## Inspection and Maintenance (I&M ) Plan and Vehicle Idling Rule Revisions Technical Support Document

Docket ID EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0890



### 2002-2012 Texas SIP Revisions

30 TAC Chapter 114: Control of Ai r Pollution from Motor Vehicles

March 26, 2014

U.S. EPA Region 6, Air Planning SectionPage 2 

### Table of Contents

A. Introduction and Background

B. Legal Authority

C. The TCEQ Submittals and EPA’s Evaluation and Recommendations

1. The August 16, 2002 Submittal

2. The December 30, 2002 Submittal (partially withdrawn)

3. The November 14, 2005 Submittal

4. The December 22, 2010 Submittal

5. The August 30, 2011 Submittal (and discussion of May 15, 2006 and February 28, 2008 submittals)

6. The August 31, 2012 Submittal

D. ReferencesPage 3 A: Introduction and Background

Introduction

In this technical support document (TSD) the EP A is evaluating six submittals provided by the Texas Commission on Environmental Qu ality (TCEQ), all of which would revise portions of the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revisions a ddress Title 30 of the Te xas Administrative Code, Chapter 114 (denoted 30 TAC 114), which provides fo r Control of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles, and corresponding revisions to the Texas vehicl e inspection and maintena nce (I/M) program and Vehicle Idling program. More detail on these submittals and our evaluations are provided in sections C1 through C6 of this TSD. Throughout this docum ent, “we,” “us,” and “our” means the EPA.

Section B of this TSD discusses the legal authority and process under which the TCEQ submitted each of the SIP revisions under review he re. Copies of the TCEQ’s submittals are in the docket for this rulemaking.

Sections C1 through C6 of this TSD contains a description of each submittal, followed by our evaluation and recommendation for action. The full a nd complete submittals can be found in Docket Identification No. EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0890. All docum ents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. What is shown in Sections C1 through C6 of this TSD are the actual proposed revisions to the rule language for each submittal – underlines for new text and bracketed strikeout for deletions of text, as published in the Texas Register.

Section D of this TSD is a list of the guidance documents we re ference here. Copies of these guidance documents are in the docket for this rulemaking.

Background

Vehicle Inspection & Maintenance

The Texas vehicle inspection and maintenan ce program, dubbed the Texas Motorist Choice (TMC) Program, was approved by EPA in a Federa l Register on November 14, 2001 (66 FR 57261).

The State’s TMC program requi res that gasoline powered light -duty vehicles, and light and heavy-duty trucks between two and twenty-four years old, that are registered or required to be registered in the I/M program area, including fleets, are subj ect to annual inspection a nd testing. Vehicles in Dallas, Tarrant, Collin, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, a nd Rockwall counties in the DFW area, and Harris, Galveston, Brazoria, Fort Be nd, and Montgomery in the HGB nonattainment area 1 that

1 EPA’s November 14, 2001 approval also required implementation of the I/M program in Liberty, Waller, and Chambers counties as part of the HGB nonattainment area. However, EPA approved the removal of the I/M program in Liberty, Waller, and Chambers counties in 2006 because the small am ount of emission reductions re sulting from impl ementation of I/M in these three rural counties was not expected to advance attainment. 71 FR 52670, at 52674.Page 4 are 1995 and older are subject to an ASM-2 tailpipe test. Vehicles in those counties that are 1996 and newer receive the On-Board Diagnostic (OBD ) test in place of the tailpipe test.

