without the reductions from
program to validate estimated credits, to October 28, 2003, by the United States these measures. Thus, EPA did not
evaluating and reporting on the program Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, the propose to approve voluntary measures
implementation and results, and to Court said EPA’s VMEP policy is a as satisfying the enforceability
timely remedy any credit shortfall. The reasonable interpretation of the statute. requirements of section 110. Rather,
State also commits to additional [See BCCA Appeal Group v. EPA, 355 EPA proposed to approve the voluntary
Transportation Control Measures F.3 817 (5th Cir. 2003)]. EPA programs into the SIP as part of the
(TCMs) that can be substituted for any determined and the Court agreed, overall attainment plan, and proposed
shortfall in credit from the estimated ‘‘* * * that Texas had made the to approve the state’s enforceable
credits for VMEP. These include Signal required commitments to monitor, commitment to monitor, assess, and
Improvements and Freeway Corridor assess, report, and remedy any credit rectify any shortfall as meeting the
Management. shortfall from the VMEP measures in enforceability requirements of the Act.
EPA’s analysis of all the VMEP accordance with EPA guidance and that EPA continues to believe that this
measures shows that each creditable these commitments satisfied the approach is a proper means of
measure could be quantified. The enforceability requirements of the encouraging implementation of
reductions are surplus by not being CAA.’’ Id, at 847. Therefore, the VMEP innovative mobile source control
substitutes for mandatory, required guidance, which is part of the VMEP measures while providing an
emission reductions. The SIP with policy is consistent with the CAA. enforceable SIP backstop measure.
voluntary measures is enforceable Comment: EPA’s proposed approval Ideally, the voluntary measures will
because the state has committed to fill of VMEP Measures for SIP credit is produce the estimated emissions
any shortfall in credit, thus any unlawful. The identified voluntary reductions without need for any state
enforcement will be against the State. measures, or any voluntary measures do backfill or Federal or citizen
The reductions will continue at least for not provide the certainty, enforceability, enforcement. However, should any
as long as the time period in which they quantifiability, replicability, shortfall result, Texas will be bound by
are used by a SIP demonstration, so they permanency, and accountability the enforceable SIP commitment to
are considered permanent. Each required for SIP attainment rectify the problem and supply the
measure is adequately supported by demonstrations. necessary emissions reductions. Both
personnel and program resources for Response: EPA disagrees with the EPA and private citizens retain all of
implementation. The State’s goal is 5.0 comment, and continues to believe that their rights under sections 113 and 304
tons per day of NOX benefit from the the voluntary measures proposed by to bring appropriate enforcement
VMEP program. Texas for inclusion in the SIP are pressure to bear against the state should
VI. What Comments Did EPA Receive in approvable under the Act. EPA Texas fail to monitor, assess or fill any
Response to the January 18, 2001, acknowledges that by themselves the shortfall in emissions reductions
Proposed Rule? measures would not be approvable, resulting from implementation of the
because as noted by the commenter they voluntary measures in the SIP. Contrary
Comments were submitted by the are not enforceable against the entities to the commenter’s allegations, the
Natural Resources Defense Council producing the emissions reductions and emissions reductions associated with
(NRDC). thus do not meet the enforceability the voluntary measures in the Dallas SIP
Comment: The NRDC supports the requirement of section 110(a)(2)(A). are required to be achieved; it is
objectives of the voluntary initiatives However, EPA did not propose to however the state and not the
identified in the proposal. They hope approve the measures by themselves. individuals implementing the voluntary
that greater employment of these EPA proposed to approve them only in measures who must ultimately produce
measures will promote greater public conjunction with an enforceable them.
awareness of the area’s severe air commitment by the state of Texas to Comment: The commenter raises
pollution problems and that these monitor implementation of the numerous arguments concerning the
measures will bring about emissions voluntary measures, determine whether unenforceability of the voluntary
reductions that will lead to healthy air. the anticipated reductions from the measures, which will be addressed
Response: We appreciate the positive measures were in fact achieved, and if below. However, the commenter makes
comments about the voluntary not to either alter the program such that no mention of the enforceable State
initiatives in the VMEP. the requisite reductions will be commitment other than to refer to it as
Comment: EPA’s VMEP guidance achieved, adopt substitute measures, or insufficient. This statement without
document is not consistent with the demonstrate that the attainment and further explanation does not give EPA
Clean Air Act (CAA). maintenance goals of the ozone SIP can any guidance on the alleged inadequacy

