Bryan W. Shaw, Ph.D., Chairman 

Carlos Rubinstein, Commissioner 

Toby Baker, Commissioner 

Zak Covar, Executive Director 

RECEIVED- 6PDL 

AIR PLANNING SEC. 

12 SEP -4 PH t.: 23 

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

Protecting Texas by Reducing and Preventing Pollution 

August 31, 2012 

Mr. Samuel Coleman, Acting Regional Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency- Region 6 

1445 Ross Avenue 

Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 

Docket No. 2011-1639 -RUL 

Rule Project No. 2011-060-114-EN 

On August 8, 2012, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (Commission) adopted revisions 

to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning the requirements for Locally Enforced 

Motor Vehicle Idling Limitations. 

The Commission adopted amendments to 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 114, Control 

of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles, Subchapter J, Operational Controls for Motor Vehicles, Division 

2, Locally Enforced Motor Vehicle Idling Limitations, Section 114.517, and corresponding revisions to 

the SIP. The adoption creates a new exemption for motor vehicles thaJ have a gross vehicle weight 

rating greater than 14,000 pounds and are equipped with a 2oo8 or subsequent model year heavyduty diesel engine or liquefied or compressed natural gas engine that has been certified by the United 

States Environmental Protection Agency or another state environmental agency to emit no more than 

30 grams of nitrogen oxides emissions per hour when idling. 

Enclosed are the revisions to the SIP, a public hearing certification, a complete record of the public 

hearings, and the accompanying order. I look forward to your expeditious approval of these SIP 

revisions. 

Sincerely, 

BWS/rh 

Enclosures 

cc: The Honorable Rick Perry, Governor of Texas 

Mr. Terry Zrubek, Office of Budget, Planning and Policy, Office of the Governor 

Mr. Zak Covar, Executive Director, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

P.O. Box 13087 • Austin, Texas 78711-3087 • 512-239-1000 • tceq.texas.gov 

How is our customer service? tceq.texas.govjcustomersurvey 
TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QuALITY 

THE STATE OF TEXAS 

CO UNIT OF TRAVIS 

Docket No. 2011-1639-RUL 

Rule Project No. 2011-060-114-EN 

This is to certify that the attached electronic file is included and that the electronic file is a 

true and correct copy of documents for a revision to the Texas State Implementation Plan, 

adopted on August 8, 2012, pursuant to 40 Code of Federal Regulations § 51.104. I am the 

records administrator for the Air Quality Division of the Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality (Commission). 

~~J)d=.J Air Quality Division 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

Public Hearings 

April 2 and 3, 2012 

Concerning Revisions to 30 T AC Chapter 114 

Control of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles and 

Revisions to the State Implementation Plan 

Project No. 2011-060-114-EN 
INTRODUCTION 

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (commission) held public hearings in Austin on 

April 2, 2012 and in Fort Worth on April 3, 2012, to receive testimony regarding a proposed 

amendment to 30 T AC Chapter 114, Subchapter J, Division 2, Locally Enforced Motor Vehicle Idling 

Limitations and corresponding revisions to the state implementation plan. 

The rulemaking will implement Senate Bill493, 82nd Legislature, 2011, which amends Texas Health 

and Safety Code, Chapter 382, Subchapter 8 by adding §382.0191, which prohibits the commission 

from limiting the idling of a motor vehicle that has a gross weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds 

and that is equipped with a 2008 or subsequent model year heavy-duty diesel engine or liquefied or 

compressed natural gas engine that has been certified by the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency or a state environmental agency to emit no more than 30 grams of nitrogen 

oxides emissions per hour when idling. 

The comment period closed on April9, 2012. All testimony and comments have been reviewed and 

seriously considered. This hearing record contains a complete record of the public hearings and is 

divided into the following four sections: 

o Public Notification and Proposal 

o Written and Oral Testimony 

o Evaluation of Testimony 

o Staff Recommendations/Order 

Additional copies of this hearing record are maintained in the TCEQ central office at 12100 Park 35 

Circle, Austin, Texas 78753. For further information, please contact Holly Brightwell at (512) 239-

4905. 
NOTICE & PROPOSAL 
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION 

Notification to the public of the proposed revisions was conducted by the following procedures: 

1. Publication of notice of public hearings in the following newspapers on the date listed: 

Austin American-Statesman: February 24, 2012 

Fort Worth Star-Telegram: February 24, 2012 

Houston Chronicle: February 24, 2012 

2. Publication of the proposed rules in the March 9, 2012, issue of the Texas Register(37 TexReg 

1656). 

3. Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in the March 9, 2012, issue of the Texas Register (37 

TexReg 1811). 

4. Correspondence forwarding the notice of public hearings to the following officials and agencies: 

Speaker of the House 

Lieutenant Governor 

Alamo Area Council of Governments 

Capital Area Planning Council 

City of Austin, Mayor's Office 

City of Dallas, Department of Environmental Quality 

City of Dallas, Department of Aviation 

City of Dallas, Mayor's Office 

City of El Paso, Environmental Services 

City of Fort Worth, Environmental Management Department 

City of Fort Worth, Mayor's Office 
City of Houston, Department of Health and Human Services 

Dallas County Judge 

East Texas Council of Governments 

El Paso Metropolitan Planning Organization 

Federal Highway Administration 

Galveston County Health District 

Harris County Public Health and Environmental Services 

Houston-Galveston Area Council 

North Central Texas Council of Governments 

South East Texas Regional Planning Commission 

Tarrant County Judge 

Texas Department of Transportation 

Travis County Judge 

Victoria Metropolitan Planning Organization 

Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology 

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 

New Mexico Environmental Department 

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 
Example of Newspaper Classified Ad 

Fort Worth Star-Telegram, February 24, 2012 
Bryan W. Shaw, Ph.D., Chairman 

Buddy Garcia, Commissioner 

Carlos Rubinstein, Commissioner 

Mark R. Vickery, P.G., Executive Director 

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

Protecting Texas by Reducing and Preventing Pollution 

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS ON A PROPOSED REVISION TO 30 TAC CHAPTER 114 

AND REVISION TO THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (commission) will conduct public hearings 

to receive testimony regarding a proposed amendment to 30 Texas Administrative Code 

(TAC) Chapter 114, Subchapter J, Division 2, Locally Enforced Motor Vehicle Idling 

Limitations and revision to the state implementation plan (SIP), under the requirements of 

Texas Health and Safety Code (THSC), §382.017; Texas Government Code, Chapter 2001, 

Subchapter B; and 40 Code of Federal Regulations §51.102 of the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations concerning SIPs. 

The proposed rulemaking would implement Senate Bill 493, 82nd Legislature, 2011, 

amending THSC, Chapter 382, Subchapter B by adding §382.0191, which prohibits the 

commission from limiting the idling of a motor vehicle that has a gross vehicle weight rating 

greater than 14,000 pounds and that is equipped with a 2008 or subsequent model year 

heavy-duty diesel engine or liquefied or compressed natural gas engine that has been certified 

by the EPA or a state environmental agency to emit no more than 30 grams of nitrogen oxides 

emissions per hour when idling. 

The commission will hold public hearings on these proposals in Austin on April 2, 2012, at 

2:00p.m., in Building E, Room 201S at the commission's central office located at 12100 Park 

35 Circle; and in Fort Worth on April3, 2012, at 2:00p.m., at the Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality Dallas Regional Office, 2309 Gravel Drive. The hearings are 

structured for the receipt of oral or written comments by interested persons. Individuals may 

present oral statements when called upon in order of registration. Open discussion will not be 

permitted during the hearings; however, commission staff members will be available to 

discuss the proposal 30 minutes prior to each hearing. 

Persons who have special communication or other accommodation needs who are planning to 

attend the hearings should contact Sandy Wong, Office of Legal Services, at (512) 239-1802. 

Requests should be made as far in advance as possible. 

Comments may be submitted to Charlotte Horn, MC 205, Office of Legal Services, Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087, or faxed 

to (512) 239-4808. Electronic comments may be submitted at: 

http:jjwwws.tceq.texas.govjrulesjecommentsj. File size restrictions may apply to 

comments being submitted via the eComments system. All comments pertaining to the 

rulemaking should reference Rule Project Number 2011-060-114-EN. The comment period 

closes April9, 2012. Copies of the proposed rulemaking can be obtained from the 

commission's Web site at http:jjwww.tceq.texas.govjnavjrulesjpropose_adopt.html. For 

further information, please contact Holly Brightwell, Air Quality Planning Section, at (512) 

239-4905. 

P.O. Box 13087 • Austin, Texas 78711-3087 • 512-239-1000 • Internet address: www.tceq.state.tx.us 
Notice of Public Hearings on a Proposed Revision to 30 TAC 

Chapter 114 and Revision to the State Implementation Plan 

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (commission) will 

conduct public hearings to receive testimony regarding a proposed 

amendment to 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 114, 

Subchapter J, Division 2, Locally Enforced Motor Vehicle Idling 

Limitations and revision to the state implementation plan (SIP), under 

the requirements of Texas Health and Safety Code (THSC), §382.017; 

Texas Government Code, Chapter 2001, Subchapter B; and 40 Code 

of Federal Regulations §51.102 of the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) regulations concerning SIPs. 

The proposed mlemaking would implement Senate Bill493, 82nd Leg· 

islature, 2011, amending THSC, Chapter 382, Subchapter B by adding 

§382.0191, which prohibits the commission from limiting the idling 

of a motor vehicle that has a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 

14,000 pounds and that is equipped with a 2008 or subsequent model 

year heavy-duty diesel engine or liquefied or compressed natural gas 

engine that has been certified by the EPA or a state environmental 

agency to emit no more than 30 grams of nitrogen oxides emissions 

per hour when idling. 

The commission will hold public hearings on these proposals in Austin 

on April2, 2012, at 2:00p.m., in Building E, Room 201S at the commission's central office located at 12100 Park 35 Circle; and in Fort 

Worth on April3, 2012, at 2:00 p.m., at the Texas Commission on En· 

vironmental Quality Dallas Regional Office, 2309 Gravel Drive. The 

hearings are structtu·ed for the receipt of oral or written conunents by interested persons. Individuals may present oral statements when called 

upon in order of registration. Open discussion will not be permitted 

during the hearings; however, commission staff members will be available to discuss the proposal 30 minutes prior to each hearing. 

Persons who have special communication or other accommodation 

needs who are planning to attend the lrearings slrould contact Sandy 

Wong, Office of Legal Services, at (512) 239-1802. Requests should 

be made as far in advance as possible. 

Comments may be submitted to Charlotte Horn, MC 205, Office of Legal Services, Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087 or faxed 

to (512) 239-4808. Electronic comments may be submitted at: 

http:/lwww5.tceq.texas.gov/rules/ecommentsl. Pile size restrictions 

may apply to comments being submitted via the eComments system. 

All comments pe11aining to the rulemaking should reference Rule 

Project Number 20 ll -060-114-EN. The comment period clos~;:s April 

9, 2012. Copies of the proposed rule making can be obtained from 

the commission's Web site at http:/lwww.tceq.texas.gov/nav/ruleslpropose_adopt.html. For further information, please contact Holly 

Brightwell, Air Quality Planning Section, at (512) 239-4905. 

TRD-201201124 

Robert Martinez 

Director, Environmental Law Division 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quanty 

Filed: February 24, 2012 

• • • 

Notice of Public Hearing n Proposed Revisions to 30 TAC 

Chapter 116 and to the St e Implementation Plan 

The Texas Commission on · lVironmental Quality (commission) will 

conduct a public hearing to r eive testimony regarding proposed revisions to 30 Texas Administr tive Code (TAC) Chapter 116, Control 

of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modilication, 

§§116.12, 116.150, 116.151, 116.180, and 116.186, and corresponding revisions to the state implementati n plan (SIP) under the requirements ofTexas Health and Safety Cod , §382.017; Texas Government 

Code, Chapter 2001, Subchapter B; , d 40 Code of Federal Regulations §51.102 of the United States En ironmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) concerning SIPs. 

The proposed rulemaking would remo e a reference to flexible permits 

in the definition of plant-wide applic bility limit, include references 

to federal terminology, and state that t e failure to use monitoring required in a plant-wide applicability 1i 't permit would render that permit invalid. 

The commission will hold a public he ing on this proposal in Austin 

onMarch29, 2012, at I O:OOa.m. inBu ldingERoom201S, at the commission's central office located at 121 0 Park 35 Circle. The hearing 

is structured for the receipt of oral or ritten comments by interested 

persons. Individuals may present oral tatements when called upon in 

order of registration. Open discussion ill not be permitted during the 

hearing; however, commission staffm mbers will be available to discuss the proposal 30 minutes prior to e hearing. 

Persons who have special communic tion or other accommodation 

needs who are planning to attend the hearing should contact Sandy 

Wong, Office of Legal Services, at (5 2) 239-1802. Requests should 

be made as far in advance as possible. 

Written comments may be submitted to Michael Parrish, MC 205, 

Office of Legal Services, Texas ommission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austi Texas 78711-3087 or fuxed 

to (512) 239-4808. Electronic co ents may be submitted at: 

http:llwww5.tceq.texas.govlrules/eco entsl. File size restrictions may apply to cotntnents being ubmitted via the eComments 

system. All comments should re renee Rule Project Number 

2012-015-116-AT. The comment perio closes April9, 2012. Copies 

of the proposed rnlemaking can be o tained from the commission's 

Web site at http://www. tceq.texas.go navlruleslpropose _adopt.html. 

For further information, please cont t Blake Stewart, Air Permits 

Division, (512) 239-6931. 

TRD-201201123 

Robert Martinez 

Director, Environmental Law Division 

Texas Commission on Environmental 

Filed: February 24, 2012 

• • 

Notice of Receipt of Application 

Municipal Solid Waste Permit 

Proposed Permit No. 2379 

• 

APPLICATION. Liquit~k, LLC (Liq 1itek Arlington Liquid Waste 

Processing Facility), P.O. Box 47038 , Fort Worth, Tarrant County, 

Texas 76147, has applied to the Texas ommission on Environmental 

Quality (TCEQ) for a new Type V M W permit to authorize a liquid 

waste dewatering fl\cility. The fhcility is located at 408 II 3th Street, 

Arlington, Tarrant County, Tcx:as 76 11. The TCEQ teceived the 

application on January 26, 2012. The ermit application is available 

fur viewing and copying at the Geor e W. Hawks Central Library, . 

101 East Abram Street, Arlington, arrant Co11nty, Texas 76006. 

'l11e following link to an electronic map of the site or facility's 

general location is provided as a p lie courtesy and is not pa1i 

of the application or notice: http:/! .tceq.texas.gov/asscts/public!hh610/index.html?lat=32.7448&1n 97.0432&zoom=l3&type=r. 

For exact location, refer to application 

ADDITIONAL NOTICE. TCEQ's Exe utive Director has determined 

the application is administratively com Jete and will conduct a techniIN ADDITION March 9, 2012 37 TexReg 1811 
the executive director and in accord nee with the appronriate oroce- CHAPTER 114 CONTROL OF AIR 

dures of the TCEO Sampling PJ'Oce ures Manual. Tests must consist POLLUTION FROM MOTOR VEHICLES of three runs with a minimtl!n of 30 minutes for each rtm or IoniZer if 

required bv the reference method. A I engine- and turbine-based CHP SUBCHAPTER J. OPERATIONAL CONTROLS 

units desilmecl to generate more that 375 kW must be retested bv the FOR MOTOR VEIDCLES above method after every 16 000 hot h's of operation regardless of certification. DIVISION2. LOCALLY ENFORCED MOTOR 

(3) Except for rich-burn ngines equipped with oxidation- VEHICLE IDLING LIMITATIONS 

reduction (three-wav) catalvsts the ncontrolled source must demon- 30 TAC §114.517 strate comQliance with the emission anclards in subsection (d) of this 

section. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ or 

(f) Recordkeeoin~t. In addi 'on to the minimum records re- commission) proposes an amendment to §114.517. 

auired bv 6106.8 of this title (relath lg to Recordkeeping). the owner If adopted, the amended section will be submitted to the United 

or ooerator must keen the folio wine: records: States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a revision to 

(1) For the life of the CH unit the registration anolication the state implementation plan (SIP). 

and anv additional representations n ade during the approval process Background and Summary of the Factual Basis for the Proposed to obtain the registmtion, and Rule 

(2) The owner or ooerato must keep the following records Chapter 114, Subchapter J, Division 2, Locally Enforced Mota 

for at least two vears and make them a lvailable to the TCEO or anv local Vehicle Idling Limitations, was originally adopted by the commisoollution control program withiuriS< · ction upon request: sion on November 17. 2004, at the request of the local air quality 

(A) A record of ever one-week period of ooeration planning organization in the Austin Early Action Compact (EAC) 

where the CHP unit did not compl with subsection ( C)(2) of this area (Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays, Travis, and Williamson Counsection; ties) for use as a control strategy in its EAC agreement to maintain attainment of the 1997 eight-hour ozone National Ambien 

(B) All monitorin~~: ar ~ testh1g data generated in com- Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), as published in the December 

nliance with subsection (e) of this se ption and in a format that shows 3, 2004, issue of the Texas Register (29 TexReg 11355). The 

the emission standards have been m( · adopted Motor Vehicle Idling Rule provides any local govern-

(C) RecordsofCHP u it operation sufficient to demon- ment In Texas the option of applying the rules in their jurisdiction 

strate compliance with any applicabl! hour-based r1;1quirements of sub- in the event additional control measures are needed to achieve 

section {e} of this section; and or maintain attainment of the ozone NAAQS. 