The November 14, 2001 approval (see 66 FR 57261) stat es that vehicles in El Paso County were subject to the two-speed idle tailpipe test if they are model year 1995 or older, or an OBD test if they are model year 1996 or newer. The adop ted rules said that El Paso w ould implement OBD testing on May 1, 2002. At that time we expected an attainment dem onstration, a redesignation request and maintenance plan for El Paso. On October 11, 2002, we had di scussions with OTAQ and OGC about the requirement to implement OBD in El Paso. The issue then was c ould we approve attainmentdemonstrations and redesignation requests if all rules we re on the books, but not yet implemen ted. The answer was, yes, the approvals could proceed because the rules were on the books. The Region planned to propose approval of the attainment demons tration, redesignation request , and I/M rules at the same time. While we waited for the State to submit the attainment demonstrati on, the re-designation request, and maintenance plan, on October 8, 2003, the State adopted ru les that would make OBD testi ng a contingency measure in the maintenance plan for El Paso to maintain attainment of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in the El Paso area. These rules were not acted upon by EPA then because we needed the corresponding maintenance pl an. The attainment demonstration and maintenance plan were approved by EPA on August 4, 2008 (see 73 FR 45162). The most recen t OBD rules for El Paso require that OBD testing be the “emissions” test for all 1996 and ne wer gasoline vehicles. TCEQ withdrew the SIP revision making OBD a contingenc y measure on January 20, 2006.

Vehicles in all area programs are currently s ubject to a gas cap pressure check and an antitampering inspection as part of the statewide annual safety inspection.

The last approval to I/M rules was on Septem ber 6, 2006 (71 FR 52670). The SIP revisions to the Texas I/M program considered here in detail in S ection C2 through C7 of this TSD were submitted to EPA on August 16, 2002, December 30, 2002 (officially w ithdrawn by TCEQ in a letter to EPA dated January 20, 2006), November 14, 2005, May 15, 2006, February 28, 2008, December 22, 2010, August 30, 2011, and August 31, 2012.

Appendices from previous SIP submittals that were not annotated in the Incorporation By Reference (IBR) Tables in the Code of Federal Re gulations at 40 CFR 52.2270(c) at the time of their approvals are also discussed in this TSD.

Locally Enforced Motor Vehicle Idling Limitations

The Locally Enforced Motor Vehicle Idling Limitations are found in 30 TAC Chapter 114, Control of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles; Subchapter J, Operatio nal Controls for Motor Vehicles; Division 2, Locally Enforced Motor Vehicle Idling Limitations. The ru le allows local governments to voluntarily enter into an agreement w ith the State to enforce vehicle id ling restrictions on certain motor vehicles within their jurisdiction, with some exem ptions. The rule can be implemented within the jurisdiction of any local government in the State that has signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)Page 5 with the TCEQ. The local government that signs the MOA is delegated the author ity to enforce the rule within its jurisdiction. Participa tion in the vehicle idling program is voluntary and thus far, numerous cities and counties in the Central Texas Area (C TA) and North Central Texas Area (NCTA) have adopted these regulations. 2 The vehicle idling program provides local governments the option of implementing the rules when additiona l control measures are needed to achieve or maintain attainment of the ozone NAAQS. The EPA approved the Locally Enforced Motor Vehicle Idling Limitations into the SIP on April 11, 2005 (70 FR 18308), and revisions to the rule were adopted by the State in 2006 and 2008, and approved by EPA on April 9, 2010 (75 FR 18061). Subsequent revisions to the Locally Enforced Motor Vehicle Idling Limitations were adopted by the State on July 20, 2011, and August 8, 2012. These revisions were submitted to EPA for approval into the SIP on August 30, 2011, and August 31, 2012.

B. Legal Authority

The Texas Health and Safety Code (THSC) a nd the Texas Water Code (TWC) provide various statutory authorities to the TCEQ. Under the TWC, Chapter 5, section 102 (denoted §5.102) provides the commission with the general pow ers to carry out its duties; §5.103 requires the commission to adopt any rules necessary to carry out the powers and du ties under the provisions of the TWC and other laws of the state; and §5.105 requires the commission by rule to establish a nd approve all general policy of the commission. Under the THSC, Chapter 382 (Clean Air Act), §382.002 establishes the commission's purpose to safeguard the state's air resources, consis tent with the protection of public health, general welfare, and physical property; §382.011 requires the comm ission to establish the le vel of quality to be maintained in the state's air and to control the quality of the state's air; §382.012 requires the commission to prepare and develop a general, compre hensive plan for the control of the state's air; §382.017 authorizes the commission to a dopt rules consistent with the po licy and purposes of the Texas Clean Air Act; §382.019 authorizes the commission to a dopt rules to control and reduce emissions from engines used to propel land vehicles; §382.023 authori zes the commission to issue orders and make determinations as necessary to ca rry out the purpose of this chapte r; Chapter 386 establishes the Texas Emission Reduction Plan (TERP) program; and Chapte r 392 establishes the Texas Clean Fleet Program (as added by Texas Senate Bill (SB) 1759 of the 81 st Legislature, 2009.

