Proposed Rule2023-08498
Air Plan Disapproval; Texas; Contingency Measures for the Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Ozone Nonattainment Areas
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
April 21, 2023
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to disapprove revisions to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Dallas- Fort Worth (DFW) and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) serious ozone nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Specifically, EPA is proposing to disapprove the portion of these SIP revisions that the state intended to address contingency measure requirements. Contingency measures are control requirements in a nonattainment area SIP that would take effect should the area fail to meet Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) emissions reductions requirements or fail to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 77 (Friday, April 21, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 77 (Friday, April 21, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24522-24526]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08498]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R06-OAR-2022-0309; FRL-10903-01-R6]
Air Plan Disapproval; Texas; Contingency Measures for the Dallas-
Fort Worth and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Ozone Nonattainment Areas
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to disapprove
revisions to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Dallas-
Fort Worth (DFW) and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) serious ozone
nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS). Specifically, EPA is proposing to disapprove the
portion of these SIP revisions that the state intended to address
contingency measure requirements. Contingency measures are control
requirements in a nonattainment area SIP that would take effect should
the area fail to meet Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) emissions
reductions requirements or fail to attain the NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date.
DATES: Written comments on this proposal must be received on or before
May 22, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2022-0309, at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> or via email to
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e99b80858c90c7838c8f8f9b8c90a98c9988c78e869f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3b4952575e4215515e5d5d495e427b5e4b5a155c544d">[email protected]</span></a>. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
<a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact Jeff Riley, 214-665-8542,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#84f6ede8e1fdaaeee1e2e2f6e1fdc4e1f4e5aae3ebf2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="06746f6a637f286c63606074637f4663766728616970">[email protected]</span></a>. For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets</a>.
Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. While all documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some information may not be publicly
available due to docket file size restrictions or content (e.g., CBI).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Riley, EPA Region 6 Office,
Infrastructure & Ozone Section, 214-665-8542, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6b1902070e1245010e0d0d190e122b0e1b0a450c041d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6c1e050009154206090a0a1e09152c091c0d420b031a">[email protected]</span></a>.
Out of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff,
the EPA Region 6 office may be closed to the public to reduce the risk
of transmitting COVID-19. The EPA Region 6 office encourages the public
to submit comments via <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Please call or
email the contact listed above if you need alternative access to
material indexed but not provided in the docket.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refers to the EPA.
I. Background
On May 13, 2020, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ or State) submitted to EPA SIP
[[Page 24523]]
revisions addressing requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for
the two Serious ozone nonattainment areas in Texas--the DFW and HGB
areas. As Serious ozone nonattainment areas, the DFW Area (Collin,
Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, Tarrant, and
Wise counties) and the HGB Area (Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend,
Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery, and Waller counties) were both
subject to the CAA section 182 Serious ozone nonattainment area
requirements, one of which was that the state must adopt and submit
contingency measures for implementation should the area fail to meet
RFP emissions reductions or fail to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date.\1\ The May 13, 2020, SIP revision
submissions also included such provisions intended to satisfy the
contingency measures requirement for both the DFW and HGB areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note EPA's recent final determination that the HGB and DFW
Serious nonattainment areas failed to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by
the areas' attainment date. 87 FR 60926 (October 7, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 29, 2020 (85 FR 60928), we published a proposed rule
to approve those portions of the May 13, 2020, Texas SIP revision
addressing the HGB RFP requirements and the contingency measures
requirement. On October 9, 2020 (85 FR 64084), we published a proposed
rule to approve those portions of the May 13, 2020, Texas SIP revision
addressing the DFW RFP requirements and the contingency measures
requirement. In this proposal, we refer to the RFP element of the May
13, 2020, Texas SIP revisions as ``the RFP demonstration,'' and to the
contingency measures element of the May 13, 2020, Texas SIP revisions
as ``the contingency measures.'' We also refer to our September 29,
2020, proposed action and Technical Support Document (TSD) as ``the HGB
proposal,'' and to the October 9, 2020, proposed action and TSD as
``the DFW proposal.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The May 13, 2020, SIP submissions, our September 2020
proposal, and our October 2020 proposal are provided in the docket
for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our DFW and HGB proposals, we provided information on ozone
formation, the ozone standards, area designations, related ozone
nonattainment plan requirements under the CAA, and the EPA's
implementing regulations for the 2008 ozone standards, referred to as
the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule (``2008 Ozone SRR'').\3\ EPA
received no comments on the HGB proposal by the October 29, 2020 close
of the public comment period. EPA did receive adverse comments on the
DFW proposal by the November 9, 2020 close of the public comment
period.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015).