(])) Recofds of main ~nance described in subsection The EAC concept of an early, voluntary air quality plan was en-

(g)(2) of this section. dorsad by the EPA Region 6 in June 2002. It was slightly modified and made available nationally in November 2002. A key 

(_g) Planned Maintenance St rtup, and Shutdown. point of an EAC was the flexibility allowed to areas to select 

(I) This pel'mit by rule authori7..es all emissions from emission reduction measures such as limiting vehicle idling. Benlanned startun and shutdown activit es associated with facilities that ginning on August 1, 2005, members of the Austin EAC and 

are authol'izcd by this section. the TCEQ signed the locally enforced idling restrictions mem~ 

orandum of agreement (MOA). This MOA allowed participating 

(2) '11lis permit bv rule a thorizes emissions from the fol- counties and cities to enforce the idling restriction rule in their 

lowing olam1ed maintenance activit' bs associated with facilities au- jurisdictions. Members of the Austin EAC area signing the MOA 

thorized by this section: routine mai !J.tenance including, but not lim- included Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays, Travis, and Williamson Counited to filter changes oxygen senso replacements overhauls lubri- ties, and the cities of Austin, Bastrop, Georgetown, Hutto, Lockcant changes, SQark Qlug changes, an li emission control svstem main- hart, Luling, Round Rock, and San Marcos. Idling restrictions are 

tenance. a control measure put in place in the Austin-Round Rock 1997 

This agency hereby certifies thatt~ e proposal has been reviewed Eight~Hour Ozone Flex Plan, which was signed in Septembe 

by legal counsel and found to be w hin the agency's legal author- 2008. 

ity to adopt. Four counties, 20 cities, and two towns in the Dallas-Fort Worth 

:ary of State on February 23, (DFW) area have also signed agreements to enforce the MoFiled with the Office of the Secre tor Vehicle Idling Rule in their jurisdictions. Idling restrictions 

12012. are a Voluntary Mobile Emissions Reductions Program (VMEP) 

control measure in the DFW 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment 

TRD-201201110 Demonstration SIP revision, which was adopted by the commisRobert Martinez sian on May 23, 2007. 

Director, Environmental Law Division This proposed rulemaking amends the Motor Vehicle Idling Rule Texas Commission on Environmental :Juality as stated in Chapter 114, Subchapter J, Division 2. The Mo- Earliest possible date of adoption: Ap 118,2012 tor Vehicle Idling Rule limits idling for gasoline and diesel-pow- For further information, please call: (5 2) 239-2141 ered engines in motor vehicles within the jurisdiction of any lo-

+ • + cal government in the state that has signed an MOA with the 

TCEQ delegating enforcement to that local government. Local 

enforcement is crucial to the effective implementation of rules 

to reduce the extended idling of gasoline and diesel-powered 

37 TexReg 1656 March 9, 2012 Texas Register 
heavy-duty vehicles and vital to the reduction of nitrogen oxides (NO,) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) necessary to 

achieve or maintain attainment of the ozone NAAQS. 

The 79th Legislature, 2005, enacted House Bill (HB) 1540, establishing Texas Health and Safety Code (THSC), §382.0191, 

Idling of Motor Vehicle While Using Sleeper Berth, which prohibited the commission from restricting the idling of a motor vehicle 

while a driver is using the vehicle's sleeper berth for a government-mandated rest period. HB 1540 also restricted drivers using the vehicle's sleeper berth from idling in a school zone or 

within 1,000 feet of a public school during its hours of operation, 

and it defined the penalty for an offense as a fine not to exceed 

$500. HB 1540 did not specify an enforcement period, but It set a 

September 1, 2007, expiration date on the section. The commission adopted Motor Vehicle Idling Rule revisions to be consistent 

with HB 1540 on April26, 2006, as published May 12, 2006, in 

the Texas Register (31 TexReg 3900). 

The 80th Legislature, 2007, enacted Senate Bill (SB} 12, which 

in part amended THSC, §382.0191, to extend the prohibition on 

the TCEQ from restricting certain idling activities from September 1, 2007 to September 1, 2009, as published in the February 

15, 2008, issue of the Texas Register (33 TexReg 1345). The 

prohibition in §114.512(b) of certain vehicles from Idling within 

1,000 feet of a school or hospital expired on September 1, 2009. 

Therefore, this subsection was deleted in previous rulemaking. 

On May 22, 2008, the National Armored Car Association submitted a petition for rulemaking requesting that armored vehicles be added to the list of Idling restriction exemptions under 

§114.517. The commission adopted rule changes incorporating the armored vehicle exemption on July 20, 2011. The July 

20, 2011, rulemaklng also deleted the ozone season dates under §114.512 to allow local governments to enforce idling limits 

year~round for consistent enforcement year-round (36 TexReg 

4972). 

The 82nd Legislature, 2011, enacted SB 493, amending THSC, 

Chapter 382, Subchapter 8 by adding THSC, §382.0191, which 

prohibits the commission from limiting the idling of a motor vehicle that has a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 8,500 

pounds and that is equipped with a 2008 or subsequent model 

year heavy-duty diesel engine or liquefied or compressed natural gas engine that has been certified by the EPA or another 

state environmental agency to emit no more than 30 grams of 

NOx emissions per hour when idling. Though SB 493 provides 

for an exemption of vehicles with a gross vehicle weight greater 

than 8,500 pounds and equipped with the low-NO, engine, the 

proposed rule change exempts vehicles weighing greater than 

14,000 pounds and equipped with the low-NO. engine. The reason for this specification is because only vehicles weighing more 

than 14,000 pounds are subject to the idling resbictions. This 

proposed rulemaking incorporates the amendment into the existing Motor Vehicle idling Rule. 

Federal Clean Air Act, §110(1) Demonstration 

The exemption will not interfere with attainment or reasonable 

further progress in the SIP. The rule currently includes an exemption for motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 

14,000 pounds or less; there is no net change in emissions to exempt vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating between 8,500 

and 14,000 pounds with an engine as specified in the statute. 

Furthermore, adding the exemption for vehicles employing the 

newer engines as previously described will not interfere with at-

-tainment or reasonable further progress In the SIP because the 

DFW area achieved an excess of NOx and VOC emissions reductions through the VMEP commitments. The excess emissions reductions achieved was greater than the 0.12 tons per 

day (tpd) NOx and 0.004 tpd VOC emissions reduction shortfall 

estimated In the North Central Texas Council of Governments 

(NCTCOG} VMEP accounting for the Locally Enforced Idling Re~ 

strictions. In addition, the 0.86 tpd NOx and 3.66 tpd VOC excess emissions reductions achieved for the overall VMEP, as es~ 

timated in the_ NCTCOG's VMEP accounting, were greater than 

the emissions reduction commitments for the Locally Enforced 

Idling Restrictions component of the VMEP. 

Section Discussion 

§114.517. Exemptions. 

This proposal amends §114.517 to include an exemption in proposed paragraph (2) for .any motor vehicle with a gross vehicle 

weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds that is equipped with 

a 2008 or subsequent model year heavy-duty diesel engine or 

liquefied or compressed natural gas engine that has been certified by the EPA or another state environmental agency to emit 

no more than 30 grams of NOx emissions per hour when idling. 

Though SB 493 provides for an exemption {)f vehicles with a 

gross vehicle weight greater than 8,500 pounds and equipped 

with the low-NOx engine, the proposed rule change exempts vehicles weighing greater than 14,000 pounds and equipped with 

the I ow-N Ox engine. The reason for this specification is because 

only vehicles weighing more than 14,000 pounds are subject to 

the idling restrictions. In addition, the current exemptions in existing paragraphs (2)- (12) would be renumbered as paragraphs 

(3) - (13). 

Fiscal Note: Costs to State and Local Government 

Nina Chamness, Analyst, Strategic Planning and Assessment, 

has determined that for the first five-year period the proposed 

rule is in effect no significant fiscal implications are anticipated 

for the agency as a result of administration or enforcement of 

the proposed rule. The proposed rule is not expected to have 

any fiscal impact on other state agencies or units of local government 

The proposed rule implements SB 493 and allows the Idling of 

a motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 

8,500 pounds that is equipped with a 2008 or newer engine as 

specified in the staMe that has been certified by the EPA or 

another state environmental agency to emit no more than 30 

grams of NOx emissions per hour. 

The EPA could require the agency to demonstrate that backsliding will not occur in the SIP under the proposed rule since there 

may be an increase in emissions due to idling of certain motor 

vehicles. The agency w!ll use currently available resources to 

perform any required demonstrations and use excess emissions 

reductions achieved for the overall VME:P to offset any increase 

in emissions resulting from the exemption of these vehicles. 

Participation in the Idling program is voluntary and currently only 

the Central Texas Area (CTA} and the North Central Texas Area 

(NCTA) have signed agreements to implement vehicle idling limitations. The CTA includes Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays, Travis, and 

Williamson Counties and the cities of Austin, Bastrop, Georgetown, Hutto, LoCkhart, Luling, Round Rock, and San Marcos. 

The NCTA includes Collin, Dallas, Kaufman, and Tarrant Counties, the cities of Ar1ington, Benbrook, Cedar Hill, Celina, Colleyville, Dallas, Euless, Hurst, Keene, Lake Worth, Lancaster, 

Mabank, McKinney, Mesquite, North Richland Hills, Pecan Hill, 

PROPOSED RULES March 9, 2012 37 TexReg 1657 
Richardson, Rowlett, University Park, and Venus, and the towns 

of Little Elm and Westlake. Participation in the vehicle idling program provides local governments with additional options to reduce emissions and maintain attainment with the federal ozone 

standards. 

State agencies and local governments that own or operate motor vehicles with gross vehicle weight ratings greater th~n 8,50~ 

pounds and are equipped with a 2008 and newer eng me .ce_rtlfied to emit no more than 30 grams of NO. per hour when tdhng 

may benefit from the proposed rule since they will allow drivers 

to operate air conditioners or heating wh7~ idling .. ~he pro~osed 

rule will also give the governmental entitles parttctpatJng .1n the 

voluntary idling program more flexibility concerning certain motor vehicles that may be idling in their area. 

Neither the agency nor other state agencies track where certified 

engines are registered, and information regarding the number of 

vehicles certified to emit no more than 30 grams of NO, per hour 

when idling in the CTA and NCTA is not available. 

Public Benefits and Costs 

Nina Chamness also determined that for each year of the first 

five years the proposed rule is in effect, the anticipated public 

benefit from the proposed rule will be compliance with state law. 

Individuals that drive certain motor vehicles that have the certified engines are expected to benefit from the proposed rule 

through the use of air conditioning and heating when idling durIng mandated rest breaks. 

Businesses that own the types of motor vehicles that are affected 

by the proposed rule are not expected to experience any fiscc;tl 

impacts as a result of this proposed rule. The proposed rule will 

allow employees to operate alr conditioning and heating systems 

when idling certain motor vehicles during mandated rest breaks. 

Small Business and Micro-Business Assessment 

No adverse fiscal implications are anticipated for small or m!-

cro-businesses as a result of the proposed rule. A small business should experience the same type of fiscal impa~t as that 

experienced by a large business. The proposed r~le w1ll .a.llo~ a 

small business to permit employees to operate a1r condttionmg 

and heating systems when idling certain motor vehicles during 

mandated rest breaks. 

Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

The commission has revlewed this proposed rulemaking and determined that a small business regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required because the proposed rule is required in order to 

comply with state law and does not adve!'lely affect a small or 

micro-business in a material way for the ftrst five years that the 

proposed rule is in effect. 

Local Employment Impact Statement 

The commission has reviewed this proposed rulemaking and determined that a local employment impact statement is not required because the proposed rule does not adversely affect .a 

local economy for the first five years that the proposed rule wtll 

be in effect 

Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis Determination 

The commission reviewed the proposed rulemaking in light of the 

regulatory analysis requirements of Texas Government Code, 

§2001. 0225 and determined that the proposed rulemaking does 

not meet the definition of a major environmental rule. Texas Gov37 TexR.eg .1658 March 9, 2012 Texas Register 

ernment Code, §2001.0225 states that a major environmental 

rule is, a rule the specific intent of which is to protect the environment or reduce risks to human health from environmental exposure and that may adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, 

the environment, or the public health and safety of the state or 

a sector of the state. Furthermore, while the proposed rulemaking does not constitute a major environmental rule, even if it did, 

a regulatory impact analysis would not be required beca~se ~~e 

proposed rulemaking does not meet any of the. four appl1~ab1hty 

criteria for requiring a regulatory impact analysts for a maJor ~nvironmental rule. Texas Government Code, §2001.0225 applies 

only to a major environmental rule that: 1) exceeds a standard 

set by federal law, unless the rule is specifically required by state 

law; 2) exceeds an express requirement of state law, unless ~he 

rule is specifically required by federal law; 3) exceeds a reqUirement of a delegation agreement or contract between the state 

and an agency or representative of the federal government to 

implement a state and federal program; or 4) adopts a rule solely 

under the general powers of the agency instead of under a specific state law. Specifically, it does not meet any of the four applicability criteria listed in Texas Government Code, §2001.0225 

because: 1) the proposed rulemaking is part of the SIP, and as 

such is designed to meet, not exceed the releva~t standa_rd set 

by federal law; 2) parts of the proposed rulemakmg are directly 

required by state law; 3) no contract or delegation agree~ent 

covers the topic that is the subject of this proposed rulemak1ng; 

and 4) the proposed rulemaking is authorized by specific sections of THSC, Chapter 382 (also known as the Texas Clean Air 

Act), and the Texas Water Code, which are cited in the Statutory 

Authority section of this preamble. 

The proposed rulemaking implements requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA}. Under 42 United States Code (USC), 

§7 410, each state is required to adopt and implement .a S~ P containing adequate provisions to implement, attain, mamta1n, and 

enforce the NAAQS within the state. While 42 USC, §7 410 generally does not require specific programs, methods, or reductions in order to meet the standard, SIPs must include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or 

techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as 

schedules and timetables for compliance as may be necessary 

or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this chapter (meaning 42 USC, Chapter 85, Air Pollution Pr~vention and 

Control, otherwise known as the FCAA). The prov1slons of the 

FCAA recognize that states are in the best position to determine 

what programs and controls are necessary or appropriate in order to meet the NAAQS. This flexibility allows states, affected 

industry, and the public to collaborate on the best .methods for 

attaining the NMQS for the specific regions in the state. Even 

though the FCM allows states to develop their own programs, 

this flexibility does not relieve a state from developing a program 

that meets the requirements of 42 USC, §7 410. States are not 

free to ignore the requirements of 42 USC, §7410, and must develop programs and control measures to assure that their SIPs 

provide for implementation, attainment, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS within the state. Participation in the 

idling program is voluntary, and currently only the local governments in the CTA and the NCTA have signed agreements to implement vehicle idling limitations. The affect~d idling lim~tions 

rules provide all local governments the opt1on of applying the 

rules when additional control measures are needed to achieve 

or maintain attainment of the federal ozone standards. 
The specific intent of the proposed rulemaking is to include an 

exemption implementing SB 493 for any motor vehicle with a 

gross vehicle weight rating greater than 8,500 pounds that is 

equipped with a 2008 or subsequent model year heavy-duty 

diesel engine or liquefied or compressed natural gas engine that 

has been certified by the EPA or another state environmental 

agency to emit no more than 30 grams of NO. emissions per 

hour when idling. · 

The proposed rulemaking does not constitute a major environmental rule under Texas Government Code, §2001.0225(g)(3) 

because while the specific intent of the proposed rulemaking 

is to protect the environment or reduce risks to human health 

from environmental exposure, as discussed previously in the Fiscal Note,. Public Benefits and Costs, Small Business Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis, and the Local Employment Impact Statement 

sections of this preamble, the proposed .rulemaking would not 

adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 

economy, productivity, competiti.on, or jobs; nor would the proposed rulemaklng adversely affect in a material way the environment, or the public health and safety of the state or a sector of the state. The idling restrictions are effecti.ve only in certain areas of the state where an MOA between the TCEQ and 

the local government is in effect and only in certain defined areas within those limited areas. The proposed rulemaking is not 

subject to a regulatory impact analysis under Texas Government 

Code, §2001.0225 because it is not a major environmental rule. 

The requirement to provide a fiscal analysis ofregulations in the 

Texas Government Code was amended by SB .633, 75th Legislature, 1997. The intent of SB 633 was to require agencies 

to conduct a regulatory impact analysis of extraordinary rules. 

These are identified in the statutory language f!S major environmental rules that will have a material adverse impact and will 

exceed a requirement of state law, federal law, or a delegated 

federal program; or are adopted solely under the .general powers of the TCEQ. With the understanding that this requirement 

would seldom apply, the commission provided a cost estimate 

for SB 633 that concluded: based on an assessment of rules 

adopted by the agency in the past, it is not anticipated that the 

bill will have significant fisca! implications for the agency due to 

its limited application. The commission also noted that the number of rules that would require assessment unde.r the provisions 

of the bill was not large. This conclusion was based, in part, on 

the criteria set forth In the bill that e?<empted rules from the full 

analysis unless the rule was a major environmental rule that exceeded a federal law. 

The FCAA does not always require specific programs, methods, 

or reductions in order to meet the NAAQS; thus, states must develop programs for each non attainment area to help ensure that 

those areas will meet the attainment deadlines. Because of the 

ongoing need to address nonattainmentissues and to meet the 

requirements of 42 USC, §7410, the commission routinely proposes and adopts revisions, to the SIP and rules. The legislature 

is presumed to understand this federal scheme. If each rule proposed for inclusion in the SIP was considered-to be a major environmental rule that exceeds federal law, then every revision to 

the Sl P would require the full regulatory impact analysis contemplated by SB 633. This conclusion is inconsistent with the conclusions reached by the commission in its cost estimate and by 

the Legislative Budget Board (LBB) in its fiscal notes. Since the 

legislature is presumed to understand the fiscal impacts of the 

bills it passes and that presumption is based on infonnation provided by state agencies and the LBB, the commission believes 

that the intent of SB 633 was only to require the full regulatory 

impact analysis for rules that are extraordinary in nature. While 

the rules have a broad Impact, that impact Is no greater than is 

necessary or appropriate to meet the requirements of the FCAA. 

For these reasons, rules adopted for inclusion in the SIP fall under the exception in Texas Government Code, §2001.0225(a), 

because they are required by federal law. 