We are evaluating eight Texas SIP revisions (as shown in Table 1 below), which we distinguish by the dates they were submitted to us: August 16, 2002; December 30, 2002 (officially withdrawn); November 14, 2005; May 15, 2006 (partial review); February 28, 2008 (partial review); December 22, 2010; August 30, 2011 and August 31, 2012.

Notice of the proposed revisions to the SIP for the August 16, 2002 submittal was published in the August 24, 2001 issue of the Texa s Register (26 TexReg 6247); notice of the proposed revisions to

2 For a current list of areas implementing idling restrictions in the NCTA, visit http://www.nctcog.org/trans/air/programs/idling/index.asp . For a current list of areas implementing idling restrictions in the CTA, visit http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/implem entation/air/sip/vehicleidling.html

.Page 6 the SIP for the December 30, 2002 submittal was pub lished in the September 27, 2002 issue of the Texas Register (27 TexReg 9101); notice of the propos ed revisions to the SIP for the November 14, 2005 submittal was published in the July 1, 2005 issue of the Texas Register (30 TexReg 3817); notice of the proposed revisions to the SIP for the D ecember 22, 2010 submittal was published in the July 2, 2010 issue of the Texas Register (35 TexReg 5718); not ice of the proposed revisions to the SIP for the August 30, 2011 submittal was published in the Februa ry 11, 2011 issue of the Texas Register (36 TexReg 708), and notice of the proposed revisions to the SIP for the August 31, 2012 submittal was published in the March 9, 2012 issue of the Texas Register (37 TexReg 1656).



### TABLE 1

Texas SIP Submittals

Submittal Date Texas Register (TexReg) Publication Date (Issue)

August 16, 2002 August 24, 2001 (26 TexReg 6247)

December 30, 2002 September 27, 2002 (27 Te xReg 9101) – partially withdrawn

November 14, 2005 July 1, 2005 (30 TexReg 3817)

December 22, 2010 July 2, 2010 (35 TexReg 5718)

August 30, 2011 February 11, 2011 (36 TexReg 708)

August 31, 2012 March 9, 2012 (37 TexReg 1656)

More detail and our evaluations for each of th ese submittals are provided in Sections C1 through C6 of this TSD as shown below.

C. The TCEQ Submittal and EPA’s Evaluation and Recommendation

This section (C1 through C6) of th e TSD provides our technical review of the SIP revisions identified above, which the TCEQ submitted to address various changes to Title 30 of th e Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 114, Control of Air Pollution from Moto r Vehicles. Our review includes a detailed evaluation of the specific rule changes as published in the Texas Register.Page 7 Section C1: August 16, 2002 Submittal

(Proposed rule language as published in the Texas Register is shown below)Page 8Page 9Page 10Page 11 EPA Analysis of 8/16/2002 Submittal:

The EPA provided comments on the proposed rule revisions on September 19, 2001. A copy of the comment letter is in Docket ID EPA-R06-OAR-2011-0762. In general, we supported the rule revisions and provided some comments. We supported the provision for test-on-resa le in §114.50(7). This provision will help protect consumers as well as preven t high emitting vehicles from being registered in the nonattainment and extended I/M program areas.