VerDate Aug<18>2005 16:11 Aug 25, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26AUR1.SGM 26AUR1
50210 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

of the commitment nor how the VMEP measures adopted by the state addition, this action is consistent with
commenter would have EPA improve covering the Dallas-Fort Worth the guidance cited in section IV of this
upon it. nonattainment area are available to the document that EPA issued in 1997
Response: EPA continues to maintain public on the agency’s Web site. indicating its belief that voluntary
that the commitment is approvable as Citizens may check on the measures programs could be approved in
meeting the enforceability requirements enacted by the TCEQ at the following conjunction with enforceable state
of the Act. In the past, EPA has often link: http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/ commitments to fill any resultant
approved enforceable state sips/sipdfw.html. shortfall. The individual SIP approval
commitments to take future actions Paper copies are also available upon actions implementing the VMEP
under the SIP, and these actions have request by contacting Ms. Kelly Keel of guidance constitute the notice-and-
been enforced by courts against states the Air Quality Planning and comment rulemaking required to
that have failed to comply with those Implementation Division at the TCEQ’s effectuate action under the guidance.
commitments. See, Trustees for Alaska Chief Engineer’s Office. Ms Keel may be Thus, this SIP rulemaking satisfies both
v. Fink, 17 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir. 1994); reached at 512–239–3607 or CAA and APA rulemaking requirements
Coalition Against Columbus Center v. kkeel@tceq.state.tx.us. with respect to final interpretations of
City of New York, 967 F.2d 764 (2d Cir. Because VMEP measures are local the Act consistent with the guidance.
1992); Citizens for a Better Environment initiatives, citizens may check on the Comment: The commenter alleges that
v. Deukmejian, 731 F.Supp. 1448, implemenation of each measure by EPA may not alter interpretations of the
reconsideration granted in part, 746 contacting the region’s transportation Administrator through SIP rulemaking
F.Supp. 976 (N.D. Cal. 1990); American planners, the North Central Texas signed by the Regional Administrator.
Lung Ass’n of New Jersey v. Keane, 871 Council of Governments (NCTCOG). Response: The Administrator has
F.2d 319 (3d Cir. 1989); NRDC v. New VMEP measures are proposed and properly delegated the authority for SIP
York State Department of implemented by local sponsors. rulemakings to the Regional
Environmental Conservation, 668 Comment: The commenter also claims Administrators under Delegation 7–10
F.Supp. 848 (S.D.N.Y. 1987); Council of that the state itself has raised concerns dated May 6, 1997, and section 301(a)(1)
Commuter Organizations v. Gorsuch, about the emissions reductions that will of the Act. Thus, the Regional
683 F.2d 648 (2d Cir. 1982) and Friends be achieved from these measures. Administrators are authorized to act for
of the Earth v. EPA, 499 F.2d.-1118 (2d Response: Such concerns may be the Administrator with respect to all
Cir. 1974) . EPA believes that the Texas valid, but notwithstanding Texas has matters pertaining to SIP approvals,
commitments associated with the made a commitment to fill any shortfall including interpretations of the Act
voluntary measures portion of the SIP in emissions, which both EPA and relevant to a given SIP approval.
are similarly enforceable and thus citizens can enforce under the Act. The Additionally, as we stated in the
approvable. State relies on reports from the previous response, this action is
Comment: The commenter alleges that NCTCOG regarding implementation of consistent with EPA’s past