The commission has consistently applied this construction to 

its rules since this statute was enacted in 1997. Since that 

time, the legislature has revised the Texas Government Code 

but left this provision substantially unamended. It is presumed 

that, When an agency interpretation is in effect at the time the 

legislature amends the laws without making substantial change 

in the statute, the legislature is deemed to. have accepted the 

agency's interpretation. Central Power & Light Co. v. Sharp, 

919 S.W.2d 485, 489 (Tex. App. Austin 1995), writ denied with 

per curiam opinion respecting another Issue, 960 S.W.2d 617 

(Tex. 1997); Bullock v. Marathon Oil Co., 798 S.W.2d 353, 357 

(Tex. App. Austin 1990, no writ); Cf. Humble Oil & Refining 

Co. v. Calvert, 414 S.W.2d 172 (Tex. 1967); Dudney v. State 

Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 9 S.W.3d 884, 893 (Tex. App. Austin 

2000); Southwestern Life Ins. Co. v. Montemayor, 24 S.W.3d 

581 (Tex. App. Austin 2000, pet. denied); and Coastal lndust. 

Water Auth. v. Trinity Portland Cement Div., 563 S.W.2d 916 

(Tex. 1978). 

The commission's interpretation of the regulatory impact analysis requirements Is also supported by a cl:lange made to the 

Texas Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by the legislature in 

1999. In an attempt to limit the number of rule challenges based 

upon APA requirements, the legislature clarified that state agencies are required to meet these sections of the APA against the 

standard of substantial compliance as required in Texas Government Code, §2001.035. The legislature specifically identified 

Texas Government Code, §2001.0225 as falling under this standard. The commission has substantially compiled with the requirements of Texas Government Code, §2001.0225. 

Even if the proposed .rulemaking constitutes a major environmental rule under Texas Government Code, §2001.0225(g)(3), 

a regulatory impact analysis Is not required because this exemption is part of the commission's SIP for making progress toward 

the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. Therefore, the 

proposed rulemaking does not exceed a standard set by federal 

law or exceed an express requirement of state law, since they 

are part of an overall regulatory scheme designed to meet, not 

exceed the relevant standard set by federal law (NAAQS). The 

commission is charged with protecting air quality within the state 

and to design and submit a plan to achieve attainment and maintenance of the federally mandated NAAQS. The Third District 

Court of Appeals upheld this Interpretation in Brazoria County v. 

Texas Comm'n on Envtl. Quality, 128 S.W. 3d 728 (Tex. App. " 

Austin 2004, no writ}. The specific intent of the proposed rulemaking Is to Include the exemption for a motor vehicle that has a 

gross vehicle Wfilight rating greater than 14,000 pounds and that 

is equipped with a 2008 or subsequent model year heavy-duty 

diesel engine or liquefied or compressed natural gas engine. that 

has been certified by the EPA or another state environmental 

ager\cy to emit no more than 30 grams of NOx emissions per 

hour when idling. This proposal, therefore,. does not exceed an 

express requirement of federal Jaw. The amendment is needed 

to implement state law but does exceed those new requirements. 

The proposed rulemaking does involve a compact (in particular, the Austin EAC), which Is an agreement between the state 

and federal government to implement a state and federal program; however, the proposed amendment does not exceed the 

PROPOSED RULES March 9, 2012 37 TexReg 1659 
requirements of that compact. Finally, this proposed rulemaking was not developed solely under the general powers of the 

agency, but is authorized by specific sectio~s of T~SC, C~apter 

382 which are cited in the Statutory Authonty section of th1s preamble, including THSC, §382.Q12 and §382.019. Becau~e th!s 

proposed rulemaking does not meet any of the four apphcabrlity requirements, Texas Government Cod~, ~2001.022?(b) does 

not apply, and a regulatory impact analysis IS not requrred. 

The commission invites public comment regarding the draft regulatory impact analysis determination during the public comment 

period. Written comments on the draft regulatory impact analysis determination may be submitted to the contact per~ on at th.e 

address listed under the Submittal of Comments sect1on of this 

preamble. 

Takings Impact Assessment 

The commission evaluated the proposed rulemaking and performed an analysis of whether the proposed rulemaking constitutes a taking under Texas Government Code, Chapter 2007. 

The commission's preliminary assessment indicates Texas Government Code, Chapter 2007 does not apply. 

Under Texas Government Code, §2007.002(5), taking means: 

"(A) a governmental action ~hat affects private. real property, in 

whole or in part or temporanly or permanently, 1n a ma.nner that 

requires the governmental entity to compensate the prrvate real 

property owner as provided by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution or Section 17 or 19, Article 1 Texas Constitution; or (B) a governmental action that (i) 

affect~ an owner's private real property that is the subject of the 

governmental action, In whole or in part or temporarily or permanently, in a manner that restricts or limits the owner's right to the 

property that would otherwise exist in the absence of the .governmental action; and (ii) is the producing cause of a redu<:Uon of at 

least 25 percent in the market value of the affected pnvate real 

property, determined by comparing the market value of the property as if the governmental action is n_ot in effect and the mar~et 

value of the property determined as If the governmental act1on 

is in effect." 

Promulgation and enforcement of the proposed r~lemakin~ 

would be neither a statutory nor a constitutional takrng of pnvate real property. The primary purpose of the proposed ru~e 

is to implement THSC, §382.0191 added by SB 492. ThiS 

proposed rule Is not burdensome, restrictive, or limiting. of 

rights to private real property because the proposed rulemakrng 

regulates vehicle idling in certain limi~ed areas .. Further":l~re, 

the proposed rulemaking would benefrt t~e public by prov1d.rng 

all local governments the option of applyrng the Motor Vehicle 

Idling Rule when additional control measures are needed to 

achieve or maintain attainment of the federal ozone standards. 

The proposed rulemaking does not affect a landowner's rights 

in private real property because this rulemaking does not bu~­

den, restrict, or limit the owner's right to property, nor does rt 

reduce the value of any private real property by 25% or more 

beyond that which would otherwise exist in the absence o~ the 

regulations. Therefore, this proposed rule would not constitute 

a taking under Texas Government Code, Chapter 2007. 

Consistency with the Coastal Management Program 

The commission reviewed the proposed rulemakihg and found 

that the adoption is subject to the Texas Coastal Mana~em~nt 

Program (CMP) in accordance with the Coastal Coordrnatlon 

Act, Texas Natural Resources Code §§33.201 et seq., and ther~" 

fore, must be consistent with all applicable CMP goals and polr37 TexReg 1660 March 9, 2012 Texas Register 

cies. The commission reviewed this proposed rulemaking for 

consistency with the CMP goals and policies in accordance with 

the regulations of the Coastal Coordination Council and determined that the proposed rulemaking does not affect any coastal 

natural resource areas. The CMP goals applicable to the pmposed rulamaking are to protect, preserve, restore, and enhance 

the diversity, quality, quantity, functions, and values of coastal 

natural resource areas. No new sources of air con tam 1nants are 

authorized in those affected counties. The CMP policy applicable to this proposed rulemaking action is the policy that commission rules comply with regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to protect and enhance air quality in the coastal area 

(40 CFR §501 .32). This proposed rulemaking does not have a 

detrimental effect on SIP emissions reduction obligations relating 

to maintenance of the ozone NMQS. This proposed rulemaking 

action complies with the CFR. Therefore, in compliance with 31 

TAC §505.22(e), this proposed rulemaking action is consistent 

with CMP goals and policies. Promulgation and enforcement 

of this proposed rule does not violate or exceed any standards 

identified in the applicable CMP goals and policies, because the 

proposed rulemaking is consistent with these CMP goals and 

policies, and because this proposed rule does not create or have 

a direct or significant adverse effect on any coastal natural resource areas. 

Written comments on the consistency of this rulemaking may be 

submitted to the contact person at the address listed under the 

Submittal of Comments section of this preamble. 

Announcement of Hearings 

The commission will hold public hearings on this proposal in 

Austin on April2, 2012, at 2:00p.m., in Building E, Room 201~. 

at the commission's central office located at 12100 Park 35 Crrcle, and in Fort Worth on April 3, 2012, at 2:00 p.m. in the Public Meeting Room, at the DFW TCEQ Region 4 Office located at 

2309 Gravel Road. The hearings are structured for the receipt of 

oral or written comments by interested persons. Individuals may 

present oral statements when called upon in order of registration. Open discussion will not be permitted during the hearings; 

however, commission staff members will be available to discuss 

the proposal 30 minutes prior to each hearing. 

Persons who have special communication or other accommodation needs who are planning to attend a hearing should contact 

Sandy Wong, Office of Legal Services, at (512) 239-1802. Requests should be made as far in advance as possible. 

Submittal of Comments 

Written comments may be submitted to Charlotte Hom, MC 

205, Office of Legal Services, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087, 

or faxed to (512) 239-4808. Electronic comments may be 

submitted at http://www5.tceq.texas.govlru/es/ecommentsl. 

File size restrictions may apply to comments being submitted 

via the eComments system. All comments should reference Rule Project Number 2011-060-114-EN. The comment 

period closes April 9, 2012. Copies of the proposed rulemaking can be obtained from the commission's Web site at 

http://www.tceq.texas.govlnavlru/eslpropose_adopt.html. For 

further information, please contact Holly Brightwell, Air Quality 

Planning Section, {512) 239-4905. 

Statutory Authority 

The amendment is proposed under the authority of the Texas 

Government Code and under Texas Water Code (TWC), §5.1 02, 
General Powers; TWC, §5.1 03, Rules; and TWC, §5.1 05, 

General Policy, which provide the commission with the general 

powers to carry out its duties and authorize the commission to 

prop.ose rulemaking necessary to carry out its powers and duties 

under the TWC; and TWC, §5.013, General Jurisdiction of Commission, which states the commission's authority over various 

statutory programs. The amendment is also proposed under 

Texas Health and Safety Code {THSC), §382.017, Rules, which 

authorizes the commission to propose rules consistent with the 

policy and purposes of THSC, Chapter 382 (the Texas Clean 

Air Act), and to propose rules that differentiate among particular 

conditions, particular sources, and particular areas of the state. 

The amendment is also proposed under THSC, §382.002, Policy and Purpose, which establishes the commission's purpose 

to safeguard the state's air resources, consistent with the protection of public health, general welfare, and physical property; 

THSC, §382.003, concerning Definitions; THSC, §382.011, 

General Powers and Duties, which authorizes the commission 

to control the quality of the state's air; THSC, ·§382.012, State 

Air Control Plan, which authorizes the commission to prepare 

and develop a general, comprehensive plan for the control o.f 

the state's air; THSC, §382.019, Methods Used to Control and 

Reduce Emissions From Land Vehicles, which provides the 

commission the authority to propose rules to control and reduce 

emissions from engines used to propel land vehicles; and 

THSC, §382.208, Attainment Program, which authorizes the 

commission to develop and implement transportation programs 

and other measures necessary to demonstrate attainment and 

protect the public from exposure to hazardous air contaminants 

from motor vehicles. 

The proposed amendment implements SB 493, which established THSC, §382.0191. 

§114.517. Exemptions. 

The provisions of §114.512 of this title (relating to Control Require· 

ments for Motor Vehicle Idling) do not apply to: 

(!) a motor vehicle that has a gross vehicle weight rating 

of 14,000 pounds or less; 

(2) a motor vehicle that has a gross vehicle weight rating 

greater than 14,000 pounds and that is equipped with a 2008 or subsequent model year heavy-duty diesel engine or liquefied or compressed 

natural gas engine that has been certified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency or another state environmental agency 

to emit no more than 30 grams of nitrogen oxides emissions per hour 

when idling; 

ill [~] the primary propulsion engine of a motor vehicle 

being used to provide air conditioning or heating necessary for em· 

ployee health or safety in an armored vehicle while the employee re· 

mains inside the vehicle to guard the contents or while the vehicle is 

being loaded or unloaded; 

ill [~] a motor vehicle forced to remain motionless be· 

cause of traffic conditions over which the operator has no control; 

ill [t4}] a motor vehicle being used by the United States 

military, national guard, or reserve forces, or as an emergency Ot' law 

enforcement motor vehicle; 

ill [ts1] the primary propulsion engine of a motor vehicle 

providing a power source necessary for mechanical operation, other 

than propulsion, and/or passenger compartment heating, or ait· condi· 

tioning; 

m [(61] the primaty pl'Opulsion engine of a motor vehicle 

being operated for maintenance or diagnostic purposes; 

ID [(11] the primm·y propulsion engine of a motor vehicle 

being operated solely to defrost a windshield; 

.(2} [00] the primary propulsion et1git1e of a motor vehicle 

that is beit1g used to supply heat or air conditionit1g necessary for passenger comfort atld safety in vehicles intended for commercial or public 

passenger transportation, or passenger transit opemtions, in which case 

idling up to a maximum of 30 minutes is allowed; 

{!_Q) [~] the primary propulsion engine of a motor vehi· 

cle being used to provide air conditioning or heating necessary for employee health or safety while tho employee is using the vehicle to per· 

fotm an essential job function related to roadway construction or main· 

tenance; 

D.D. [twj] the primary propulsion engine of a motor vehi· · 

cle being used as airpo11 ground support equipment; 

@ [ff.l-)] the owner of a motor vehicle rented or leased to 

a pet•son that operates the vehicle and is not employod by the owner; or 

QJ) [fh!t] a motor vehicle when idling is necessary to 

power a heater or air conditioner while a driver is using the vehicle's 

sleeper berth fot· a government-mandated rest period and is not within 

two miles of a facility offering external heating and air conditioning 

connections at a time when those connections are available. 

This. agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed 

by legal counsel and found to be within the agency's legal author~ 

tty to adopt. 

Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on February 24, 

2012. 

TRD-201201125 

Robert Martinez 

Director, Environmental Law Division 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

Earliest possible date of adoption: April 8, 2012 

For further information, please call: (512) 239-0779 

• • • 

CHAPTER 116. CO TROL OF AIR 

POLLUTION BY PE TS FOR NEW 

CONSTRUCTION 0 MODIFICATION 

The Texas Commission o Environmental Quality (commission or TCEQ) proposes a endments to §§116.12, 116.150, 

116.151, 116.180, and 116. 86. 

The proposed amendment to §§116.12, 116.150, 116.151, 

116.180, and 116.186 will e submitted to the United States 

Environmental Protection ency {EPA) as revisions to the 

State Implementation Plan ( IP). 

Background and Summary o the Factual Basis for the Proposed 

Rules 

On June 10, 2005, the TCEQ ubmitted amendments to §116.12 

to the EPA as revisions to t New Source Review (NSR) SIP 

and §116.150 as revisions t the Nonattainment New Source 

Review (NNSR) SIP, both ad ted on May 25, 2005. On January 

11, 2006, the TCEQ repeal d §§116.180 • 116.183, 116A10, 

and 116.617; amended §§11 .12, 116.150, 116.151, 116.160, 

and 116.610; and adopted n §§116.121, 116.180, 116.182, 

116.184,116.186,116.188, 11 .190, 116.192,116.194,116,196, 

116.198, 116.400, 116.402, 16.404, 116.406, 116.617, and 

PROPOSED RULES March 9, 2012 37 TexReg 1661 
TESTIMONY 
Reference Number 

W-1 

W-2 

W-3 

INDEX OF WRITTEN TESTIMONY 

Submitted by 

Chris Klaus, North Central Texas Council of Governments 

John D. Esparza, Texas Motor Transportation Association 

Guy Donaldson, United States Environmental Protection Agency 
North Central Texas Council Of Governments 

Ms. Charlotte Horn 

MC205 

Office of Legal Services 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

PO Box 13087 

Austin, TX 78711-3087 

April 9, 2012 

W-1 

Re: Public Comment on Proposed Revisions to 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 

114, Subchapter J, Division 2, Locally Enforced Motor Vehicle Idling Limitations- Rule Project 

Number: 2011-060-114-EN. 

Dear Ms. Horn: 

The North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) appreciates the opportunity to 

comment on the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality's (TCEQ) Proposed Revisions to 30 

TAC, Chapter 114, Subchapter J, Division 2- Locally Enforced Motor Vehicle Idling Limitations and 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) - Rule Project Number: 2011-060-114-EN. As the Dallas-Fort 

Worth (DFW) Metropolitan Planning Organization, NCTCOG is tasked with implementing a large 

number of control strategies in the DFW 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP. One of these 

strategies is to promote adoption and local enforcement of idling restrictions within the North Central 

Texas area. As an advocate of idling restrictions, and as an agency having firsthand experience 

assisting local governments in adopting and enforcing such rules, NCTCOG would like to provide the 

following comments on the proposed revisions to the Rule. 

Clean Idle Engine Exemption: NCTCOG supports the inclusion of an exemption for 2008 

and newer diesel, liquefied natural gas, and compressed natural gas engines certified by the 

United States Environmental Protection Agency or another State environmental agency to 

emit no more than 30 grams of nitrogen oxides emissions per hour when idling. S.uch 

engines are often cleaner than add-on technologies aimed at reducing emissions from idling; 

thus, this exemption provides drivers more options for complying with the rule and has the 

possibility to result in additional emissions reductions. 

Idling Near Sensitive Areas: On July 20, 2011, TCEQ approved the reinstatement of an 

exemption for drivers idling while on a government-mandated rest-period. With this 

reinstatement also came the removal of a prohibition of idling near sensitive areas including 

schools, hospitals, and neighborhoods. NCTCOG spoke in opposition to the removal of this 

prohibition. With the addition of the exemption for idling of "Certified Clean Idle" engines, 

NCTCOG requests consideration that only these such engines be allowed to idle in sensitive 

areas due to having a lower impact on vulnerable populations. 

In addition to these comments, NCTCOG would like to request guidance from TCEQ on how local 

governments may go about restricting idling near sensitive areas outside of this Rule, as per the 

direction of TCEQ Commissioners at the July 20, 2011, hearing. Commissioner Shaw explicitly 

616 Six Flags Drive, CenterpointTwo 

P. 0. Box 5888, Arlington, Texas 76005-5888 

(817) 640-3300 FAX: 817-640-7806 ® recycled paper 

www.nctcog.org 
Ms. Charlotte Horn 

Page Two 

April9, 2012 

stated that it was not TCEQ's intention to inhibit a local government's ability to restrict idling in these 

sensitive areas. While cities have an ability to pass parking ordinances to possibly address 

restricting this type of idling, counties have no mechanism by which to adopt restrictions; and thus, 

are limited to enforcing only rules that are explicitly included in the T AC. Any direction TCEQ can 

provide on how counties can restrict the idling of vehicles near vulnerable populations would be 

greatly appreciated. 