We questioned the rationale for deleting the sentence “I f OBD data cannot be coll ected from the vehicle, an EPA-approved tail-pipe emissions test will be use d.” TCEQ responded that EPA's final rule for OBD implementation found in 40 CFR, Parts 51 and 85, Secti on IV Subsection H, states that “the use of the OBD-I/M check exclusively for [model year] 1996 and newer vehicles is an acceptable means of evaluating this segment of the vehicle fleet and that use of back-up ta ilpipe testing has limited applicability.” Additionally, TCEQ responded that EP A's final rule for implementation allows the use of the OBD-I/M check exclusively for model year 1996 and newer vehicles and gives states discretion on back-up tests for vehicles that cannot be tested using OBD. Fina lly, TCEQ estimated that less than 1.0% of the testable OBD fleet will be unabl e to process data to the OBD analyzer.

We supported the language changes in §114.51 to update the rule to be cons istent with program equipment changes. We agreed that the Waiver and Extension for Inspection Requirements (§114.52) can be repealed from 30 TAC 114. However we co mmented that we did not believe low mileage waivers would be an adequate substitute for a minimum expenditure waiver. TCEQ responded that the low mileage vehicle waiver and the removal of th e minimum expenditure wa iver are required by HB 2134. TCEQ further explained that th e overall waiver rate for the tes ting program in the year 2000 has not exceeded 0.13%, which is well below the 3% waiver rate used in EPA's MOBILE model. Vehicles that do not comply with the program and do not recei ve a waiver are subject to a Class C misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $500. The owner will be subject to an additional citation every time the vehicle is driven. With the establishment of LI RAP, the commission does not believe that the overall waiver rate will exceed 3%; theref ore, it is unlikely that credits generated by the I/M program will be reduced. Additionally, The TCEQ repealed the cu rrent §114.52, Waivers and Extensions for Inspection Requirements, with this adoption be cause this rule is dup licative of DPS waiver rules in 37 TAC §23.93. In our comment letter, we requested that DPS subm it the entire set of waiver rules in 37 TAC §23.93 to replace 30 TAC §114.52 in the SIP. EPA stated that the rules must be submitted as a SIP revision. TCEQ responded that it expects DPS to revise this rule in an upcoming rulemaking to implement requirements of HB 2134. Once adopted, the TCEQ w ill submit the DPS rules as a SIP revision. The State submitted the DPS waiver rules rules as Appendix I of the November 14, 2005 submittal. Please see the discussion in Section C3 of this TSD.

We also supported an early incentive program fo r ASM implementation in the new §114.52. However, we expressed concern about the funding for the $675 a m onth that would be paid to station owners who chose to opt-in to the program ear ly in the event that the ASM-2 program is halted. TCEQ responded that it believes that there will be continuing revenues should ASM-2 testing be terminated. OBD testing,Page 12 which is a federal requirement, will continue and stati ons will continue to generate revenue from this equipment. Beginning in 2002, OBD compliant vehicl es will account for approximately 43% of the vehicle fleet in the HGB and DFW areas. In 2007, OBD compliant vehicles will account for approximately 77% of the vehicle fleet in HGB and DFW areas.

In addition, we supported the cha nge in fee structure in §114.53 to fund the Low Income Repair Assistance Program. We asked for clarification concerning TCEQ’s fiscal statement that “In order to pass an emissions test, an owner or operator of an a ffected vehicle would have to pay $14. . . in El Paso . . . .” because as written, it implies an owner can pay for a passing test. TCEQ clarified that the owner or operator of an affected vehicle will have to pay a $14 emi ssions test fee in El Paso, not for a passing test.

EPA also asked for clarification concerning TCEQ’s fiscal statement that businesses that currently conduct emission testing would need to purchase new or upgraded equipment, or apply for authorization to conduct OBD tests only. TCEQ agreed with the EP A that individuals and bus inesses that currently conduct emissions testing or are in terested in conducting ASM-2 and OBD testing will either have to purchase new or upgrade existing equipment. Stations interested in conducti ng OBD-only testing must petition DPS to be classified as a low volume emi ssions inspection station and will have to purchase stand-alone OBD testing equipment.