the Act requires all control measures to each VMEP measure. The TCEQ has interpretations that enforceable state
be enforceable against individual received no reports from the NCTCOG commitments to take future action are
polluters and not just against states. regarding problems with implementing approvable SIP measures. Compliance
Response: Many mobile source the VMEP measures enacted in the SIP. with voluntary programs is ensured
control measures are enforceable only Therefore, the State does not believe through the enforceable state
against the state or local transit operator, there is a gap that needs to be backfilled commitments to fill any resultant
and not the individual entities actually with other emission reduction shortfall.
producing the emissions reductions, measures. Comment: The commenter questions
e.g., state obligations to establish vehicle Comment: The commenter makes the 3% limit on voluntary measures,
inspection and maintenance programs various arguments about the arguing that this limit itself implicitly
or to purchase buses or expand transit unacceptability of the voluntary acknowledges that such measures are
systems. The Clean Air Act does not measures program stemming from the not approvable.
require Federal enforcement capability stationary source permitting program Response: EPA did not impose the 3%
against individual vehicle owners or under Title V of the Act. limit because it believed the measures to
transit users prior to approval of such Response: Title V is totally irrelevant be suspect, but rather, as noted in the
programs into the SIP.2 to these mobile source programs. The VMEP guidance, based this decision on
Comment: The commenter alleges that voluntary measures program Texas has the innovative nature of the measures
the public cannot adequately monitor included in the Dallas SIP applies only and the agency’s lack of experience both
implementation of the voluntary to mobile sources that are not subject to with implementation and calculating
measures nor determine whether the regulation under the Title V stationary appropriate credit for such measures.
emissions reductions are achieved. source permitting program. Therefore, EPA created the 3% limit as
Response: Texas is required by its Comment: The commenter also argues a policy matter, indicating in the
enforceable commitment to do just that, that EPA can not alter its past guidance that it did not think it would
and will make such assessments interpretations without completing be appropriate to approve a greater
available to the public in the normal notice-and-comment rulemaking. percentage while the agency begins to
course of administrative practice. The Response: EPA believes that this implement the program. EPA further
action is consistent with its past indicated that it would reassess the
2 The Act does require that enhanced I/M
interpretations that enforceable state limit after several years of experience
programs include state enforcement through denial
of vehicle registration without proof of compliance
commitments to take future action are with the program. Since all VMEP
with inspection requirements. However, the approvable SIP measures. For example, measures would be approved only with
enforceable SIP requirement is to develop a see EPA actions approving California enfoceable state commitments to fill any
program that includes registration denial, and any plans at 62 FR 1150 ( January 8, 1997) resultant shortfall, EPA felt confident
enforcement would be against the state for failing
to deny registration. The Act does not contemplate
and 65 FR 18903 (April 10, 2000), and that including voluntary programs up to
enforcement actions against individual vehicle the Houston Attainment Demonstration 3% of required emissions reductions in
owners attempting to register their vehicles. at 66 FR 57160 (November 14, 2001). In SIPs would not jeopardize attainment