Thank you for this opportunity to comment. We look forward to a continued partnership with 

TCEQ as we work together towards the common goal of cleaner air. Should you have any 

questions, please contact Amanda Brimmer at (817) 608-2354 or abrimmer@nctcog.org. Sinc;;:;tris Klaus 

Senior Program Manager 

RG/AB:ch 
March 26,2012 

Ms. Charlotte Horn 

Office of Legal Services 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

P.O. Box 13087 

Austin, Texas 78711-3087 

. RE: Rule Project Number 20Jl.:060-114.;EN 

Dear Ms. Horn: 

700 East 11th Street 

Austin, TX 78701 

(512) 478-2541 

(512) 474-6494 fax 

www.tmta.com 

W-2 

RECEIVED 

MAR 2 9· 2012 

TEXAS REGISTER TEAM 

Texas Motor Transportation Association (TMTA) is a trade association which represents 

more than 900 motor carriers operating trucks throughout Texas and the United States. 

Some of these companies have drivers that are required to stop and obtain government 

mandated rest in non-attainment and near non-attainment areas. Depending on the time of 

year, the drivers with sleeper-cabs need to maintain heating and/or cooling inside the cab 

while resting and occasionally that requires idling. 

Great strides . have been made by the heavy-duty truck engine manufactures to build 

cleaner engines. Some of these truck engines are actually emitting cleaner air than they 

are taking in. In effect, these engines are cleaning the air in the non-attainment areas. 

Some states are recognizing these efforts and are certifying certain new engines that meet 

strict EPA guidelines as "clean idle" engines. It is for that reason that TMT A supports the 

Commission's proposed amendment to § 114.517 that adds the exemption concerning 

heavy-duty diesel engines or liquefied or compressed natural gas engines, provided those 

have been certified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency or another 

state environmental agency to emit no more than 30 grams of nitrogen oxides emissions 

per hour when idling. 

TMT A urges the proposed amendments be finalized as soon as possible. 

Respectfully submitted, 
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGIONS 

Ms. Charlotte Hom 

Office of Legal Services, MC 205 

1445 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 1200 

DALLAS, TX 75202·2733 

APR 0 9 2012 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

P.O. Box 13087 

Austin, TX 78711-3087 

Re: Rule Project Number 2011-060-114-EN 

Dear Ms. Horn: 

W-3 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on proposed revisions to the Locally Enforced 

Motor Vehicle Idling Restrictions found at30 TAC Chapter 114, Control of Air Pollution From 

Motor Vehicles. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has proposed a 

revision to § 114.517 (RY:emptions) that would add a new exemption from the motor vehicle 

idling rules for a motor vehicle having a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds 

and that is equipped with a 2008 or subsequent model year heavy-duty diesel engine or liquefied 

or compressed natural gas engine that has been certified by the EPA or a state environmental 

agency to emit no more than 30 grams of nitrogen dioxide (NOx) emissions per hour when 

idling. 

The motor vehicle idling restrictions are currently being implemented as one of several 

local control measures under the Vohmtary Mobile Emissions Reductions Program (VMEP) in 

the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). The VMEP control measures were fully approved by EPA into the 

SIP in January 2009. The TCEQ states that this new exemption will not interfere with 

attainment or reasonable further progress in the SIP because even though there is a shortfall in 

the NOx and volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions reductions achieved by the DFW 

area through implementation of the Locally Enforced Idling Restrictions as ofMarch 2009, the 

DFW area has achieved an excess ofNOx and VOC emissions reductions as of March 2009 for 

the overall VMEP, which is above and beyond what it committed to achieve in the DFW 

Attainment Demonstration SIP. 

TCEQ states the exemption will not interfere with attainment or reasonable further 

progress in the SIP. However, TCEQ has not yet quantified the estimated increase in NOx and 

VOC emissions expected to result from the proposed new exemption. TCEQ states that the 

current rule includes an exemption for motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 

R$c:yc:led/R.cyelahle • Printed with Vegetable OU Base<.! Inks em 100% Recycled P<tper (40% Pos!oonsumer) 
14,000 pounds or less, and therefore there would be no net change in emissions to exempt 

vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating between 8,500 and 14,000 poundoS with the abovespecified standards. In addition, TCEQ states that the new exemption will not interfere ¥lith 

attainment or reasonable further progress in the SIP because the DFW area achieved an excess of 

NOx and VOC emissions reductions through the VMEP commitments. Specifically, the excess 

NOx and VOC emission reductions achieved by the DFW area for the overall VMEP are greater 

than the NOx and VOC emissions reductions Texas committed to achieve through 

implementation ofthe Locally Enforced Motor Vehicle Idling Restrictions component of the 

VMEP in the DFW Attainment Demonstration SIP, When this amendment to the Locally 

Enforced Motor Vehicleidling Restrictions is submitted to EPAas a SIP revision, TCEQ should 

demonstrate that the revision is consistent with section 11 0(1) of the Clean Air Act ( CAA) and 

that backsliding will not occur in the SIP as a result of the new exemption. As part of the 110(1) 

demonstration, the SIP submittal should include proper documentation showing that excess 

emissions reductions achieved for the overall VMEP will offset any potential increase in 

emissions resulting from the new exemption to the LocaHy Enforced Motor Vehicle Idling 

Restrictions. The SIP submittal must also provide an accounting of the substitute emissions 

reductions that are being used to offset any potential increase in emissions resulting from the 

new exemption, including a breakdo\\>11 of the specific control measures under the VMEP and the 

corresponding substitute emissions reductions that are being used as offsets. 

In addition, we remind TCEQ that any excess emissions reductions achieved by the DFW 

area that are used as substitute emissions reductions to offset any potential increase in emissions 

resulting from the new exemption cannot be used as substitute emissions reductions to offset a 

shortfall in any other control measure in the SIP or othenvise be used as a SIP credit for any 

other emissions reduction control measure. In December 2010, EPA published a final 

detennination of failure to attain and reclassification of the DFW area from a moderate to a 

serious nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS), and in January 2012, TCEQ submitted to EPA a DFW Attainment Demonstration SIP 

and reasonable further progress (RFP) SIP revision to address the serious ozone nonattainmei1t 

area requirements of the CAA. When the new exemption to the Locally Enforced Motor Vehicle 

Idling Restrictions is submitted to EPA as a SIP revision, TCEQ must provide an explanation of 

what VMEP emissions reduction commitments were made in the SIP revision addressing the 

serious ozone nonattainment DFW area, including a breakdown of each of the control measures 

under the VMEP and the corresponding emissions reduction commitments. 

The motor vehicle idling restrictions are also a control measure in the Austin Early 

Action Compact (EAC) Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP), which was approved by EPA into the 

SIP. The AustinEAC CAAP includes control measures and demonstrates maintenance through 

2012. The Austin EAC CAAP commits to reducing NOx by 0.67 tons per day through 

implementation of the motor vehicle idling restrictions. Even though EPA designated the Austin 
area in attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS on Aprill5, 2004, the Austin area must 

continue to meet the emissions reductions it committed to achieve through implementation of the 

control measures in the EAC CAAP, since these are in the SIP. Therefore, when this amendment 

to the Locally Enforced Motor Vehicle Idling Restrictions is submitted to EPA as a SIP revision, 

TCEQ should demonstrate that the revision is consistent with section 110(1) of the CAA and that 

backsliding will not occur in the SIP as a result of the new exemption. As part ofthe 11 O(l) 

demonstration, the SIP submittal should provide substitute reductions or a technical or modeling 

demonstration, including proper documentation, showing that maintenance of the NAAQS will 

continue in the Austin area without the SIP credits affected by this exemption. 

Region 6 continues to offer Texas our support during the rule revision process. Please let 

us know how we may be of further assistance. 

Sincerely yours, 

Guy Donaldson 

Chief 

Air Planning Section 
INDEX OF ORAL TESTIMONY 

NO ORAL TESTIMONY WAS RECEIVED PERTAINING TO THIS RULE REVISION. 
- 1 -

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

Public Hearing Registration 

Apri12, 2012 

2:oop.m. 

Rule Project No.: 2011-060-114-EN 

Short Title: Senate Bill 493: Motor Vehicle Idling 

Location: TCEQ main complex, 12100 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 

Concerning: Proposed amendments to 30 TAC Chapter 114, Control of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles 

Name Representing Presenting Oral Testimony? 

(Please Print) (Circle One) 

Yes No 

..... 

/ Yes No 

/ Yes No 

L 

'~~ I / Yes No 

/ 

~v / Yes No 

t-.. /1 

~ '- ''0/'JO Yes No 

\\~ r&' v / ... 

Yes No 

/ Yes No 
HEARING OFFICER REPORT 

I am the hearing officer assigned to conduct the public hearing regarding a 

proposed amendment to 30 TAC Chapter 114, Subchapter J, Division 2, Locally 

Enforced Motor Vehicle Idling Limitations and revision to the state 

implementation plan. SB 493: Motor Vehicle Idling, Rule Project Number 2011-

o60-114-EN. 

A public hearing was scheduled for April 2, 2012 in Austin, at 2:00 p.m., in 

Building E, Room 2018 at the commission's central office located at 12100 Park 

35 Circle, Austin Texas. 

At 1:30 p.m. the room was open and TCEQ staff members were available to 

discuss the proposal. At 2:00 p.m. TCEQ staff and a court reporter were present 

and ready to open the hearing for public comment. After waiting for 10 minutes, 

no one had arrived to make comments on the record. Therefore, the public 

hearing was not formally opened for comment and a transcript was not prepared. 

Date signed 
-2-

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

Public Hearing Registration 

April3, 2012 

2:oop.m. 

Rule Project No.: 2011-060-114-EN 

Short Title: Senate Bill493: Motor Vehicle Idling 

Location: TCEQ Dallas/Fort Worth Regional Office, 2309 Gravel Drive, Fort Worth, Texas 

Concerning: Proposed amendments to 30 TAC Chapter 114, Control of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles 

- Name Representing Presenting Oral Testimony? 

(Please Print) (Circle One) 

' I N \ cotf C00JP~v @ cltft OQ Q ~ Yes0D 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

.. 

Yes No 

Yes No 

.,, 
HEARING OFFICER REPORT 

I am the hearing officer assigned to conduct the public hearing regarding a 

proposed amendment to 30 TAC Chapter 114, Subchapter J, Division 2, Locally 

Enforced Idling Limitations and revision to the state implementation plan: SB 

493, Motor Vehicle Idling, Rule Project Number 2011-060-114-EN. 

A public hearing was scheduled for April3, 2012, in Austin, at 2:00p.m., at the 

TCEQ region office located at 2309 Gravel Drive, Fort Worth Texas. 

At 1:30 p.m. the room was open and TCEQ staff members were available to 

discuss the proposal. At 2:00p.m. TCEQ staff and a court reporter were present 

and ready to open the hearing for public comment. After waiting for 10 minutes 

no one had arrived to make comments on the record. Therefore, the public 

hearing was not formally opened for comment and a transcript was not prepared. 

Datesign d 
EVALUATION 
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

Interoffice Memorandum 

To: 

Thru: 

From: 

Commissioners 

Bridget C. Bohac, Chief Clerk 

Zak Covar, Executive Director 

Steve Hagle, P.E., Deputy Director 

Office of Air 

Docket No.: 2011-1639-RUL 

Date: July 20, 2012 

Subject: Commission Approval for Rulemaking Adoption 

Chapter 114, Control of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles 

SB 493: Motor Vehicle Idling 

Rule Project No. 2011-060-114-EN 

Background and reason for the rulemaking: 

30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 114, Subchapter J, Division 2, Locally 

Enforced Motor Vehicle Idling Limitations, was originally adopted by the Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) on November 17, 2004, for use as a control 

strategy in the Austin area to maintain attainment with the 1997 eight-hour ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The adopted idling limitations rules provided any 

local government in Texas the option of applying the rules in their jurisdiction should 

additional control measures be needed to achieve or maintain attainment of the ozone 

NAAQS. Since its inception, 29 cities, two towns, and nine counties have signed 

memorandums of agreement (MOA) to enforce the idling restriction in their jurisdictions. 

The 82nd Legislature, 2011, Regular Session, enacted Senate Bill (SB) 493, amending 

Chapter 382, Subchapter B, of the Texas Health and Safety Code (THSC) by adding 

§382.0191, which prohibits the commission from limiting the idling of a motor vehicle that 

has a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds and that is equipped with a 

2008 or subsequent model year heavy-duty diesel engine or liquefied or compressed 

natural gas engine that has been certified by the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) or another state environmental agency to emit no more than 30 grams of 

nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions per hour when idling. Although SB 493 provides for an 

exemption of vehicles with a gross vehicle weight greater than 8,500 pounds and equipped 

with the low-NOx engine, the rule change exempts vehicles weighing greater than 14,000 

pounds and equipped with the low-NOx engine because only vehicles weighing more than 

14,000 pounds are subject to the idling restrictions. 

Scope of the rulemaking: 

A.) Summary of what the rulemaking will do: 

The adopted rule revision will amend Chapter 114, Subchapter J, as follows: 

• Amend §114.517 to include an exemption for motor vehicles having a gross vehicle 

weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds and equipped with a 2008 or subsequent 

model year heavy-duty diesel engine or liquefied or compressed natural gas engine 
Commissioners 

Page2 

July 20, 2012 

Re: Docket No. 2011-1639-RUL 

that has been certified by the EPA or another state environmental agency to emit no 

more than 30 grams of NOx emissions per hour when idling. 

The amended section will be submitted to the EPA as a revision to the state 

implementation plan (SIP). 

B.) Scope required by federal regulations or state statutes: 

The amendment is required to incorporate SB 493 enacted by the 82nd Legislature, 2011, 

Regular Session. 

C.) Additional staff recommendations that are not required by federal rule or 

state statute: 

None. 

Statutory authority: 

This rulemaking is adopted under the authority of Texas Water Code (TWC), §5.102, 

General Powers, TWC, §5.103, Rules, and TWC, §5.105, General Policy, which provide the 

commission with the general powers to carry out its duties and authorize the commission 

to propose rules necessary to carry out its powers and duties under the TWC; and TWC, 

§5.013, General Jurisdiction of Commission, which states the commission's authority over 

various statutory programs. The amendment is also adopted under THSC, §382.017, Rules, 

which authorizes the commission to adopt rules consistent with the policy and purposes of 

THSC, Chapter 382 (the Texas Clean Air Act), and to adopt rules that differentiate among 

particular conditions, particular sources, and particular areas of the state. The amendment 

is also adopted under THSC, §382.002, Policy and Purpose, which establishes the 

commission's purpose to safeguard the state's air resources, consistent with the protection 

of public health, general welfare, and physical property; THSC, §382.003, concerning 

Definitions; THSC, §382.011, General Powers and Duties, which authorizes the 

commission to control the quality of the state's air; THSC, §382.012, State Air Control 

Plan, which authorizes the commission to prepare and develop a general, comprehensive 

plan for the control of the state's air; THSC, §382.019, Methods Used to Control and 

Reduce Emissions From Land Vehicles, which provides the commission the authority to 

adopt rules to control and reduce emissions from engines used to propel land vehicles; and 

THSC, §382.208, which authorizes the commission to develop and implement 

transportation programs and other measures necessary to demonstrate attainment and 

protect the public from exposure to hazardous air contaminants from motor vehicles. 

The adopted amendment implements SB 493, which established THSC, §382.0191. 

Effect on the: 

A.) Regulated community: 

Local jurisdictions that have signed an MOA with the TCEQ to implement and enforce the 

idling restrictions will have to add vehicles weighing greater than 14,000 pounds that are 
Commissioners 

Page3 

July 20, 2012 

Re: Docket No. 2011-1639-RUL 

equipped with a 2008 or newer engine certified to emit no more than 30 grams of NOx 

emissions per hour when idling to their list of vehicles exempt from idling restrictions. 

There is no fiscal impact on the regulated community. 

B.) Public: 

The rule revision does not have an adverse effect on the public. There is no fiscal impact on 

the public. 

C.) Agency programs: 

There is no anticipated effect on any agency program by implementing the adopted rule 

revision. There will be no fiscal impact on the agency. 

Stakeholder meetings: · 

No stakeholder meetings were held for this rulemaking. 

Public comment: 

The commission offered public hearings for the proposal in Austin on April 2, 2012, and in 

Fort Worth on April3, 2012. A question and answer session was held 30 minutes prior to 

the hearing. The hearing was not' officially opened because no party indicated a desire to 

give comment. The public comment period was from March 9, 2012, through April 9, 2012. 

The commission received written comments from Texas Motor Transportation Association 

(TMTA), North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG), and the EPA. 

General Comments 

TMTA and NCTCOG submitted comment in support of the rulemaking. No changes were 

made in response to this comment. 

§110(1) Demonstration 

The EPA commented that it would not be able to approve the proposed exemption in the 

SIP unless the commission provided substitute reductions or modeling to show that 

attainment can be met without the credits affected by the exemption. In response to the 

EPA's comments, the §110(1) demonstration of the adoption preamble was updated to 

demonstrate that the clean idle engine exemption will not interfere with attainment or 

reasonable further progress in the SIP. 

§114-512, Control Requirements for Motor Vehicle Idling 

The NCTCOG suggested the commission consider reinstating the prohibition from idling in 

sensitive areas including school zones, hospitals, and neighborhoods. No changes were 

made in response to this comment. 

The NCTCOG requested guidance from the commission regarding the creation of local 

regulations restricting idling beyond provisions laid out in Chapter 114, Subchapter J, 
Commissioners 

Page4 

July 20, 2012 

Re: Docket No. 2011-1639-RUL 

Division 2, Locally Enforced Motor Vehicle Idling Limitations. No changes were made in 

response to this comment. 