114.2 Inspection and Maintenance (I&M) Definitions

114.2(3)-(13) are renumbered to account for the additi on of 114.2(3) which adds a definition for low volume emissions inspection station.

There is no federal definition of the term “low volum e emissions inspection station.” We find this term approvable because it does not conflic t with any federal requirements.

114.2(5), previously 114.2(4), is modified to add new te xt “All references to OBD should be interpreted to mean the second generation of this equipment, some time referred to as OBDII.” This ensures that the most recent technology is available for testing and consistent with federal requirements.

All the above are ministerial and/or add cl arification and are therefore approvable.

114.50 Vehicle Emissions Inspection Requirements

114.50(a)(2)(A), (a)(3)(A), (a)(4)(A), (a)(4)(D), (a)(4)(F), and (a)(5)(A) are modifi ed to delete the qualifier “If OBD data cannot be coll ected from the vehicle, an EPA- approved tailpipe emissions test will be used.” These provisions apply to the DF W area, DFW extended area the HGA area, and the El Paso area. Throughout §114.50, that statement is delete d because it is rare th at OBD data cannot be collected from vehicles. In those instances, the station will check the OBD malfunction indicator light (MIL), one of the primary pass/fail criteria for OBD inspections. This provision is discretionary and its removal will not have a significant impact on the eff ectiveness of the program because TCEQ estimates that less than 1.0% of the testable OBD fleet will be unable to process data to the OBD analyzer. ThisPage 13 revision is approvable because it will not interfere w ith attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requiremen t in accordance with CCA §110(l).

114.50(a)(2)(C), 114.50(a)(3)(C) and 114.50(a)(4)(C) add ne w text as shown above indicating that all emissions inspection stations in a ffected program areas shall offer bot h the ASM-2 test and the OBD test to the public, except low volume emissions inspection st ations. The provision further states that if an owner or operator wishes to have his or her station classified as a low volume emissions inspection station, they must petition the DPS in accordance with DPS requirements. We find these provisions approvable because the language does not c onflict with any federal requirements.

114.50(a)(5)(C) is new text stating th e “all vehicle emissions inspection st ations in the El Paso program area shall offer both the TSI test and the OBD test to the public.” This is approvable and meets the federal requirements contained in 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart S and 40 CFR 85.2222, which requires OBD testing on model year 1996 and newer light-duty ve hicles according to the procedures in 40 CFR 85.2222.

114.50(b)(5) is modified as shown in the above submitta l to delete the minimum expenditure waiver and parts availability time extensi on and add the requirement for a Vehicle Repair Form (VRF) or documentation as deemed necessary by DPS in order to receive a waiver or tim e extension. This adds clarity to the I/M prog ram and is approvable.

114.50(b)(6) is modified to add the phrase “or in a ny county adjacent to a program area” to the section. The proposed revision extends the current remote se nsing program to include cars commuting into the area from neighboring counties. This proposed revision was required by HB 2134 and is also approvable by EPA because it increases required participati on in the program beyond the federal requirements.

114.50(b)(7) is a new section adding new requirements for vehicles re sold into a program area from areas not in an I&M program area. The revision adds a test-on-resale component to the I/M program as required by HB 2134 and requires proof that the vehicle has passed an emissions inspection within 90 days before transfer in order to be eligible for title receipt or re gistration. The provi sion provides an exception for all 1996 and newer vehicles with le ss than 50,000 miles. This new requirement is approvable because it enhances the SIP and captures the requirement to test those vehicles that are registered in a county without the I/M program that may be re sold into a program area.

114.50 – other changes to the section are minister ial in nature and incl ude renumbering and are approvable.