VerDate Aug<18>2005 16:11 Aug 25, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26AUR1.SGM 26AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 50211

and maintenance goals during initial in the recently issued umbrella policy and responsibilities established in the
implementation under the policy. for use of voluntary measures in SIPs.4 Clean Air Act. This rule also is not
Further, EPA did not indicate that 3% subject to Executive Order 13045
VII. EPA’s Final Rulemaking Action
of required emissions reductions could ‘‘Protection of Children from
be considered de minimis, as the The DFW VMEP meets the criteria for Environmental Health Risks and Safety
commenter implies. EPA agrees with the credit in the SIP. The State has shown Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
commenter that it should not conclude that the credits are quantifiable, surplus, because it is not economically
in advance that any given percentage of enforceable, permanent, adequately significant.
emissions reduction could be supported, and consistent with the SIP
and the Act. We are granting final In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
considered per se de minimis for all
approval of the VMEP into the DFW SIP. role is to approve state choices,
areas and types of SIPs. Any conclusion
provided that they meet the criteria of
about the de minimis nature of required VIII. Statutory and Executive Order the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the
emission reductions should be made in Reviews absence of a prior existing requirement
light of the specific circumstances of the
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR for the State to use voluntary consensus
areas and CAA requirements at issue.
51735, October 4, 1993), this action is standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
Therefore, all of the commenter’s
not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and to disapprove a SIP submission for
arguments relating to the availability of
therefore is not subject to review by the failure to use VCS. It would thus be
a de minimis exemption and the need
Office of Management and Budget. For inconsistent with applicable law for
for notice-and-comment rulemaking to
this reason, this action is also not EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,
effectuate it are not relevant to EPA’s
subject to Executive Order 13211, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission
approval of the voluntary measures in
‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That that otherwise satisfies the provisions of
the Dallas SIP.
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
Comment: NRDC claims the record is Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
insufficient to support our credit claims. requirements of section 12(d) of the
22, 2001). This action merely approves National Technology Transfer and
Response: EPA reviewed the state law as meeting Federal Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
documentation for each measure of the requirements and imposes no additional 272 note) do not apply. This rule does
VMEP. We found that for each measure requirements beyond those imposed by not impose an information collection
the documentation was acceptable to state law. Accordingly, the burden under the provisions of the
demonstrate that the criteria for Administrator certifies that this rule Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
approval were met. For each measure will not have a significant economic U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
the State was able to show that the impact on a substantial number of small
measure plus the State commitment was entities under the Regulatory Flexibility The Congressional Review Act, 5
quantifiable, surplus, enforceable, Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
permanent, and adequately supported. rule approves pre-existing requirements Business Regulatory Enforcement
In addition this SIP contained a firm under state law and does not impose Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
commitment to cover any shortfall by any additional enforceable duty beyond that before a rule may take effect, the
supplementing additional TCMs that are that required by state law, it does not agency promulgating the rule must
in addition to those already credited to contain any unfunded mandate or submit a rule report, which includes a
the SIP. significantly or uniquely affect small copy of the rule, to each House of the
Comment: In its conclusion the governments, as described in the Congress and to the Comptroller General
commenter refers in passing to delays Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 of the United States. EPA will submit a
that may result from identifying and (Pub. L. 104–4). report containing this rule and other
rectifying emissions shortfalls. This rule also does not have tribal required information to the U.S. Senate,
Response: EPA acknowledges that implications because it will not have a the U.S. House of Representatives, and
reductions will be somewhat delayed substantial direct effect on one or more the Comptroller General of the United
where states must first monitor and Indian tribes, on the relationship States prior to publication of the rule in
assess implementation and between the Federal Government and the Federal Register. A major rule
subsequently implement corrections. Indian tribes, or on the distribution of cannot take effect until 60 days after it
For this reason EPA indicated in the power and responsibilities between the is published in the Federal Register.
VMEP guidance that states should fill Federal Government and Indian tribes, This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
any shortfalls in a timely fashion. EPA as specified by Executive Order 13175 defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
issued a companion voluntary measures (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
policy for stationary sources.3 In that action also does not have Federalism
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
policy EPA indicated that where implications because it does not have
this action must be filed in the United
voluntary measures were included in substantial direct effects on the States,
States Court of Appeals for the
attainment or rate of progress SIPs, any on the relationship between the national
appropriate circuit by October 25, 2005.
shortfalls would have to be filled prior government and the States, or on the
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
to the relevant attainment or progress distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various the Administrator of this final rule does
milestone date. EPA believes this is an not affect the finality of this rule for the
appropriate interpretation of the levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, purposes of judicial review nor does it
requirement to fill shortfalls in a timely extend the time within which a petition
fashion under the VMEP policy. August 10, 1999). This action merely
approves a state rule implementing a for judicial review may be filed, and
Similarly, the same process is described shall not postpone the effectiveness of
Federal standard, and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power such rule or action. This action may not
3 Memorandum from John Seitz, Director, Office

of Air Quality Planning and Standards, dated


be challenged later in proceedings to
January 19, 2001, entitled ‘‘Stationary Source 4 ‘‘Incorporating Voluntary Measures in a State enforce its requirements. (See section
Voluntary Measures Final Policy.’’ Implementation Plan,’’ September 2004. 307(b)(2).)