Significant changes from proposal: 

The §110(1) demonstration was updated in response to comments made by the EPA. No 

changes were made to §114.517 in response to comments. 

Potential controversial concerns and legislative interest: 

None. 

Does this rulemaking affect any current policies or require development of 

new policies? 

No policies are affected by this adopted rule making. 

What are the consequences if this rulemaking does not go forward? Are there 

alternatives to rulemaking? 

If this rulemaking does not go forward, the TAC will be inconsistent with THSC, §382.0191. 

There are no alternatives to rulemaking. 

Key points in the adoption rulemaking· schedule: 

Texas Register proposal publication date: March 9, 2012 

Anticipated Texas Register publication date: August 24, 2012 

Anticipated effective date: August 30, 2012 

Six-month Texas Register filing deadline: September 10, 2012 

Agency contacts: 

Holly Brightwell, Rule Project Manager, 239-4905, Air Quality Division 

Ross Henderson, Staff Attorney, 239-6257 

Charlotte Horn, Texas Register Coordinator, 239-0779 

Attachments 

SB 493, 82nd Texas Legislature, 2011, Regular Session 

cc: Chief Clerk, 2 copies 

Executive Director's Office 

Susana M. Hildebrand, P.E. 

Anne Idsal 

Curtis Seaton 

Tucker Royall 

Office of General Counsel 

Holly Brightwell 

Charlotte Horn 
EVALUATION OF TESTIMONY 

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ or commission) adopts 

amendment to §114.517 without change to the proposed text as published in the March 

9, 2012, issue of the Texas Register (37 TexReg 1656) and the text will not be 

republished. 

The amended section will be submitted to the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) as a revision to the state implementation plan (SIP). 

Background and Summary of the Factual Basis for the Rule 

Chapter 114, Subchapter J, Division 2, Locally Enforced Motor Vehicle Idling 

Limitations, was originally adopted by the commission on November 17, 2004, at the 

request of the local air quality planning organization in the Austin Early Action Compact 

(EAC) area (Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays, Travis, and Williamson Counties) for use as a 

control strategy in its EAC agreement to maintain attainment of the 1997 eight-hour 

ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) as published in the December 3, 

2004, issue of the Texas Register (29 TexReg 11347). The adopted Motor Vehicle Idling 

Rule provides any local government in Texas the option of applying the rules in their 

jurisdiction in the event additional control measures are needed to achieve or maintain 

attainment of the ozone NAAQS. 

The EAC concept of an early, voluntary air quality plan was endorsed by the EPA Region 

6 in June 2002. It was slightly modified and made available nationally in November 

1 
2002. A key point of an EAC was the flexibility allowed to areas to select emission 

reduction measures such as limiting vehicle idling. Beginning on August 1, 2005, 

members of the Austin EAC and the TCEQ signed the locally enforced idling restrictions 

memorandum of agreement (MOA). This MOA allowed participating counties and cities 

to enforce the idling restriction rule in their jurisdictions. Members of the Austin EAC 

area signing the MOA included Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays, Travis, and Williamson 

Counties and the cities of Austin, Bastrop, Georgetown, Hutto, Lockhart, Luling, Round 

Rock, and San Marcos. Idling restrictions are also a control measure put in place in the 

Austin-Round Rock 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Flex Plan, which was signed in September 

2008. 

Four counties, 21 cities, and two towns in the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) area have also 

signed agreements to enforce the Motor Vehicle Idling Rule in their jurisdictions. Idling 

restrictions are a Voluntary Mobile Emissions Reductions Program (VMEP) control 

measure in the DFW 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP revision, 

which was adopted by the commission on May 23, 2007, and approved by the EPA on 

January 14, 2009 (74 FR 1903). 

This adopted rulemaking amends the Motor Vehicle Idling Rule as stated in Chapter 114, 

Subchapter J, Division 2. The Motor Vehicle Idling Rule limits idling for gasoline and 

diesel-powered engines in motor vehicles within the jurisdiction of any local government 

in the state that has signed an MOA with the TCEQ delegating enforcement to that local 

government. Local enforcement is crucial to the effective implementation of rules to 

reduce the extended idling of gasoline and diesel-powered heavy-duty vehicles. A result 

2 
of reduced idling is the reduction of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic 

compound (VOC) emissions, which is necessary to achieve or maintain attainment of the 

federal eight-hour ozone NAAQS. In addition, idling limitations will lower NOx and 

other pollutants emitted from fuel combustion. Because NOx is a precursor to groundlevel ozone formation, reduced emissions of NOx will result in ground-level ozone 

reductions. 

The 79th Legislature, 2005, enacted House Bill (HB) 1540, establishing Texas Health 

and Safety Code (THSC), §382.0191, Idling of Motor Vehicle While Using Sleeper Berth, 

which prohibited the commission from restricting motor vehicle idling while a driver is 

using the vehicle's sleeper berth for a government-mandated rest period. HB 1540 also 

restricted idling in a school zone or within 1,000 feet of a public school during its hours 

of operation and defined the penalty for an offense as a fine not to exceed $500. HB 

1540 did not specify an enforcement period, but it set a September 1, 2007, expiration 

date on the section. The commission adopted Motor Vehicle Idling Rule revisions to be 

consistent with HB 1540 on April 26, 2006, as published in the May 12, 2006, issue of 

the Texas Register (31 TexReg 3900). 

The 8oth Legislature, 2007, enacted Senate Bill (SB) 12, which in part amended THSC, 

§382.0191, to extend the prohibition on the TCEQ from restricting certain idling 

activities from September 1, 2007, to September 1, 2009, as published in the February 

15, 2008, issue of the Texas Register (33 TexReg 1345). The prohibition in §114.512(b) 

of certain vehicles from idling within 1,000 feet of a school or hospital expired on 

September 1, 2009. Therefore, this subsection was deleted in a previous rulemaking. 

3 
On May 22, 2008, the National Armored Car Association submitted a petition for 

rulemaking requesting armored vehicles be exempted from idling restrictions under 

§114.517. The commission adopted rule changes incorporating the armored vehicle 

exemption on July 20, 2011. The July 20, 2011, rulemaking also removed the ozone 

season dates under §114.512 to allow local governments to enforce idling limitations 

year-round for consistent enforcement (August 5, 2011, issue of the Texas Register 36 

TexReg 4972). 

Current Rulemaking 

The 82nd Legislature, 2011, enacted SB 493, amending THSC, Chapter 382, Subchapter 

B by adding THSC, §382.0191, which prohibits the commission from limiting the idling 

of a motor vehicle that has a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 8,500 pounds that 

is equipped with a 2008 or subsequent model year heavy-duty diesel engine or liquefied 

or compressed natural gas engine that has been certified by the EPA or a state 

environmental agency to emit no more than 30 grams of NOx emissions per hour when 

idling. Although SB 493 provides for an exemption of vehicles with a gross vehicle 

weight greater than 8,500 pounds and equipped with the low-NOx engine, the adopted 

rule change exempts vehicles weighing greater than 14,000 pounds and equipped with 

the low-NOx engine. The reason for this specification is because only vehicles weighing 

more than 14,000 pounds are subject to the Chapter 114 Motor Vehicle Idling Rule. This 

adopted rulemaking incorporates the amendment into the existing Motor Vehicle Idling 

Rule. 

4 
Federal Clean Air Act, §no(l) Demonstration 

The exemption will not interfere with attainment or reasonable further progress in the 

SIP. 

At proposal of the new exemption in §114.517(2), the commission indicated in the 

preamble that the exemption would not interfere with attainment or reasonable further 

progress in the SIP because the DFW area achieved an excess of NOx and VOC emissions 

reductions through the VMEP commitments. In response to comments received by the 

EPA, the §no(l) demonstration has been updated. 

The exemption for vehicles employing 2008 and newer engines certified to emit no more 

than 30 grams of NOx emissions per hour when idling will promote the use of the newer 

and cleaner vehicles equipped with this technology. Due to the changes in the federal 

heavy-duty engine emissions standards, i.e., from 2.5 grams per brake horsepower-hour 

(g/bhp-hr) for 2004 to 2006 vehicles to 0.20 g/bhp-hr for 2007 and newer vehicles, the 

2008 and newer engines described in the exemption emit significantly less NOx 

emissions as compared to uncontrolled heavy-duty vehicles both while idling and in 

transit. Additionally, these engines have a steady emission reduction efficiency rate 

during idle as compared to other older engines that have declining emission reduction 

efficiency when idling longer. 

Using either the EPA's Guidance for Quantifying and Using Long Duration Truck 

Idling Emission Reductions in State Implementation Plans and Transportation 

Conformity MOBILE6.2 guidance, or the newer EPA motor vehicle emissions simulator 

5 
(MOVES) model (the replacement to MOBILE6.2 for SIP and transportation 

conformity), a heavy-duty engine idling at a rate of 30 grams ofNOx per hour would 

emit roughly 8o% less than an uncontrolled heavy-duty engine. The MOBILE6.2 

guidance establishes the extended idling NOx emission rate at 135 grams per hour (gph) 

for all model years 2002 through 2030, MOVES sets the extended idling NOx emission 

rate at 170 gph for model years 2006 and older, and 150 gph for model years 2007 and 

newer. In all three comparisons, the overall emissions benefit gained by allowing the 

exemption of engines certified to emit no more than 30 grams of NOx per hour 

outweighs any potential increase in idling that may result from the exemption. 

Vehicle age distributions are developed for use in estimating on-road mobile source 

emissions inventories. The age distributions are based to the extent possible on Texas 

Department of Motor Vehicles (TxDMV) mid-year county registrations data. Where gaps 

occur in the data the age distributions are based on defaults built into the MOVES 

model. For heavy-duty vehicles, the TxDMVvehicle population data is aggregated 

statewide to determine the statewide age distributions for the vehicle class. For 

historical years, historical-year specific TxDMV data are used. For SIP and 

transportation conformity purposes, future year age distributions are based upon the 

most recent year of registration data. For a recent set of SIP inventories, the TCEQ 

contracted a report by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTl) Houston-GalvestonBrazoria MOVES-Based Reasonable Further Progress On-Road Inventories and 

Control Strategy Reductions that contains statewide vehicle age distributions to include 

heavy-duty diesel vehicles based on 2011 TxDMV county data aggregated statewide. 

Using the statewide age distributions documented in the report 12% of heavy-duty diesel 

6 
vehicles statewide are 2008 or newer. Based upon the same age distribution, by 2018, 

53% of heavy-duty vehicles will be 2008 and newer. From TTl's calculations, it is 

anticipated that the percentage of heavy-duty vehicles which are a 2008 or newer model 

will continue to increase. Due to the inherent emission benefits of the 2008 or 

subsequent model year heavy-duty engine that has been certified to emit no more than 

30 grams of NOx emissions per hour when idling, emissions may be reduced by up to 

So% as older uncontrolled trucks are replaced by the 2008 and newer vehicles. 

Section Discussion 

§114.517, Exemptions 

This rulemaking amends §114.517 to include an exemption in paragraph (2) for any 

motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds that is 

equipped with a 2008 or subsequent model year heavy-duty diesel engine or liquefied or 

compressed natural gas engine that has been certified by the EPA or another state 

environmental agency to emit no more than 30 grams of NOx emissions per hour when 

idling. Although SB 493 provides for an exemption of vehicles with a gross vehicle 

weight greater than 8,500 pounds and equipped with the low-NOx engine, the adopted 

rule exempts vehicles weighing greater than 14,000 pounds and equipped with the lowNOx engine. The reason for this specification is because only vehicles weighing more 

than 14,000 pounds are subject to the idling restrictions. In addition, the current 

exemptions in existing paragraphs (2) - (12) are renumbered as paragraphs (3) - (13). 

Final Regulatory Impact Analysis Determination 

The commission reviewed the adopted rule in light of the regulatory analysis 

7 
requirements of Texas Government Code, §2001.0225 and determined that the adopted 

rulemaking does not meet the definition of a major environmental rule. Texas 

Government Code, §2001.0225 states that a major environmental rule is a rule for which 

the specific intent is to protect the environment or reduce risks to human health from 

environmental exposure and that may adversely affect in a material way the economy, a 

sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, or the public 

health and safety of the state or a sector of the state. Furthermore, while the adopted 

rulemaking does not constitute a major environmental rule, even if it did, a regulatory 

impact analysis would not be required because the adopted rulemaking does not meet 

any of the four applicability criteria for requiring a regulatory impact analysis for a 

major environmental rule. Texas Government Code, §2001.0225 applies only to a major 

environmental rule that: 1) exceeds a standard set by federal law, unless the rule is 

specifically required by state law; 2) exceeds an express requirement of state law, unless 

the rule is specifically required by federal law; 3) exceeds a requirement of a delegation 

agreement or contract between the state and an agency or representative of the federal 

government to implement a state and federal program; or 4) adopts a rule solely under 

the general powers of the agency instead of under a specific state law. Specifically, it 

does not meet any of the four applicability criteria listed in Texas Government Code, 

§2001.0225 because: 1) the adopted rulemaking is part ofthe SIP, and as such is 

designed to meet, not exceed the relevant standard set by federal law; 2) parts of the 

adopted rulemaking are directly required by state law; 3) no contract or delegation 

agreement covers the topic that is the subject of this adopted rulemaking; and 4) the 

adopted rulemaking is authorized by specific sections ofTHSC, Chapter 382 (also 

known as the Texas Clean Air Act), and the Texas Water Code, which are cited in the 

8 
Statutory Authority section of this preamble. 

The adopted rule implements requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA). Under 

42 United States Code (USC), §7410, each state is required to adopt and implement a 

SIP containing adequate provisions to implement, attain, maintain, and enforce the 

NAAQS within the state. While 42 USC, §7410 generally does not require specific 

programs, methods, or reductions in order to meet the standard, SIPs must include 

enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques 

(including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of 

emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance as may be 

necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this chapter, (meaning 

42 USC, Chapter 85, Air Pollution Prevention and Control, otherwise known as the 

FCAA). The provisions of the FCAA recognize that states are in the best position to 

determine what programs and controls are necessary or appropriate in order to meet the 

NAAQS. This flexibility allows states, affected industry, and the public to collaborate on 

the best methods for attaining the NAAQS for the specific regions in the state. Even 

though the FCAA allows states to develop their own programs, this flexibility does not 

relieve a state from developing a program that meets the requirements of 42 USC, 

§7410. States are not free to ignore the requirements of 42 USC, §7410, and must 

develop programs and control measures to assure that their SIPs provide for 

implementation, attainment, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS within the 

state. Participation in the idling program is voluntary, and currently only the local 

governments in the Central Texas Area and the North Central Texas Area have signed 

agreements to implement vehicle idling limitations. The affected idling limitations rules 

9 
provide all local governments in Texas the option of applying the rules when additional 

control measures are needed to achieve or maintain attainment of the federal ozone 

standards. 

The specific intent of the rule is to include an exemption implementing SB 493 for any 

motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds that is 

equipped with a 2008 or subsequent model year heavy-duty diesel engine or liquefied or 

compressed natural gas engine that has been certified by the EPA or state environmental 

agency to emit no more than 30 grams of NOx emissions per hour when idling. 

The rule does not constitute a major environmental rule under Texas Government Code, 

§2001.0225(g)(3) because while the specific intent of the rulemaking is to protect the 

environment or reduce risks to human health from environmental exposure, as 

discussed previously in the Fiscal Note, Public Benefits and Costs, Small Business 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, and the Local Employment Impact Statement sections 

of the proposed version of this rule's preamble, the rulemaking would not adversely 

affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, 

or jobs; nor would the rulemaking adversely affect in a material way the environment, or 

the public health and safety of the state or a sector of the state. The idling restrictions 

are effective only in certain areas of the state where an MOA between the TCEQ and the 

local government is in effect. The rulemaking is not subject to a regulatory impact 

analysis under Texas Government Code, §2001.0225 because it is not a major 

environmental rule. 

10 
The requirement to provide a fiscal analysis of regulations in the Texas Government 

Code was amended by SB 633, 75th Legislature, 1997. The intent of SB 633 was to 

require agencies to conduct a regulatory impact analysis of extraordinary rules. These 

are identified in the statutory language as major environmental rules that will have a 

material adverse impact and will exceed a requirement of state law, federal law, or a 

delegated federal program; or are adopted solely under the general powers of the TCEQ. 

With the understanding that this requirement would seldom apply, the commission 

provided a cost estimate for SB 633 that concluded: based on an assessment of rules 

adopted by the agency in the past, it is not anticipated that the bill will have significant 

fiscal implications for the agency due to its limited application. The commission also 

noted that the number of rules that would require assessment under the provisions of 

the bill was not large. This conclusion was based, in part, on the criteria set forth in the 

bill that exempted rules from the full analysis unless the rule was a major environmental 

rule that exceeded a federal law. 

The FCAA does not always require specific programs, methods, or reductions in order to 

meet the NAAQS; thus, states must develop programs for each nonattainment area to 

help ensure that those areas will meet the attainment deadlines. Because of the ongoing 

need to address nonattainment issues and to meet the requirements of 42 USC, §7410, 

the commission routinely proposes and adopts revisions to the SIP and rules. The 

legislature is presumed to understand this federal scheme. If each rule proposed for 

inclusion in the SIP was considered to be a major environmental rule that exceeds 

federal law, then every revision to the SIP would require the full regulatory impact 

analysis contemplated by SB 633. This conclusion is inconsistent with the conclusions 

11 
reached by the commission in its cost estimate and by the Legislative Budget Board 

(LBB) in its fiscal notes. Since the legislature is presumed to understand the fiscal 

impacts of the bills it passes and that presumption is based on information provided by 

state agencies and the LBB, the commission believes that the intent of SB 633 was only 

to require the full regulatory impact analysis for rules that are extraordinary in nature. 

While the rules have a broad impact, that impact is no greater than is necessary or 

appropriate to meet the requirements of the FCAA. For these reasons, rules adopted for 

inclusion in the SIP fall under the exception in Texas Government Code, §2001.0225(a), 

because they are required by federal law. 