The revisions above are consistent with the public noticing plan revision requirements of Clean Air Act §110(l), and do not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any othe r applicable requirement.Page 14 114.51 Equipment Evaluation Procedures for Vehicle Exhaust Gas Analyzers

114.51(a) is modified to update the applicable vehicle anal yzer specification cr iteria and date from November 1, 2000 to June 15, 2001. Other changes are mi nisterial in nature. This revision is approvable because it updates the requirements for a pproval for vehicle testing equipment.

114.52 Early Participation Incentive Program

115.52(a)-(g) are new sections outlining the Early Part icipation Incentive Program purpose, eligibility, program acceptance, enrollment and other program requirements.

The section was repealed by TCEQ in a future adoption (November 18, 2010 adoption date – see the analysis of the December 22, 2010 Submitta l in Section C6 of this TSD).

114.53 Inspection and Maintenance Fees

114.53(a)(2) is modified to change th e amount of fees collected by the inspection stations in El Paso County and specifies the amount remitted to DPS, depending on the county adoption of a resolution regarding LIRAP participation.

114.53(a)(3) is modified to update the amount of f ees collected by the inspection stations in the Dallas/Ft Worth (DFW) Program area.

114.53(a)(4) is modified to update the amount of f ees collected by the inspection stations in the Houston/Galveston program area.

These revisions add specificity to the requirements fo r the fee program, are not ba cksliding in nature, are consistent with the attainment plan and are all approvable.

Recommendation:

We recommend approval of th e above I/M SIP revisions.Page 15 Section C2: December 30, 2002 Submittal : Submittal is Withdrawn on January 20, 2006.

(Proposed rule language as published in the Texas Register is shown below)Page 16Page 17 EPA Analysis of December 30, 2002 Submittal:

We provided comments on this proposed rule revision on October 16, 2002 (a copy of this letter is in the Docket). EPA stated that we were pleased that El Paso has been able to achieve the clean air data necessary for redesignation to attainment for both carbon monoxide and ozone. Additionally, we stated that for us to be able to a pprove this El Paso OBD rule re vision, the redesignation request and maintenance plan must be approved at the same time or in advance of the OBD action. On July 19, 2005, EPA requested that TCEQ withdraw the Decem ber 30, 2002 submittal that moved OBD testing to a contingency measure. On January 20, 2006, TCEQ re quested that the changes proposed in 2002 be removed from consideration for approval into the El Paso I/M program (a copy of this letter is in the Docket). Therefore, EPA is not taking action on the revisions for 114.50(a)(5)(A) and 114.50(a)(5)(B) in the submittal from December 30, 2002 (as shown above ) since those revisions were officially withdrawn. EPA approved the re-designation request and maintenance plan request on March 16, 2009 (see 74 FR 2387). EPA is taking action on the rema ining revisions to the submittal as follows:

114.50 Vehicle Emissions Inspection Requirements

114.50(a) – this section is revise d to clarify that program area s are defined in section §114.2.

114.50(a)(4)(H) is revised to corr ect a typographical corre ction from (F)-(G) to “(F) and (G).”

114.50(5)(C) – this section is not needed and de leted based upon the revisions to §114.50(5)(B).

114.50(b) – changes to this section ar e ministerial and or offer clarif ying language and are approvable as shown below:

114.50(b)(1)(B) – the term “inspection a nd maintenance” is replaced with “I/M”

114.50(b)(2) – Federal Clean Air Act is replaced with “FCAA” and “§§7401 et. seq .” is added for clarification.

114.50(b)(5) – the term “Vehicle Repair Form” is repl aced with non-capitalized “vehicle repair form”

114.50(b)(7) – as shown above, the phrase “Article 4413(36),§1.03, (moved to Texas Occupations Code, §2301.002, effective June 1, 2003)” is added to the s ection for clarificatio n and is approvable.