\4\ Comments received on this action from Air Law for All on
behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club
are provided in the docket at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under
docket ID: EPA-R06-OAR-2020-0161.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among other issues, the commenters on the DFW proposal asserted
that our proposed approval of the DFW area contingency measures would
be inconsistent with a September 12, 2016 decision issued by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (``Ninth Circuit'') in a case
referred to as Bahr v. EPA. In Bahr, the Ninth Circuit concluded that
contingency measures must be measures that would only take effect at
the time the area fails to meet RFP or to attain by the applicable
attainment date, not before.\5\ After the Bahr decision, EPA recognized
that within the geographic jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit (which
does not include Texas), the language of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and
182(c)(9) require contingency measures to be both prospective (i.e.,
that they be undertaken in the future), and conditional (i.e., that
implementation is conditional upon the area's failure to meet RFP or to
attain by the applicable attainment date).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Bahr v. EPA, 836 F.3d 1218, at 1235-1237 (9th Cir. 2016).
\6\ The Bahr v. EPA decision involved a challenge to an EPA
approval of contingency measures under the general nonattainment
area plan provisions for contingency measures in CAA section
172(c)(9), but, given the similarity between the statutory language
in section 172(c)(9) and the additional ozone-specific contingency
measure provision in section 182(c)(9), EPA found that the decision
affected how it should interpret both sections of the Act in the
Ninth Circuit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 29, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (``D.C. Circuit'') issued a decision in response to
challenges to EPA's rule implementing the 2015 ozone NAAQS, (83 FR
62998 (December 6, 2018)). Sierra Club, et al. v. EPA, 985 F.3d 1055
(D.C. Cir. 2021). Among the rulings in this decision, the D.C. Circuit
endorsed the holding of Bahr and vacated EPA's interpretation of the
CAA that allowed states to rely on already-implemented control measures
to meet the statutory requirements of section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9)
for contingency measures in nonattainment plans for the ozone NAAQS
(see 83 FR 62998, 63026-27). The effect of this decision is that the
CAA interpretation that contingency measures must be prospective and
conditional applies across the U.S.\7\ EPA notes that the court issued
the Sierra Club decision after the close of the comment period on both
of the prior HGB and DFW proposals concerning contingency measures
required by sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Contingency measures that are to take effect upon failure to
satisfy standards are likewise not measures that have been
implemented before such failure occurs. Sierra Club, et al. v. EPA,
985 F.3d 1055, 1067-68 (D.C. Cir. 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 10, 2021 (86 FR 24717), EPA finalized its approval of the
HGB area RFP demonstration and associated motor vehicle emissions
budgets (MVEBs), and a revised 2011 base year emissions inventory. In
that final rulemaking, we did not take final action on our October 29,
2020 proposed approval of the contingency measures submitted as part of
the State's May 13, 2020, SIP revision submission for the HGB area. EPA
explained that it was reexamining the contingency measures element of
the TCEQ submission for the HGB area in light of the D.C. Circuit
decision, and that it would address those contingency measures in a
separate future action. Similarly, we are proposing to take action here
on the DFW contingency measures and we will address the DFW RFP
demonstration in a separate action.