The commission has consistently applied this construction to its rules since this statute 

was enacted in 1997. Since that time, the legislature has revised the Texas Government 

Code but left this provision substantially unamended. It is presumed that, when an 

agency interpretation is in effect at the time the legislature amends the laws without 

making substantial change in the statute, the legislature is deemed to have accepted the 

agency's interpretation. Central Power & Light Co. v. Sharp, 919 S.W.2d 485,489 (Tex. 

App. Austin 1995), writ denied with per curiam opinion respecting another issue, 960 

S.W.2d 617 (Tex. 1997); Bullock v. Marathon Oil Co., 798 S.W.2d 353, 357 (Tex. App. 

Austin 1990, no writ); Cf Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Calvert, 414 S.W.2d 172 (Tex. 

1967); Dudney v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 9 S.W.3d 884, 893 (Tex. App. Austin 

2000); Southwestern Life Ins. Co. v. Montemayor, 24 S.W.3d 581 (Tex. App. Austin 

2000, pet. denied); and Coastal Indust. Water Auth. v. Trinity Portland Cement Div., 

563 S.W.2d 916 (Tex. 1978). 

12 
The commission's interpretation of the regulatory impact analysis requirements is also 

supported by a change made to the Texas Administrative Procedure Act (AP A) by the 

legislature in 1999. In an attempt to limit the number of rule challenges based upon APA 

requirements, the legislature clarified that state agencies are required to meet these 

sections of the APA against the standard of substantial compliance as required in Texas 

Government Code, §2001.035. The legislature specifically identified Texas Government 

Code, §2001.0225 as falling under this standard. The commission has complied with the 

requirements of Texas Government Code, §2001.0225. 

Even if the proposed rulemaking constitutes a major environmental rule under Texas 

Government Code, §2001.0225(g)(3), a regulatory impact analysis is not required 

because this exemption is part of the commission's SIP for making progress toward the 

attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. Therefore, the proposed rulemaking does 

not exceed a standard set by federal law or exceed an express requirement of state law, 

since they are part of an overall regulatory scheme designed to meet, not exceed the 

relevant standard set by federal law (NAAQS). The commission is charged with 

protecting air quality within the state and to design and submit a plan to achieve 

attainment and maintenance of the federally mandated NAAQS. The Third District 

Court of Appeals upheld this interpretation in Brazoria County v. Texas Comm 'n on 

Envtl. Quality, 128 S.W. 3d 728 (Tex. App. -Austin 2004, no writ). The specific intent 

of the rulemaking is to include the exemption for a motor vehicle that have a gross 

vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds and that is equipped with a 2008 or 

subsequent model year heavy-duty diesel engine or liquefied or compressed natural gas 

engine that has been certified by the EPA or a state environmental agency to emit no 

13 
more than 30 grams of NOx emissions per hour when idling. This adoption, therefore, 

does not exceed an express requirement of federal law. The amendment is needed to 

implement state law but does exceed those new requirements. The rulemaking does 

involve a compact (in particular, the Austin EAC), which is an agreement between the 

state and federal government to implement a state and federal program; however, the 

amendment does not exceed the requirements of that compact. Finally, this rulemaking 

was not developed solely under the general powers of the agency, but is authorized by 

specific sections of THSC, Chapter 382, which are cited in the Statutory Authority 

section of this preamble, including THSC, §382.012 and §382.019. Because this adopted 

rulemaking does not meet any of the four applicability requirements, Texas Government 

Code, §2001.0225(b) does not apply, and a regulatory impact analysis is not required. 

The commission invited public comment regarding the draft regulatory impact analysis 

determination during the public comment period and no comments were received. 

TakingslrnpactAssessrnent 

The commission evaluated the adopted rulemaking and performed an analysis of 

whether the adopted rulemaking constitutes a taking under Texas Government Code, 

Chapter 2007. The commission's preliminary assessment indicates Texas Government 

Code, Chapter 2007 does not apply. 

Under Texas Government Code, §2007.002(5), taking means: "(A) a governmental 

action that affects private real property, in whole or in part or temporarily or 

permanently, in a manner that requires the governmental entity to compensate the 

14 
private real property owner as provided by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the 

United States Constitution or Section 17 or 19, Article I, Texas Constitution; or (B) a 

governmental action that: (i) affects an owner's private real property that is the subject 

of the governmental action·, in whole or in part or temporarily or permanently, in a 

manner that restricts or limits the owner's right to the property that would otherwise 

exist in the absence of the governmental action; and (ii) is the producing cause of a 

reduction of at least 25 percent in the market value of the affected private real property, 

determined by comparing the market value of the property as if the governmental action 

is not in effect and the market value of the property determined as if the governmental 

action is in effect." 

Promulgation and enforcement of the rulemaking would be neither a statutory nor a 

constitutional taking of private real property. The primary purpose of the rule is to 

implement THSC, §382.0191 added by SB 493. This rule is not burdensome, restrictive, 

or limiting of rights to private real property because the rulemaking regulates vehicle 

idling in certain limited areas. Furthermore, the rulemaking benefits the public by 

providing all local governments the option of applying the Motor Vehicle Idling Rule 

when additional control measures are needed to achieve or maintain attainment of the 

federal air quality standards. The rulemaking does not affect a landowner's rights in 

private real property because this rulemaking does not burden, restrict, or limit the 

owner's right to property, nor does it reduce the value of any private real property by 

25% or more beyond that which would otherwise exist in the absence of the regulations. 

Therefore, this rule does not constitute a taking under Texas Government Code, Chapter 

2007. 

15 
Consistency with the Coastal Management Program 

The commission reviewed the rulemaking and found that the adoption is subject to the 

Texas Coastal Management Program (CMP) in accordance with the Coastal 

Coordination Act, Texas Natural Resources Code §§33.201 et seq., and therefore, must 

be consistent with all applicable CMP goals and policies. The commission reviewed this 

rulemaking for consistency with the CMP goals and policies in accordance with the 

regulations of the Coastal Coordination Council and determined that the rulemaking 

does not affect any coastal natural resource areas. The CMP goals applicable to the 

rulemaking are to protect, preserve, restore, and enhance the diversity, quality, quantity, 

functions, and values of coastal natural resource areas. No new sources of air 

contaminants are authorized in those affected counties. The CMP policy applicable to 

this rulemaking action is the policy that commission rules comply with regulations in 

the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to protect and enhance air quality in the coastal 

area (40 CFR §501.32). This rulemaking does not have a detrimental effect on SIP 

emissions reduction obligations relating to maintenance of the ozone NAAQS. This 

rulemaking action complies with the CFR. Therefore, in compliance with 31 TAC 

§505.22(e), this rulemaking action is consistent with CMP goals and policies. 

Promulgation and enforcement of this rule does not violate or exceed any standards 

identified in the applicable CMP goals and policies because the rulemaking is consistent 

with these CMP goals and policies, and because this rule does not create or have a direct 

or significant adverse effect on any coastal natural resource areas. 

16 
The commission invited public comment regarding consistency with the CMP and no 

comments were received. 

Public Comment 

The commission offered public hearings for the proposal in Austin on April 2, 2012, and 

in Fort Worth on April3, 2012. A question and answer session was held 30 minutes 

prior to the hearing. The hearing was not officially opened because no party indicated a 

desire to give comment. The public comment period was from March 9, 2012, through 

Aprilg, 2012. 

Written comments regarding Chapter 114 were provided by the Texas Motor 

Transportation Association (TMTA), the North Central Texas Council of Governments 

(NCTCOG), and the EPA. 

Response to Comments 

Comment 

TMTA submitted comment in full support of the proposed rule revision. 

Response 

The commission appreciates the support for the proposed rule revision. No 

changes were made based on this comment. 

17 
Comment 

The NCTCOG submitted comment supporting the proposed rule revision and requested 

that the commission consider a provision to allow only the engines described in the 

proposed rule revision to idle in sensitive areas such as schools, hospitals, and 

residential neighborhoods. 

Response 

The commission acknowledges the concerns for the health and safety of 

those affected by idling in sensitive areas. The suggested change is outside 

the scope of this rule making. No changes were made in response to this 

comment. 

Comment 

The NCTCOG requested guidance from the commission regarding the creation oflocal 

regulations restricting idling beyond provisions laid out in Chapter 114, Subchapter J, 

Division 2, Locally Enforced Motor Vehicle Idling Limitations. 

Response 

The commission is committed to assisting local governments regarding 

idling as a control strategy option in the Texas SIP but cannot provide legal 

advice to a local government regarding its own powers and duties. 

Additionally, giving guidance to a local government regarding its own 

powers and duties is beyond the scope of this rule making. No changes were 

18 
made in response to this comment. 

Comment 

The EPA recommended that the commission include a §uo(l) demonstration in the rule 

submittal to demonstrate that backsliding will not occur as a result of the new 

exemption. As part of the §uo(l) demonstration, the EPA requested inclusion of a 

technical analysis or modeling demonstration to show that excess emissions in the DFW 

VMEP will offset any increase in emissions resulting from the new exemption and an 

accounting of the offsets used. 

Response 

In response to the EPA's comment, the commission revised the §noO) 

demonstration. 

The exemption as proposed does not constitute backsliding in the DFW area 

because the engines certified to emit no more than 30 grams of NOx per 

hour when idling are significantly cleaner than the uncontrolled vehicles 

currently in use that emit betw~en 135 and 170 grams ofNOx per hour when 

idling. As the 2008 and newer vehicles replace the older uncontrolled 

vehicles, the emissions benefit gained by allowing the exemption of the 

clean idle engines will outweigh any potential increase in emissions that 

may result from increased idling. The exempted engines are more efficient 

19 
both while idling and while in transit. No changes were made to the rule in 

response to this comment. 

Comment 

The EPA requested that the TCEQ provide an explanation of what VMEP emission 

reduction commitments were made in the DFW 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Nonattainment 

Area Attainment Demonstration SIP revision including a breakdown of each of the 

control measures under the VMEP, the corresponding emission reduction 

commitments, and the corresponding substitute emissions reductions that are being 

used as offsets. 

Response 

The preamble of the proposed rule stated that the exemption would not 

interfere with attainment or reasonable further progress in the SIP because 

the DFW area achieved an excess ofNOx and VOC emissions reductions 

through the VMEP commitments. In response to the EPA's comments, the 

Federal Clean Air Act, §11o(l) Demonstration portion of this preamble has 

been revised. No changes were made to the rule in response to this 

comment. 

20 
Comment 

The EPA stated that when the TCEQ submits the adopted Locally Enforced Motor 

Vehicle Idling Restrictions to the EPA, it should include a §no(l) demonstration 

regarding the proposed idling exemption and its effect on the Austin EAC. The EPA 

requested that the TCEQ include a modeling demonstration or technical analysis as part 

of the §no(l) demonstration including documentation that maintenance of the NAAQS 

will continue in the Austin area without the SIP credits affected by the proposed 

exemption. 

Response 

The Austin EAC included idling restrictions in the commitment to 

demonstrate attainment of the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard. The 

exemption may increase the amount of idling in the EAC for a brief portion 

of the demonstration period. However, due to the inherent emission 

benefits of the 2008 or subsequent model year heavy-duty engine that has 

been certified to emit no more than 30 grams ofNOx emissions per hour 

when idling, any potential increase in idling due to the exempted engines 

will not increase the overall emissions. No changes were made to the rule in 

response to this comment. 

21 
RECOMMENDATION 
SUBCHAPTER J: OPERATIONAL CONTROLS FOR MOTOR VEHICLES 

DIVISION 2: LOCALLY ENFORCED MOTOR VEHICLE IDLING 

LIMITATIONS 

§114.517 

Statutory Authority 

The amendment is adopted under the authority of the Texas Government Code and 

under Texas Water Code (TWC), §5.102, General Powers; TWC, §5.103, Rules; and 

TWC, §5.105, General Policy, which provide the commission with the general powers to 

carry out its duties and authorize the commission to adopt rulemaking necessary to 

carry out its powers and duties under the TWC; and TWC, §5.013, General Jurisdiction 

of Commission, which states the commission's authority over various statutory 

programs. The amendment is also adopted under Texas Health and Safety Code (THSC), 

§382.017, Rules, which authorizes the commission to propose rules consistent with the 

policy and purposes of THSC, Chapter 382 (the Texas Clean Air Act), and to adopt rules 

that differentiate among particular conditions, particular sources, and particular areas 

of the state. The amendment is also adopted under THSC, §382.002, Policy and 

Purpose, which establishes the commission's purpose to safeguard the state's air 

resources, consistent with the protection of public health, general welfare, and physical 

property; THSC, §382.003, concerning Definitions; THSC, §382.011, General Powers 

and Duties, which authorizes the commission to control the quality of the state's air; 

THSC, §382.012, State Air Control Plan, which authorizes the commission to prepare 

and develop a general, comprehensive plan for the control of the state's air; THSC, 

§382.019, Methods Used to Control and Reduce Emissions From Land Vehicles, which 

1 
provides the commission the authority to adopt rules to control and reduce emissions 

from engines used to propel land vehicles; and THSC, §382.208, Attainment Program, 

which authorizes the commission to develop and implement transportation programs 

and other measures necessary to demonstrate attainment and protect the public from 

exposure to hazardous air contaminants from motor vehicles. 

The adopted amendment implements Senate Bill 493, which established THSC, 

§382.0191. 

· §114.517. Exemptions. 

The provisions of §114.512 of this title (relating to Control Requirements for 

Motor Vehicle Idling) do not apply to: 

(1) a motor vehicle that has a gross vehicle weight rating of 14,000 pounds 

or less; 

· (2) a motor vehicle that has a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 

14,000 pounds and that is equipped with a 2008 or subsequent model year heavy-duty 

diesel engine or liquefied or compressed natural gas engine that has been certified by 

the United States Environmental Protection Agency or another state environmental 

2 
agency to emit no more than 30 grams of nitrogen oxides emissions per hour when 

idling; 

(3) the primary propulsion engine of a motor vehicle being used to provide 

air conditioning or heating necessary for employee health or safety in an armored 

vehicle while the employee remains inside the vehicle to guard the contents or while the 

vehicle is being loaded or unloaded; 

(4) a motor vehicle forced to remain motionless because of traffic 

conditions over which the operator has no control; 

(5) a motor vehicle being used by the United States military, national 

guard, or reserve forces, or as an emergency or law enforcement motor vehicle; 

(6) the primary propulsion engine of a motor vehicle providing a power 

source necessary for mechanical operation, other than propulsion, and/ or passenger 

compartment heating, or air conditioning; 

(7) the primary propulsion engine of a motor vehicle being operated for 

maintenance or diagnostic purposes; 

3 
(8) the primary propulsion engine of a motor vehicle being operated solely 

to defrost a windshield; 

(9) the primary propulsion engine of a motor vehicle that is being used to 

supply heat or air conditioning necessary for passenger comfort and safety in vehicles 

intended for commercial or public passenger transportation, or passenger transit 

operations, in which case idling up to a maximum of 30 minutes is allowed; 

(10) the primary propulsion engine of a motor vehicle being used to 

provide air conditioning or heating necessary for employee health or safety while the 

employee is using the vehicle to perform an essential job function related to roadway 

construction or maintenance; 

(n) the primary propulsion engine of a motor vehicle being used as airport 

ground support equipment; 

(12) the owner of a motor vehicle rented or leased to a person that 

operates the vehicle and is not employed by the owner; or 

(13) a motor vehicle when idling is necessary to power a heater or air 

conditioner while a driver is using the vehicle's sleeper berth for a government4 
mandated rest period and is not within two miles of a facility offering external heating 

and air conditioning connections at a time when those connections are available. 

5 
THE STATE OF TEXAS 

TEXAS CoMMISSION ON ENVIRro.~~lY'lO.~ Tt~l,& rrrvt d t f 'it1\~r~'t5'fc~ftny ~~riti's''!s a rue an correc copy o a 

"~:])~'\ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality document, rL ~~ which is filed in the permanent records of the Commission. 

l;=: ~h Given u_nder my hand and the seal of office on 

\~_,p,/ DM~CD-kv AUG 1 5 2012 

Bridget C. ohac, Chief Clerk 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

ORDER ADOPTING AMENDED RULES AND 

REVISIONS TO THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PIAN 

Docket No. 2011.-1639 -RUL 

On August 8, 2012, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (Commission) 

adopted amended rules in 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 114, concerning Control of Air 

Pollution from Motor Vehicles. The adoption creates a new exemption for motor vehicles that have a 

gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds and are equipped with a 2008 or subsequent 

model year heavy-duty diesel engine or liquefied or compressed natural gas engine that has been 

certified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or another state environmental 

agency to emit no more than 30 grams of nitrogen oxides emissions per hour when idling. The 

proposed rules were published for comment in the March 9, 2012, issue of the Texas Register (37 

TexReg 1656). 

Pursuant to 40 Code of Federal Regulations § 51.102 and after proper notice, the Commission 

conducted public hearings to consider the proposed amendments to 30 TAC, Chapter 114. Proper 

notice included prominent advertisement in the areas affected at least 30 days prior to the dates of the 

hearings. Public hearings ·were offered in Austin on April 2, 2012, and in Fort "\Vorth on April3, 2012. 

The hearings ·were not opened as no interested party expressed desire to present comment. 

The Commission circulated hearing notices of its intended action to the public, including 

interested persons, the Regional Administrator of the EPA, and all applicable local air pollution 

control agencies. The public was invited to submit data, views, and recommendations on the proposed 

amendments to 30 TAC, Chapter 114, either orally or in writing, at the hearings and during the 

comment period. Prior to the scheduled hearings, copies of the proposed amendments to 30 TAC, 

Chapter 114 were available for public inspection at the Commission's central office and on the 

Commission's Web site. 

Data, views, and recommendations of interested persons regarding the proposed amendments 

to 30 TAC, Chapter 114 were submitted to the Commission during the comment period, and were 

considered by the Commission as reflected in the analysis of testimony incorporated by reference to 

this Order. The Commission finds that the analysis of testimony includes the names of all interested 

groups or associations offering comment on the proposed amendments to 30 TAC, Chapter 114 and 

their position concerning the same. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COMMISSION that the amended rules are herebv 

adopted. The Commission further authorizes staff to make any non-substantive re\isions to the rule~ 

necessary to comply vvith Texas Register requirements. The adopted rules and the preamble to the 

adopted rules are incorporated by reference in this Order as if set forth at length verbatim in this 

Order. 
• 

CHAPTER 114. 