Recommendation:

We find that the above I/M SIP re visions are approvable as they are non-substantive in nature.Page 18 Section C3: November 14, 2005 Submittal

(Proposed rule language as published in the Texas Register is shown below)Page 19Page 20Page 21Page 22 Proposed Rules July 1, 2005 30 TexReg 3821Page 23 EPA Analysis of November 14, 2005 Submittal:

Chapter 114 (Reg 4) - Control of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles

Subchapter A- Definitions

Section 114.2. Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Definitions

The November 14, 2005 revision adds “...and Early Action Compact Counties” to the introductory paragraph of this section. A definition of Controller area network (CAN) is added to this section as definition (3). The subsequent defi nitions are renumbered as a result. Several minor formatting edits to other definitions also occur, replacing slashes (/) with dashes (-) in nonattainment area names. These changes are all ministerial in natu re and are therefore approvable.

SUBCHAPTER C: VEHICLE INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE

Section 114.50, Vehicle Emissi ons Inspection Requirements

114.50(a)

Changes are editorial and non-substantive.

114.50(a)(1)

Existing 114.50(a)(1) is deleted b ecause the date is pa st. The subsequent it ems are renumbered consecutively (a)(1)-(4). This change in format is ministerial and ther efore approvable. Revises requirement to state requirements are for all regist ered and primarily operated vehicles in Dallas-Fort Worth.

114.50(a)(2)

Changes include re-numbering a nd minor editorial changes.

114.50(a)(3)

This revision changes the program area from Houst on/Galveston (HGA) to Hous ton-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB). This revision and is approvable.

114.50(a)(2)(B), (a)(3)(B), and (a)(3)(E)

These revisions remove the phrase “that meets SIP emission reduction requirements and is.”

The language is unnecessary and redundant as a ve hicle emissions test approved by EPA meets SIP emission reduction requirements. Therefore, removi ng this language clarifies program requirements and is approvable.Page 24 114.50(a)(4)

114.50(a)(4) now sets out the schedule and test methods to be used in El Paso. Whereas the proposal contained a May 1, 2006 start date for OBD testing fo r 1996 and newer vehicles, the adopted rules have a January 1, 2007 start date for this change in the te sting program. The State made this change in response to comments from the inspection industry. Pr e-1996 vehicles will conti nue to receive the TwoSpeed Idle test. EPA did not comment on the start date . The State changed the date, but requires that OBD testing must start on January 1, 2007 with no transition period. Stations not equipped for OBD testing on that date will not be allowed to test OB D vehicles using TSI. Because this implementation appears to be as expeditious as possible, we find this provision to be appr ovable as adopted. This section also contains minor edit s that are approvable. This revi sion supersedes the revision to 114.50(a)(5) submitted on December 30, 2002. See that discussion immediately below.

114.50(a)(5)

The section is renumbered to 114.50(a)(4) and outlines the requirements for the El Paso program area.

114.50(b)

In subsection 114.50(b)(2) there are several non-substantive editorial changes. This subsection generally requires federal agencies to comply with th e I/M requirements. This subsection is not part of the approved SIP, and the submittal deletes the re ference to “contained in the Texas I/M SIP” for clarification. Therefore, we are not acting on this revision.

114.50(b)(5)

This minor grammatical revision adds the words “whose vehicle” for clarification.

114.50(b)(6)

This minor grammatical revision replaces HGA with HGB and adds “whose vehicl e” for clarification.

In 114.50 (b)(6)(B) clarity is added by specifying wh ere in the Texas I/M rule s the requirements to satisfy inspections, extensions, and waivers are found.

114.50(b)(7)

Revisions in (b)(7) and (b)(8) make minor grammatical corrections.

114.50(c)

A formatting change is the onl y revision to subsection (c).

114.50(d)

In (d)(1) the phrase “and procedures contained in the I/M SIP” is de leted. This is redundant language covered in “I/M requirements.”Page 25 In (d)(2) under prohibitions, committing an offens e specified in Texas Tran sportation Code 548.603 that relates to fictitious or counterfeit inspection certi ficates (stickers) or insu rance documents is added. This improves the SIP, so it is approvable.

Section 114.51, Equipment Evaluation Procedur es for Vehicle Exhaust Gas Analyzers.