II. The EPA's Evaluation
1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
Under the CAA, states with ozone nonattainment areas classified
under subpart 2 as Moderate or above must adopt and submit
nonattainment plans that include contingency measures consistent with
section 172(c)(9). Similarly, states with ozone nonattainment areas
classified as Serious or above must include contingency measures
consistent with section 182(c)(9). Contingency measures are additional
controls or measures to be implemented in the event the area fails to
meet RFP or to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. The
SIP submission should identify such controls or measures, specify a
schedule for implementation, and indicate that the measures will be
implemented without significant further action by the state or the
EPA.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005). See also 80 FR 12264,
12285 (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As of the dates of our September 2020 and October 2020 proposals to
approve the HGB and DFW contingency measures submitted as part of the
State's May 13, 2020, SIP revision submissions, it had been the EPA's
long-standing interpretation of section 172(c)(9) that states could
rely on emission reductions from already-implemented measures to meet
the contingency measures requirements. Thus, states could rely on
[[Page 24524]]
emissions reductions from existing federal measures (e.g., federal
mobile source measures based on the incremental turnover of the motor
vehicle fleet each year) or emission reductions from already-
implemented state or local measures in the SIP, or the excess emissions
reductions from already-implemented measures that provide emissions
reductions in excess of those needed to meet any other nonattainment
plan requirements, such as meeting Reasonably Available Control Measure
(RACM)/Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT), RFP, or modeled
attainment demonstration requirements.
The EPA has previously approved nonattainment area plan submissions
under the now invalidated interpretation that already-implemented
measures were permissible as contingency measures, i.e., contingency
measures that consisted of one or more federal or state control
measures that are already in place and provide reductions that are in
excess of the reductions needed to meet other requirements or relied
upon in the modeled attainment demonstration.\9\ However, after Bahr,
and especially after Sierra Club, EPA can no longer interpret the CAA
to allow approval of already-implemented measures as meeting the
contingency measures requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) or
182(c)(9). Contingency measures must be prospective and conditional,
i.e., measures that would take effect in the event the area fails to
make RFP or attain by the applicable attainment date, not before.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See, e.g., 62 FR 15844 (April 3, 1997) (direct final rule
approving an Indiana ozone SIP revision); 62 FR 66279 (December 18,
1997) (final rule approving an Illinois ozone SIP revision); 66 FR
30811 (June 8, 2001) (direct final rule approving a Rhode Island
ozone SIP revision); 66 FR 586 (January 3, 2001) (final rule
approving District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia ozone SIP
revisions); and 66 FR 634 (January 3, 2001) (final rule approving a
Connecticut ozone SIP revision).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Summary of the State's Submission
For both the DFW and HGB 2008 ozone NAAQS Serious nonattainment
areas, the contingency measures the state submitted as part of the May
13, 2020, SIP revision submissions consist of surplus emissions
reductions from already-implemented control measures. The state relied
on the excess emissions from such already-implemented measures to
demonstrate compliance with the contingency measure requirements of CAA
sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9).\10\ The State determined the
emissions reductions from these measures to be surplus, in that the
state did not rely upon them in the nonattainment plan for
demonstrating RFP or attainment. The May 13, 2020, SIP submissions
explained that these surplus emission reductions will continue to take
place during calendar year 2021, and thus the state identified them as
contingency measures for the DFW and HGB areas. These measures consist
of projected emission reductions from federal vehicle and engine
emissions certification programs and from fuel control programs for
both on-road and non-road vehicles (see Table 1) which were already
adopted by EPA and the implementation of which does not depend on
whether a nonattainment area attains or meets its reasonable further
progress requirements. The State claimed that the projected combined
VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reductions of 3 percent for the DFW
area and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reductions of 3 percent for the HGB
area to be achieved between January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021
(from the 2011 baseline) satisfies the CAA requirements for contingency
measures.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ May 13, 2020 RFP plan submission, Chapter 3, Tables 3-4 and
3-5.
\11\ May 13, 2020 RFP demonstration submission, Chapter 4,
Tables 4-17 and 4-18.
\12\ I/M is not implemented in Wise County. See 82 FR 27122
(June 14, 2017).
\13\ The Dallas-Fort Worth nonattainment area voluntarily opted
into the RFG program. The 10-county DFW area includes counties with
federal RFG and counties with Texas Regional Low RVP. The four
counties with RFG are: Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant. The six
counties with Texas Regional Low RVP are: Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman,
Parker, Rockwall and Wise.