VerDate Aug<18>2005 16:11 Aug 25, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26AUR1.SGM 26AUR1
50212 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Dated: August 12, 2005. Subpart SS—Texas
Richard E. Greene,
Environmental protection, Air ■ 2. In § 52.2270, the table in paragraph
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
pollution control, Carbon monoxide, (e) entitled ‘‘EPA Approved
Incorporation by reference, ■ 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-
Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Regulatory Measures in the Texas SIP’’
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and PART 52—[AMENDED] is amended by adding one new entry to
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile the end of the table to read as follows:
organic compounds. ■ 1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows: § 52.2270 Identification of plan.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.


* * * * *
(e) * * *

EPA APPROVED NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES IN THE TEXAS SIP
State
Applicable geographic or
Name of SIP provision submittal/ef- EPA approval date Comments
nonattainment area fective date

* * * * * * *
Voluntary Mobile Emission Dallas/Fort Worth, TX ........................ 4/25/00 8/26/05, [Insert FR page number
Program. where document begins].

[FR Doc. 05–17030 Filed 8–25–05; 8:45 am] hours at the following locations: EPA, plan and redesignation request meet
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics (AWT– Clean Air Act requirements.
107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,
II. What Comments Did We Receive on
Washington 98101. Interested persons
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION the Proposed Action?
wanting to examine these documents
AGENCY should make an appointment with the EPA provided a 30-day review and
appropriate office at least 24 hours comment period on the proposal
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 before the visiting day. A reasonable fee published in the Federal Register on
[R10–OAR–2005–WA–0005; FRL–7959–6] may be charged for copies. July 1, 2005 (70 FR 38073). We received
no comments on our proposed
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: rulemaking.
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans and Designation Donna Deneen, Office of Air, Waste, and
Toxics (AWT–107), EPA Region 10, III. What Is Our Final Action?
of Areas for Air Quality Planning
Purposes: Wallula, WA, Area 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, We are taking final action to approve
Washington, 98101, (206) 553–6706. the Wallula PM10 maintenance plan and
AGENCY: Environmental Protection redesignate the Wallula nonattainment
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Agency. area to attainment for PM10.
ACTION: Final rule. Table of Contents
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
I. What Is the Background of This
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Rulemaking?
Reviews
Agency (EPA or Agency) is taking final II. What Comments Did We Receive on the Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
action to approve a PM10 State Proposed Action? 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is
Implementation Plan (SIP) maintenance III. What Is Our Final Action? not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and
plan revision for the Wallula, IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews therefore is not subject to review by the
Washington nonattainment area and to Office of Management and Budget. For
I. What Is the Background of This
redesignate the area from nonattainment this reason, this action is also not
Rulemaking?
to attainment. PM10 air pollution is subject to Executive Order 13211,
suspended particulate matter with a On July 1, 2005, we proposed to ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That
nominal diameter less than or equal to approve a State Implementation Plan Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
a nominal ten micromenters. We are (SIP) maintenance plan revision and Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
approving the maintenance plan redesignation request, dated March 29, 22, 2001). This action merely approves
revision and redesignation request 2005, from the Director of the state law as meeting Federal
because the State has adequately Washington State Department of requirements and imposes no additional
demonstrated that the control measures Ecology (Ecology) for the Wallula PM– requirements beyond those imposed by
being implemented in the Wallula area 10 nonattainment area. 70 FR 38073. We state law. Accordingly, the
will result in maintenance of the PM10 proposed our approval based on the Administrator certifies that this rule
National Ambient Air Quality Standards State’s demonstration that the control will not have a significant economic
and that all other requirements of the measures being implemented in the impact on a substantial number of small
Clean Air Act for redesignation to Wallula area would result in entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
attainment have been met. maintenance of the PM10 National Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this
DATES: Effective September 26, 2005. Ambient Air Quality Standards and that rule approves pre-existing requirements
ADDRESSES: Copies of the State’s request all other Clean Air Act requirements for under state law and does not impose
and other supporting information used redesignation to attainment have been any additional enforceable duty beyond
in developing this action are available met. See the proposed action for a full that required by state law, it does not
for inspection during normal business description of how the maintenance contain any unfunded mandate or

VerDate Aug<18>2005 16:11 Aug 25, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26AUR1.SGM 26AUR1