• • 

CONTROL OF AIR 

POLLUTION FROM MOTOR VEHICLES 

SUBCHAPTER J. OPERATIONAL CONTROLS 

FOR MOTOR VEHICLES 

DIVISION 2. LOCALLY ENFORCED MOTOR 

VEHICLE IDLING LIMITATIONS 

30 TAC §114.517 

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ or 

commission) adopts amendment to §114.517 without change to 

the proposed text as published in the March 9, 2012, issue of 

the Texas Register (37 TexReg 1656) and the text will not be 

republished. 

The amended section will be submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a revision to the state 

implementation plan (SIP). 

Background and Summary of the Factual Basis for the Rule 

Chapter 114, Subchapter J, Division 2, Locally Enforced Motor 

Vehicle Idling Limitations, was originally adopted by the commission on November 17, 2004, at the request of the local air 

quality planning organization in the Austin Early Action Compact 

(EAC) area (Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays, Travis, and Williamson 

Counties) for use as a control strategy in its EAC agreement to 

maintain attainment of the 1997 eight-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) as published in the December 3, 2004, issue of the Texas Register (29 TexReg 11347). 

The adopted Motor Vehicle Idling Rule provides any local government in Texas the option of applying the rules in their jurisdiction in the event additional control measures are needed to 

achieve or maintain attainment of the ozone NAAQS. 

The EAC concept of an early, voluntary air quality plan was endorsed by the EPA Region 6 in June 2002. It was slightly modified and made available nationally in November 2002. A key 

point of an EAC was the flexibility allowed to areas to select 

emission reduction measures such as limiting vehicle idling. Beginning on August 1, 2005, members of the Austin EAC and 

the TCEQ signed the locally enforced idling restrictions memorandum of agreement (MOA). This MOA allowed participating 

counties and cities to enforce the idling restriction rule in their 

jurisdictions. Members of the Austin EAC area signing the MOA 

included Bastrop, Caldwell, Hays, Travis, and Williamson Counties and the cities of Austin, Bastrop, Georgetown, Hutto, Lockhart, Luling, Round Rock, and San Marcos. Idling restrictions 

are also a control measure put in place in the Austin-Round Rock 

1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Flex Plan, which was signed in September 2008. 

Four counties, 21 cities, and two towns in the Dallas-Fort Worth 

(DFW) area have also signed agreements to enforce the Motor Vehicle Idling Rule in their jurisdictions. Idling restrictions 

are a Voluntary Mobile Emissions Reductions Program (VMEP) 

control measure in the DFW 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment 

Demonstration SIP revision, which was adopted by the commission on May 23, 2007, and approved by the EPA on January 14, 

2009 (74 FR 1903). 

This adopted rulemaking amends the Motor Vehicle Idling Rule 

as stated in Chapter 114, Subchapter J, Division 2. The Motor 

Vehicle Idling Rule limits idling for gasoline and diesel-powered 

engines in motor vehicles within the jurisdiction of any local government in the state that has signed an MOA with the TCEQ 

delegating enforcement to that local government. Local enforcement is crucial to the effective implementation of rules to reduce 

the extended idling of gasoline and diesel-powered heavy-duty 

vehicles. A result of reduced idling is the reduction of nitrogen 

oxides (NO,) and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions, 

which is necessary to achieve or maintain attainment of the federal eight-hour ozone NAAQS. In addition, idling limitations will 

lower NO, and other pollutants emitted from fuel combustion. 

Because NO, is a precursor to ground-level ozone formation, reduced emissions of NO, will result in ground-level ozone reductions. 

The 79th Legislature, 2005, enacted House Bill (HB) 1540, establishing Texas Health and Safety Code (THSC), §382.0191, 

Idling of Motor Vehicle While Using Sleeper Berth, which prohibited the commission from restricting motor vehicle idling while a 

driver is using the vehicle's sleeper berth for a government-mandated rest period. HB 1540 also restricted idling in a school zone 

or within 1,000 feet of a public school during its hours of operation and defined the penalty for an offense as a fine not to exceed $500. HB 1540 did not specify an enforcement period, but 

it set a September 1, 2007, expiration date on the section. The 

commission adopted Motor Vehicle Idling Rule revisions to be 

consistent with HB 1540 on April 26, 2006, as published in the 

May 12, 2006, issue of the Texas Register (31 TexReg 3900). 

The 80th Legislature, 2007, enacted Senate Bill (SB) 12, which 

in part amended THSC, §382.0191, to extend the prohibition on 

the TCEQ from restricting certain idling activities from September 1, 2007, to September 1, 2009, as published in the February 

15, 2008, issue of the Texas Register (33 TexReg 1345). The 

prohibition in §114.512(b) of certain vehicles from idling within 

1,000 feet of a school or hospital expired on September 1, 2009. 

Therefore, this subsection was deleted in a previous rulemaking. 

On May 22, 2008, the National Armored Car Association submitted a petition for rulemaking requesting armored vehicles be 

exempted from idling restrictions under §114.517. The commission adopted rule changes incorporating the armored vehicle exemption on July 20, 2011. The July 20, 2011, rulemaking also 

removed the ozone season dates under §114.512 to allow local 

governments to enforce idling limitations year-round for consistent enforcement (August 5, 2011, issue of the Texas Register 

(36 TexReg 4972)). 

Current Rulemaking 

The 82nd Legislature, 2011, enacted SB 493, amending THSC, 

Chapter 382, Subchapter B by adding THSC, §382.0191, which 

prohibits the commission from limiting the idling of a motor vehicle that has a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 8,500 

pounds that is equipped with a 2008 or subsequent model year 

heavy-duty diesel engine or liquefied or compressed natural gas 

engine that has been certified by the EPA or a state environmental agency to emit no more than 30 grams of NO, emissions 

per hour when idling. Although SB 493 provides for an exemption of vehicles with a gross vehicle weight greater than 8,500 

pounds and equipped with the low-NO, engine, the adopted rule 

change exempts vehicles weighing greater than 14,000 pounds 

and equipped with the low-NO, engine. The reason for this specification is because only vehicles weighing more than 14,000 

pounds are subject to the Chapter 114 Motor Vehicle Idling Rule. 

This adopted rulemaking incorporates the amendment into the 

existing Motor Vehicle Idling Rule. 

ADOPTED RULES August 24, 2012 37 TexReg 6619 
Federal Clean Air Act, §110(1) Demonstration 

The exemption will not interfere with attainment or reasonable 

further progress in the SIP. 

At proposal of the new exemption in §114.517(2), the commission indicated in the preamble that the exemption would not interfere with attainment or reasonable further progress in the SIP 

because the DFW area achieved an excess of NOx and VOC 

emissions reductions through the VMEP commitments. In response to comments received by the EPA, the §110(1) demonstration has been updated. 

The exemption for vehicles employing 2008 and newer engines 

certified to emit no more than 30 grams of NOx emissions per 

hour when idling will promote the use of the newer and cleaner 

vehicles equipped with this technology. Due to the changes in 

the federal heavy-duty engine emissions standards, i.e., from 2.5 

grams per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr) for 2004 to 2006 

vehicles to 0.20 g/bhp-hr for 2007 and newer vehicles, the 2008 

and newer engines described in the exemption emit significantly 

less NOx emissions as compared to uncontrolled heavy-duty vehicles both while idling and in transit. Additionally, these engines 

have a steady emission reduction efficiency rate during idle as 

compared to other older engines that have declining emission 

reduction efficiency when idling longer. 

Using either the EPA's Guidance for Quantifying and Using Long 

Duration Truck Idling Emission Reductions in State Implementation Plans and Transportation Conformity MOBILE6.2 guidance, 

or the newer EPA motor vehicle emissions simulator (MOVES) 

model (the replacement to MOB I LE6.2 for Sl P and transportation 

conformity), a heavy-duty engine idling at a rate of 30 grams of 

NOx per hour would emit roughly 80% less than an uncontrolled 

heavy-duty engine. The MOBILE6.2 guidance establishes the 

extended idling NOx emission rate at 135 grams per hour (gph) 

for all model years 2002 through 2030, MOVES sets the extended idling NOx emission rate at 170 gph for model years 2006 

and older, and 150 gph for model years 2007 and newer. In all 

three comparisons, the overall emissions benefit gained by allowing the exemption of engines certified to emit no more than 

30 grams of NOx per hour outweighs any potential increase in 

idling that may result from the exemption. 

Vehicle age distributions are developed for use in estimating 

on-road mobile source emissions inventories. The age distributions are based to the extent possible on Texas Department 

of Motor Vehicles (TxDMV) mid-year county registrations data. 

Where gaps occur in the data the age distributions are based on 

defaults built into the MOVES model. For heavy-duty vehicles, 

the TxDMV vehicle population data is aggregated statewide to 

determine the statewide age distributions for the vehicle class. 

For historical years, historical-year specific TxDMV data are 

used. For SIP and transportation conformity purposes, future 

year age distributions are based upon the most recent year 

of registration data. For a recent set of SIP inventories, the 

TCEQ contracted a report by the Texas Transportation Institute 

(TTl) Houston-Galveston-Brazoria MOVES-Based Reasonable 

Further Progress On-Road Inventories and Control Strategy 

Reductions that contains statewide vehicle age distributions 

to include heavy-duty diesel vehicles based on 2011 TxDMV 

county data aggregated statewide. Using the statewide age 

distributions documented in the report 12% of heavy-duty diesel 

vehicles statewide are 2008 or newer. Based upon the same 

age distribution, by 2018, 53% of heavy-duty vehicles will be 

2008 and newer. From Til's calculations, it is anticipated that 

37 TexReg 6620 August 24,2012 Texas Register 

the percentage of heavy-duty vehicles which are a 2008 or 

newer model will continue to increase. Due to the inherent emission benefits of the 2008 or subsequent model year heavy-duty 

engine that has been certified to emit no more than 30 grams of 

NOx emissions per hour when idling, emissions may be reduced 

by up to 80% as older uncontrolled trucks are replaced by the 

2008 and newer vehicles. 

Section Discussion 

§114.517, Exemptions 

This rulemaking amends §114.517 to include an exemption in 

paragraph (2) for any motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight 

rating greater than 14,000 pounds that is equipped with a 2008 

or subsequent model year heavy-duty diesel engine or liquefied 

or compressed natural gas engine that has been certified by the 

EPA or another state environmental agency to emit no more than 

30 grams of NOx emissions per hour when idling. Although SB 

493 provides for an exemption of vehicles with a gross vehicle 

weight greater than 8,500 pounds and equipped with the lowNOx engine, the adopted rule exempts vehicles weighing greater 

than 14,000 pounds and equipped with the low-NOx engine. The 

reason for this specification is because only vehicles weighing 

more than 14,000 pounds are subject to the idling restrictions. 

In addition, the current exemptions in existing paragraphs (2) -

(12) are renumbered as paragraphs (3)- (13). 

Final Regulatory Impact Analysis Determination 

The commission reviewed the adopted rule in light of the 

regulatory analysis requirements of Texas Government Code, 

§2001.0225 and determined that the adopted rulemaking does 

not meet the definition of a major environmental rule. Texas 

Government Code, §2001.0225 states that a major environmental rule is a rule for which the specific intent is to protect the 

environment or reduce risks to human health from environmental exposure and that may adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, 

jobs, the environment, or the public health and safety of the 

state or a sector of the state. Furthermore, while the adopted 

rulemaking does not constitute a major environmental rule, 

even if it did, a regulatory impact analysis would not be required 

because the adopted rulemaking does not meet any of the four 

applicability criteria for requiring a regulatory impact analysis 

for a major environmental rule. Texas Government Code, 

§2001.0225 applies only to a major environmental rule that 1) 

exceeds a standard set by federal law, unless the rule is specifically required by state law; 2) exceeds an express requirement 

of state law, unless the rule is specifically required by federal 

law; 3) exceeds a requirement of a delegation agreement or 

contract between the state and an agency or representative 

of the federal government to implement a state and federal 

program; or 4) adopts a rule solely under the general powers of 

the agency instead of under a specific state law. Specifically, 

it does not meet any of the four applicability criteria listed in 

Texas Government Code, §2001.0225 because: 1) the adopted 

rulemaking is part of the SIP, and as such is designed to meet, 

not exceed the relevant standard set by federal law; 2) parts 

of the adopted rulemaking are directly required by state law; 

3) no contract or delegation agreement covers the topic that 

is the subject of this adopted rulemaking; and 4) the adopted 

rulemaking is authorized by specific sections of THSC, Chapter 

382 (also known as the Texas Clean Air Act), and the Texas 

Water Code, which are cited in the Statutory Authority section 

of this preamble. 
The adopted rule implements requirements of the Federal Clean 

Air Act (FCAA). Under 42 United States Code (USC), §7410, 

each state is required to adopt and implement a SIP containing adequate provisions to implement, attain, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS within the state. While 42 USC, §7410 generally does not require specific programs, methods, or reductions 

in order to meet the standard, SIPs must include enforceable 

emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (inCluding economic incentives such as fees, marketable 

permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules 

and timetables for compliance as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements ofthis chapter, (meaning 

42 USC, Chapter 85, Air Pollution Prevention and Control, otherwise known as the FCAA). The provisions of the FCAA recognize that states are in the best position to determine what programs and controls are necessary or appropriate in order to meet 

the NAAQS. This flexibility allows states, affected industry, and 

the public to collaborate on the best methods for attaining the 

NAAQS for the specific regions in the state. Even though the 

FCAA allows states to develop their own programs, this flexibility does not relieve a state from developing a program that 

meets the requirements of 42 USC, §7 410. States are not free 

to ignore the requirements of 42 USC, §7 410, and must develop 

programs and control measures to assure that their SIPs provide 

for implementation, attainment, maintenance, and enforcement 

of the NAAQS within the state. Participation in the idling program is voluntary, and currently only the local governments in 

the Central Texas Area and the North Central Texas Area have 

signed agreements to implement vehicle idling limitations. The 

affected idling limitations rules provide all local governments in 

Texas the option of applying the rules when additional control 

measures are needed to achieve or maintain attainment of the 

federal ozone standards. 

The specific intent of the rule is to include an exemption implementing SB 493 for any motor vehicle with a gross vehicle 

weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds that is equipped with a 

2008 or subsequent model year heavy-duty diesel engine or liquefied or compressed natural gas engine that has been certified 

by the EPA or state environmental agency to emit no more than 

30 grams of NO, emissions per hour when idling. 

The rule does not constitute a major environmental rule under 

Texas Government Code, §2001.0225(g)(3) because while the 

specific intent of the rulemaking is to protect the environment 

or reduce risks to human health from environmental exposure, 

as discussed previously in the Fiscal Note, Public Benefits and 

Costs, Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, and the 

Local Employment Impact Statement sections of the proposed 

version of this rule's preamble, the rulemaking would not adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 

economy, productivity, competition, or jobs; nor would the rulemaking adversely affect in a material way the environment, or the 

public health and safety of the state or a sector of the state. The 

idling restrictions are effective only in certain areas of the state 

where an MOA between the TCEQ and the local government is 

in effect. The rulemaking is not subject to a regulatory impact 

analysis under Texas Government Code, §2001.0225 because 

it is not a major environmental rule. 

The requirement to provide a fiscal analysis of regulations in the 

Texas Government Code was amended by SB 633, 75th Legislature, 1997. The intent of SB 633 was to require agencies 

to conduct a regulatory impact analysis of extraordinary rules. 

These are identified in the statutory language as major environmental rules that will have a material adverse impact and will 

exceed a requirement of state law, federal law, or a delegated 

federal program; or are adopted solely under the general powers of the TCEQ. With the understanding that this requirement 

would seldom apply, the commission provided a cost estimate 

for SB 633 that concluded: based on an assessment of rules 

adopted by the agency in the past, it is not anticipated that the 

bill will have significant fiscal implications for the agency due to 

its limited application. The commission also noted that the number of rules that would require assessment under the provisions 

of the bill was not large. This conclusion was based, in part, on 

the criteria set forth in the bill that exempted rules from the full 

analysis unless the rule was a major environmental rule that exceeded a federal law. 

The FCAA does not always require specific programs, methods, 

or reductions in order to meet the NAAQS; thus, states must develop programs for each nonattainment area to help ensure that 

those areas will meet the attainment deadlines. Because of the 

ongoing need to address nonattainment issues and to meet the 

requirements of 42 USC, §7410, the commission routinely proposes and adopts revisions to the SIP and rules. The legislature 

is presumed to understand this federal scheme. If each rule proposed for inclusion in the SIP was considered to be a major environmental rule that exceeds federal law, then every revision to 

the SIP would require the full regulatory impact analysis contemplated by SB 633. This conclusion is inconsistent with the conclusions reached by the commission in its cost estimate and by 

the Legislative Budget Board (LBB) in its fiscal notes. Since the 

legislature is presumed to understand the fiscal impacts of the 

bills it passes and that presumption is based on information provided by state agencies and the LBB, the commission believes 

that the intent of SB 633 was only to require the full regulatory 

impact analysis for rules that are extraordinary in nature. While 

the rules have a broad impact, that impact is no greater than is 

necessary or appropriate to meet the requirements of the FCAA. 

For these reasons, rules adopted for inclusion in the SIP fall under the exception in Texas Government Code, §2001.0225(a), 

because they are required by federal law. 