Table 1--DFW & HGB Area Control Measures Identified for Contingency Emission Reductions, January 1, 2021-
December 31, 2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control strategy description Year control program started Additional information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DFW Area I/M Program \12\.......... 1990.................................... 1990--Dallas, Tarrant Counties
only.
2002--I/M & Anti-Tampering
Program (ATP) expanded to
Collin, Denton Counties.
2003--I/M & ATP expanded to
Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker,
Rockwall Counties.
Tier I, Federal Motor Vehicle 1994.................................... Phased-in 1994-1997.
Control Program (FMVCP).
HGB Area On-road & Non-road 1995 (Phase I), 2000 (Phase II)......... Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend,
Reformulated Gasoline (RFG). Galveston, Harris, Liberty,
Montgomery, Waller Counties.
DFW Area On-road & Non-road RFG.... 1995 (Phase I), 2000 (Phase II)......... Collin, Dallas, Denton, Tarrant
Counties.
East Texas Regional use of gasoline 2000.................................... Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker,
with low Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) Rockwall, & Wise Counties.
\13\.
HGB Area Inspection and Maintenance 1997.................................... Brazoria, Fort Bend, Galveston,
(I/M) Program. Harris, Montgomery Counties.
National Low Emission Vehicle 2001....................................
Program.
Tier II, FMVCP..................... 2004.................................... Phased-in from 2004-2009.
On-road & Non-road Texas Low 2006....................................
Emission Diesel (TxLED).
Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD)..... 2006.................................... Phased-in for on-road diesel fuel
2006-2010, non-road diesel fuel
2007-2014.
2007 Heavy-Duty FMVCP.............. 2007.................................... Phased-in from 2007-2010.
Tier III, FMVCP (including Low 2017.................................... Phased-in from 2017-2025.
Sulfur Gasoline).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission
As previously stated, pursuant to the D.C. Circuit decision, we
must evaluate whether the May 13, 2020, contingency measures identified
for the DFW and HGB areas are both prospective and conditional, i.e.,
measures that would take effect only upon the area's failure to make
RFP or attain by the applicable attainment date, not before.
Because the contingency measures that the state identified in the
May 13, 2020, SIP submissions consist entirely of emission reductions
from measures that will occur regardless of whether the nonattainment
area fails to meet RFP or to attain by the applicable attainment date,
these measures do not satisfy the requirements of CAA sections
172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) that contingency measures
[[Page 24525]]
be both prospective and conditional. Thus, we must propose to
disapprove the contingency measure element of the May 13, 2020, SIP
submissions with respect to the contingency measures requirement for
the HBG and DWF areas for purposes of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA notes
that this proposed action concerning contingency measures will have no
impact upon EPA's prior determinations with respect to RFP or other
nonattainment plan requirements for these areas and this NAAQS.
III. Proposed Action
In light of the decision in Sierra Club, et al. v. EPA, we are
proposing to disapprove the contingency measure element of the May 13,
2020, Texas SIP revisions for Serious nonattainment areas under the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA proposes this disapproval with respect to
the contingency measure requirements under CAA section 172(c)(9) and
182(c)(9) for the reasons discussed above.
Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a submittal
that addresses a requirement of part D, title I of the CAA starts
sanctions clocks. The May 13, 2020, SIP revision submissions, including
the contingency measures element for the DFW and HGB 2008 ozone NAAQS
serious nonattainment areas, do address requirements of part D, and
thus if the EPA finalizes this proposed disapproval, sanction clocks
would start on the effective date of the final action.\14\ The state
would be eligible for a protective finding for the DFW and HGB areas
under the transportation conformity rule because the EPA has separately
approved or will approve each area's RFP demonstration element of the
May 13, 2020, SIP submission, which reflects adopted control measures
and contains enforceable commitments that fully satisfy the emissions
reductions requirements for RFP for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for each
area.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Under 40 CFR 52.35, the offset sanction in CAA section
179(b)(2) would be imposed 18 months after the effective date of
that final disapproval action, and the highway funding sanction in
CAA section 179(b)(1) would be imposed six months after the offset
sanction. Sanction would not be imposed if the EPA determined that a
subsequent SIP submission corrected the identified deficiencies
before the applicable deadlines.
\15\ 40 CFR 93.120(a)(3). Without a protective finding, the
final disapproval would result in a conformity freeze, under which
only projects in the first four years of the most recent conforming
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Transportation Improvement
Programs (TIP) can proceed. Generally, during a freeze, no new RTPs,
TIPs, or RTP/TIP amendments can be found to conform until another
control strategy implementation plan revision fulfilling the same
CAA requirements is submitted, the EPA finds its motor vehicle
emissions budget(s) adequate pursuant to Sec. 93.118 or approves
the submission, and conformity to the implementation plan revision
is determined. Under a protective finding, the final disapproval of
the contingency measures element would not result in a
transportation conformity freeze in the DFW and HGB ozone
nonattainment areas and the metropolitan planning organizations may
continue to make transportation conformity determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, finalizing the proposed disapproval of the
contingency measure element would require that the EPA promulgate a
Federal implementation plan under section 110(c) unless we approve a
subsequent SIP submission or submissions from the state that correct
the deficiencies that are the basis for the disapproval within 24
months.
The EPA is soliciting public comments on the proposed disapproval
discussed in this document. We will accept comments from the public on
this proposal for the next 30 days and will consider comments before
taking final action.
IV. Environmental Justice Considerations
For this proposed action, the EPA conducted screening analyses of
the 10-county DFW and 8-county HGB Serious ozone nonattainment areas
using EPA's EJScreen (Version 2.1) environmental justice (EJ) screening
and mapping tool.\16\ The results of these analyses are being provided
for informational and transparency purposes, and the EJScreen analysis
reports are available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen">https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed action identifies deficiencies in the contingency
measure element of the May 13, 2020, Texas SIP revisions for the DFW
and HGB Serious nonattainment areas under the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
EPA's disapproval of these contingency measures, if finalized, would
require that Texas submit plans for the DFW and HGB areas containing
prospective and conditional contingency measures consistent with the
D.C. Circuit decision, which would help to improve air quality in the
entire affected nonattainment area through ongoing reductions of ozone
precursor emissions should those measures be triggered. Information on
ozone and its relationship to negative health impacts can be found at
<a href="https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution">https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution</a>.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See, also, 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of EPA's full disapproval action, if finalized, TCEQ
will be required to undertake additional actions to ensure that the DFW
and HGB 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS nonattainment areas meet CAA
nonattainment area planning requirements. These corrective actions are
within the state's discretion and therefore are not currently known,
but would be expected to contribute to improved air quality in these
areas and there is no information in the record indicating that this
action is expected to have disproportionately high or adverse human
health or environmental effects on a particular group of people.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at <a href="https://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders">https://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders</a>.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This proposed action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA, because this proposed SIP disapproval, if finalized, will not
in-and-of itself create any new information collection burdens, but
will simply disapprove certain State requirements for inclusion in the
SIP.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This
proposed SIP disapproval, if finalized, will not in-and-of itself
create any new requirements but will simply disapprove certain State
requirements for inclusion in the SIP.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action proposes to disapprove certain pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the
[[Page 24526]]
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175, because the SIP revision that EPA is proposing
to disapprove would not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe
has jurisdiction and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children,
per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of
the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order
13045 because this proposed SIP disapproval, if finalized, will not in-
and-of itself create any new regulations, but will simply disapprove
certain State requirements for inclusion in the SIP.
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. EPA believes
that this action is not subject to the requirements of section 12(d) of
the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be
inconsistent with the CAA.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as the ``fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that
``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
The TCEQ did not evaluate EJ considerations as part of its SIP
submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA performed an EJ analysis,
as is described above in the section titled, ``Environmental Justice
Considerations.'' The analysis was done for the purpose of providing
additional context and information about this rulemaking to the public,
not as a basis of the action. Due to the nature of the action being
taken here, this action is expected to have a positive impact on the
air quality of the affected area. In addition, there is no information
in the record upon which this decision is based inconsistent with the
stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people
of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: April 17, 2023.
Earthea Nance,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2023-08498 Filed 4-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on April 21, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.