The commission has consistently applied this construction to 

its rules since this statute was enacted in 1997. Since that 

time, the legislature has revised the Texas Government Code 

but left this provision substantially unamended. It is presumed 

that, when an agency interpretation is in effect at the time the 

legislature amends the laws without making substantial change 

in the statute, the legislature is deemed to have accepted the 

agency's interpretation. Central Power & Light Co. v. Sharp, 

919 S.W.2d 485, 489 (Tex. App. Austin 1995), writ denied with 

per curiam opinion respecting another issue, 960 S.W.2d 617 

(Tex. 1997); Bullock v. Marathon Oil Co., 798 S.W.2d 353, 357 

(Tex. App. Austin 1990, no writ); Cf. Humble Oil & Refining 

Co. v. Calvert, 414 S.W.2d 172 (Tex. 1967); Dudney v. State 

Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 9 S.W.3d 884, 893 (Tex. App. Austin 

2000); Southwestern Life Ins. Co. v. Montemayor, 24 S.W.3d 

581 (Tex. App. Austin 2000, pet. denied); and Coastallndust. 

Water Auth. v. Trinity Portland Cement Div., 563 S.W.2d 916 

(Tex. 1978). 

The commission's interpretation of the regulatory impact analysis requirements is also supported by a change made to the 

Texas Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by the legislature in 

1999. In an attempt to limit the number of rule challenges based 

upon APA requirements, the legislature clarified that state agencies are required to meet these sections of the APA against the 

standard of substantial compliance as required in Texas Government Code, §2001.035. The legislature specifically identified 

ADOPTED RULES August 24, 2012 37 TexReg 6621 
Texas Government Code, §2001.0225 as falling under this standard. The commission has complied with the requirements of 

Texas Government Code, §2001.0225. 

Even if the proposed rulemaking constitutes a major environmental rule under Texas Government Code, §2001.0225(g)(3), 

a regulatory impact analysis is not required because this exemption is part of the commission's SIP for making progress 

toward the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. Therefore, the proposed rulemaking does not exceed a standard set 

by federal law or exceed an express requirement of state law, 

since they are part of an overall regulatory scheme designed 

to meet, not exceed the relevant standard set by federal law 

(NAAQS). The commission is charged with protecting air quality within the state and to design and submit a plan to achieve 

attainment and maintenance of the federally mandated NAAQS. 

The Third District Court of Appeals upheld this interpretation in 

Brazoria County v. Texas Comm'n on Envtl. Quality, 128 S.W. 

3d 728 (Tex. App. - Austin 2004, no writ). The specific intent 

of the rulemaking is to include the exemption for a motor vehicle that have a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 

pounds and that is equipped with a 2008 or subsequent model 

year heavy-duty diesel engine or liquefied or compressed natural gas engine that has been certified by the EPA or a state 

environmental agency to emit no more than 30 grams of NOx 

emissions per hour when idling. This adoption, therefore, does 

not exceed an express requirement of federal law. The amendment is needed to implement state law but does exceed those 

new requirements. The rulemaking does involve a compact (in 

particular, the Austin EAC), which is an agreement between the 

state and federal government to implement a state and federal 

program; however, the amendment does not exceed the requirements of that compact. Finally, this rulemaking was not developed solely under the general powers of the agency, but is authorized by specific sections of THSC, Chapter 382, which are 

cited in the Statutory Authority section of this preamble, including THSC, §382.012 and §382.019. Because this adopted rulemaking does not meet any of the four applicability requirements, 

Texas Government Code, §2001.0225(b) does not apply, and a 

regulatory impact analysis is not required. 

The commission invited public comment regarding the draft regulatory impact analysis determination during the public comment 

period and no comments were received. 

Takings Impact Assessment 

The commission evaluated the adopted rulemaking and 

performed an analysis of whether the adopted rulemaking 

constitutes a taking under Texas Government Code, Chapter 

2007. The commission's preliminary assessment indicates 

Texas Government Code, Chapter 2007 does not apply. 

Under Texas Government Code, §2007.002(5), taking means: 

"(A) a governmental action that affects private real property, in 

whole or in part or temporarily or permanently, in a manner that 

requires the governmental entity to compensate the private real 

property owner as provided by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution or Section 17 or 19, Article I, Texas Constitution; or (B) a governmental action that: (i) 

affects an owner's private real property that is the subject of the 

governmental action, in whole or in part or temporarily or permanently, in a manner that restricts or limits the owner's right to the 

property that would otherwise exist in the absence of the governmental action; and (ii) is the producing cause of a reduction of at 

least 25 percent in the market value of the affected private real 

property, determined by comparing the market value of the prop37 TexReg 6622 August 24,2012 Texas Register 

erty as if the governmental action is not in effect and the market 

value of the property determined as if the governmental action 

is in effect." 

Promulgation and enforcement of the rulemaking would be neither a statutory nor a constitutional taking of private real property. The primary purpose of the rule is to implement THSC, 

§382.0191 added by SB 493. This rule is not burdensome, restrictive, or limiting of rights to private real property because the 

rulemaking regulates vehicle idling in certain limited areas. Furthermore, the rulemaking benefits the public by providing all local governments the option of applying the Motor Vehicle Idling 

Rule when additional control measures are needed to achieve 

or maintain attainment of the federal air quality standards. The 

rulemaking does not affect a landowner's rights in private real 

property because this rulemaking does not burden, restrict, or 

limit the owner's right to property, nor does it reduce the value 

of any private real property by 25% or more beyond that which 

would otherwise exist in the absence of the regulations. Therefore, this rule does not constitute a taking under Texas Government Code, Chapter 2007. 

Consistency with the Coastal Management Program 

The commission reviewed the rulemaking and found that the 

adoption is subject to the Texas Coastal Management Program 

(CMP) in accordance with the Coastal Coordination Act, Texas 

Natural Resources Code §§33.201 et seq., and therefore, must 

be consistent with all applicable CMP goals and policies. The 

commission reviewed this rulemaking for consistency with the 

CMP goals and policies in accordance with the regulations of 

the Coastal Coordination Council and determined that the rulemaking does not affect any coastal natural resource areas. The 

CMP goals applicable to the rulemaking are to protect, preserve, 

restore, and enhance the diversity, quality, quantity, functions, 

and values of coastal natural resource areas. No new sources 

of air contaminants are authorized in those affected counties. 

The CMP policy applicable to this rulemaking action is the policy that commission rules comply with regulations in the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) to protect and enhance air quality in 

the coastal area (40 CFR §501.32). This rulemaking does not 

have a detrimental effect on SIP emissions reduction obligations 

relating to maintenance of the ozone NAAQS. This rulemaking 

action complies with the CFR. Therefore, in compliance with 31 

TAC §505.22(e), this rulemaking action is consistent with CMP 

goals and policies. Promulgation and enforcement of this rule 

does not violate or exceed any standards identified in the applicable CMP goals and policies because the rulemaking is consistent with these CMP goals and policies, and because this rule 

does not create or have a direct or significant adverse effect on 

any coastal natural resource areas. 

The commission invited public comment regarding consistency 

with the CMP and no comments were received. 

Public Comment 

The commission offered public hearings for the proposal in 

Austin on April 2, 2012, and in Fort Worth on April 3, 2012. A 

question and answer session was held 30 minutes prior to the 

hearing. The hearing was not officially opened because no 

party indicated a desire to give comment. The public comment 

period was from March 9, 2012, through April9, 2012. 

Written comments regarding Chapter 114 were provided by the 

Texas Motor Transportation Association (TMTA), the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG), and the EPA. 
Response to Comments 

Comment 

TMTA submitted comment in full support of the proposed rule 

revision. 

Response 

The commission appreciates the support for the proposed rule 

revision. No changes were made based on this comment. 

Comment 

The NCTCOG submitted comment supporting the proposed rule 

revision and requested that the commission consider a provision 

to allow only the engines described in the proposed rule revision 

to idle in sensitive areas such as schools, hospitals, and residential neighborhoods. 

Response 

The commission acknowledges the concerns for the health 

and safety of those affected by idling in sensitive areas. The 

suggested change is outside the scope of this rulemaking. No 

changes were made in response to this comment. 

Comment 

The NCTCOG requested guidance from the commission regarding the creation of local regulations restricting idling beyond provisions laid out in Chapter 114, Subchapter J, Division 2, Locally 

Enforced Motor Vehicle Idling Limitations. 

Response 

The commission is committed to assisting local governments regarding idling as a control strategy option in the Texas SIP but 

cannot provide legal advice to a local government regarding its 

own powers and duties. Additionally, giving guidance to a local 

government regarding its own powers and duties is beyond the 

scope of this rulemaking. No changes were made in response 

to this comment. 

Comment 

The EPA recommended that the commission include a §110(1) 

demonstration in the rule submittal to demonstrate that backsliding will not occur as a result of the new exemption. As part of the 

§ 11 0(1) demonstration, the EPA requested inclusion of a technical analysis or modeling demonstration to show that excess 

emissions in the DFW VMEP will offset any increase in emissions resulting from the new exemption and an accounting of 

the offsets used. 

Response 

In response to the EPA's comment, the commission revised the 

§110(1) demonstration. 

The exemption as proposed does not constitute backsliding in 

the DFW area because the engines certified to emit no more than 

30 grams of NOx per hour when idling are significantly cleaner 

than the uncontrolled vehicles currently in use that emit between 

135 and 170 grams of NOx per hour when idling. As the 2008 

and newer vehicles replace the older uncontrolled vehicles, the 

emissions benefit gained by allowing the exemption of the clean 

idle engines will outweigh any potential increase in emissions 

that may result from increased idling. The exempted engines are 

more efficient both while idling and while in transit. No changes 

were made to the rule in response to this comment. 

Comment 

The EPA requested that the TCEQ provide an explanation of 

what VMEP emission reduction commitments were made in the 

DFW 1997 Eight-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area Attainment 

Demonstration SIP revision including a breakdown of each of 

the control measures under the VMEP, the corresponding emission reduction commitments, and the corresponding substitute 

emissions reductions that are being used as offsets. 

Response 

The preamble of the proposed rule stated that the exemption would not interfere with attainment or reasonable further 

progress in the SIP because the DFW area achieved an excess 

of NOx and VOC emissions reductions through the VMEP 

commitments. In response to the EPA's comments, the Federal 

Clean Air Act, §110(1) Demonstration portion of this preamble 

has been revised. No changes were made to the rule in response to this comment. 

Comment 

The EPA stated that when the TCEQ submits the adopted Locally 

Enforced Motor Vehicle Idling Restrictions to the EPA, it should 

include a §110(1) demonstration regarding the proposed idling 

exemption and its effect on the Austin EAC. The EPA requested 

that the TCEQ include a modeling demonstration or technical 

analysis as part of the § 11 0(1) demonstration including documentation that maintenance of the NAAQS will continue in the Austin 

area without the SIP credits affected by the proposed exemption. 

Response 

The Austin EAC included idling restrictions in the commitment to 

demonstrate attainment of the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard. 

The exemption may increase the amount of idling in the EAC for 

a brief portion of the demonstration period. However, due to the 

inherent emission benefits of the 2008 or subsequent model year 

heavy-duty engine that has been certified to emit no more than 

30 grams of NOxemissions per hour when idling, any potential 

increase in idling due to the exempted engines will not increase 

the overall emissions. No changes were made to the rule in 

response to this comment. 

Statutory Authority 

The amendment is adopted under the authority of the Texas 

Government Code and under Texas Water Code (TWC), §5.1 02, 

General Powers; TWC, §5.103, Rules; and TWC, §5.105, 

General Policy, which provide the commission with the general 

powers to carry out its duties and authorize the commission to 

adopt rulemaking necessary to carry out its powers and duties 

under the TWC; and TWC, §5.013, General Jurisdiction of Commission, which states the commission's authority over various 

statutory programs. The amendment is also adopted under 

Texas Health and Safety Code (THSC), §382.017, Rules, which 

authorizes the commission to propose rules consistent with the 

policy and purposes of THSC, Chapter 382 (the Texas Clean 

Air Act), and to adopt rules that differentiate among particular 

conditions, particular sources, and particular areas of the state. 

The amendment is also adopted under THSC, §382.002, Policy 

and Purpose, which establishes the commission's purpose to 

safeguard the state's air resources, consistent with the protection of public health, general welfare, and physical property; 

THSC, §382.003, concerning Definitions; THSC, §382.011, 

General Powers and Duties, which authorizes the commission 

to control the quality of the state's air; THSC, §382.012, State 

Air Control Plan, which authorizes the commission to prepare 

and develop a general, comprehensive plan for the control of 

ADOPTED RULES August 24, 2012 37 TexReg 6623 
the state's air; THSC, §382.019, Methods Used to Control and 

Reduce Emissions From Land Vehicles, which provides the 

commission the authority to adopt rules to control and reduce 

emissions from engines used to propel land vehicles; and 

THSC, §382.208, Attainment Program, which authorizes the 

commission to develop and implement transportation programs 

and other measures necessary to demonstrate attainment and 

protect the public from exposure to hazardous air contaminants 

from motor vehicles. 

The adopted amendment implements Senate Bill493, which established THSC, §382.0191. 

This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed 

by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's 

legal authority. 

Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on August 10, 2012. 

TRD-201204219 

Robert Martinez 

Director. Environmental Law Division 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

Effective date: August 30, 2012 

Proposal publication date: March 9, 2012 

For further information, please call: (512) 239-0779 

• t • 

CHAPTER 291. UTILI Y REGULATIONS 

The Texas Commission on E vironmental Quality (TCEQ or 

commission) adopts the repea of §291.7 and also adopts an 

amendment to §291.22. 

Sections 291.7 and 291.22 are dopted without changes to the 

proposed text as published in th February 24, 2012, issue of the 

Texas Register(37 TexReg 117 ) and will not be republished. 

Background and Summary oft Factual Basis for the Adopted 

Rules 

Section 291.7 sets forth the filin fees required for a rate change 

application; an application for a ertificate of public convenience 

and necessity (CCN); and an a plication for sale, assignment, 

or lease of a CCN, or notice o intent to sell, assign, lease, or 

rent a water or sewer system. T is rule was promulgated based 

on Texas Water Code (TWC), C apter 13, Subchapter L. House 

Bill (HB) 2694 was passed dur g the 82nd Legislature, 2011. 

HB 2694, §6.04 repealed TWC, hapter 13, Subchapter L, thus 

eliminating the commission's ab ity to collect application fees for 

rate change requests; applicati ns for CCNs; applications for 

sale, transfer or merger reques s; and notices of intent to sell, 

assign, lease, or rent a water o sewer system. Therefore, the 

commission adopts the repeal o §291. 7 and will not require any 

filing fees for a rate change appli ation; an application for a CCN; 

an application for sale, assignm nt, or lease of a CCN; or a notice of intent to sell, assign, leas , or rent a water or sewer system. 

Section 291.22 allows a gover ng body of a municipality or a 

political subdivision that provid retail water or sewer service 

to customers outside their respe tive boundaries to mail or hand 

deliver individual written notice each affected ratepayer eligible to appeal a rate change wit n 30 days after the date of the 

final decision. HB 2694, §9.01 a ended TWC, §13.043(i) by increasing this time frame from 3 to 60 days and by allowing the 

written notice to be e-mailed if t e municipality or political sub37 TexReg 6624 August 24, 2012 Texas Register 

division has access to a ratepayers e-mail address. The commission therefore adopts an amen ment to §291.22 to increase 

the time frame for delivery of noti e of a final rate decision by 

a municipality or political subdivisi n and allow the notice to be 

e-mailed if the municipality or politi al subdivision has access to 

a ratepayer's e-mail address in ord r to achieve consistency with 

HB 2694, §6.04. 

Section 291.22 also requires a utili y to mail or hand deliver the 

statement of intent to change rat s to the appropriate officer 

of each affected municipality. HB 694, §9.02 amended TWC, 

§13.187(b), by allowing a utility to -mail the statement of intent 

to change rates. Therefore, the co mission adopts an amendment to §291.22 by allowing the s atement of intent to change 

rates to be e-mailed in order to hieve consistency with HB 

2694, §9.02. The commission al o adopts an amendment to 

§291.22 to allow e-mail as an ac eptable delivery method for 

the noticing of utility rate change ap lications in order to maintain 

internal consistency in commissio rules regarding rate change 

notification. 

In a corresponding rulemaking p 

Texas Register, the commission al 

Chapter 293, Water Districts, and 

Rights, Substantive. 

Section by Section Discussion 

§291. 7, Filing Fees 

blished in this issue of the 

adopts revisions to 30 TAG 

0 TAG Chapter 297, Water 

The commission adopts the repeal f §291. 7 and will not require 

any filing fees for a rate change ap lication; an application for a 

CCN; an application for sale, assig ment, or lease of a CCN; or a 

notice of intent to sell, assign, lease or rent a water or sewer system. The commission adopts the r peal of this section because 

HB 2694, 82nd Legislature, 2011, repealed TWC, Chapter 13, 

Subchapter L, which was the statut ry basis for the rule. The repeal of the rule ensures consisten with the statutory change. 

§291.22, Notice of Intent to Chan Rates 

The commission adopts an amend ent to §291.22(a) by allowing a utility to provide notice of a p posed rate change to all affected utility customers by e-mail, i addition to delivery by mail 

or hand delivery. This amendment nsures internal consistency 

in commission rules regarding not ce as to rate changes. The 

commission adopts an amendment o §291.22(b) by allowing the 

governing body of a municipality r a political subdivision that 

provides retail water or sewer se ce to customers outside the 

boundaries ofthe municipality or p itical subdivision to e-mail individual written notice of a final deci ion on a rate change to each 

affected ratepayer eligible to appe it, if the municipality or political subdivision has access to a rat payer's e-mail address. The 

commission also adopts an ame ment to this subsection by 

changing the number of days from 0 to 60 that the municipality 

or political subdivision has to prov e such notice. The amendment ensures consistency with H 2694, §9.01. The commission adopts an amendment to §2 1.22(c) by allowing a utility 

to deliver notice of a proposed ra change by e-mail, in addition to mailing notices separately with customer billings. This 

amendment ensures internal con istency in commission rules 

regarding notice as to rate change . The commission adopts an 

amendment to §291.22( d) by allo ng a utility to deliver a statement of intent to change rates bye ail to the appropriate officer 

of each affected municipality, in a dition to the options of mailing or delivering a copy of the stat ment of intent. The amendment ensures consistency with H 2694, §9.02. The commission adopts an amendment to §2 1.22(e) by clarifying that the