114.51(a)

The November 14, 2005 revision update s the specifications for the ga s analyzer systems in 114.51(a), showing a new effective date.

114.51(b)

No change.

114.51(c)

This minor grammatical revision changes “which” to “that.”

114.51(e)

A few minor edits also included in this section. For example, the acronym TCAA is spelled out. All are ministerial in nature and approvable.

Section 114.53, Inspection and Maintenance Fees.

114.53(a)(1)

This provision pertaining to fees charged for two-speed idle tests is removed b ecause it pertains to the two-speed idle test method, which is no longer the required test met hod in Dallas, Tarrant and Harris Counties and has been replaced by the OBD test me thod. The subsequent paragraphs are renumbered (a)(1)-(3). See the evolution of those paragraphs below.

114.53(a)(2)

This paragraph is renumbered to (a)(1). The Nove mber 14, 2005 revision proposes a fee increase to $16 from $14 for El Paso County if the El Paso County Commission adopts a resoluti on to participate in the Low Income Repair Assistance Program. Minor edits are also included. These changes are approvable.

This paragraph is renumbered to (a)(2). Referen ces to test methods in the DFW area are updated.

114.53(a)(3)

This paragraph is renumbered to (a)(3). Referen ces to test methods in the HGB area are updated.

114.53(a)(4)

This paragraph is renumbered to (a)(3). Referen ces to test methods in the HGB area are updated.Page 26 SIP Narrative

Corresponding changes to the SIP narrative are included in the SIP submittal. This includes Attachment A, “Technical Supplement. Inspection/Maintenan ce (I/M) Performance Standards for Low-Enhanced Program Areas (EPA Flexibility Amendments). October 26, 2005. Rule Project No. 2005-026-114-EN. Technical Supplement.”

The appendices from the SIP revisions discussed a bove are also included in this rulemaking for proposed approval. They are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Appendices proposed for approval

Appendix -

status Title

A

Submitted 3/14/1996 Federal Register Part VII, U.S.EPA. 40 CFR Part 51, Inspection/Maintenance Program Requirements; Final Rule, dated November 5, 1992 and Flexibility Amendments, dated September 18, 1995.

B

Submitted 11/14/05 Texas Health and Safety Code, Subtitle C, Air Quality, Revised 78th Legislature, 2003.

C

Submitted 8/16/02 HB 2134 by 77th Legislature amendment to the TX Health and Safety Code. Chapter 382, H&SC, Code was amended by adding SubChapter G, and 382.037 to 382.039 H&SC, were transferred to new SubSection. G, and renumbered as 382.202 – 382.208.

D

Submitted 8/16/02 TCEQ Reg., 30 TAC Cha. 114, Control of Air Pollution From Motor Vehicles, Adopted.

E

Submitted 11/14/05 TCEQ Appropriations for FY 2004 and 2005. Texas Department of Public Safety, Appropriations for FY 2004 and 2005. STATE OF TEXAS, Text of Conference Committee Report, HB No. 1Page 27 (General Appropriations Act). 78th Legislature, Regular Session.

F

Submitted 8/16/02 TNRCC, "Request for Offer for the Design, Construction and Operation of the Texas Information Management

System (TIMS) for the State of Texas," dated June 22, 2001.

G

Submitted 11/14/05

Reserved in the 12/22/10 submittal TCEQ, "Specifications for Vehicle Gas Analyzer Systems for Use in the Texas Vehicle Emissions Testing Program," dated May 1, 2005.

Moved o Chapter 8 in 12/22/10

H

Submitted 3/14/1996 Texas Transportation Code 547.604 and 547.605, and Chapter 548 Compulsory Inspection of Vehicles.

I

Submitted 11/14/05 Rules and Regulations for

Official Vehicle Inspection Stations and Certified Inspectors. Texas Department of Public Safety, dated January 1, 2003.

J

Submitted 11/14/05 Texas Department of Transportation, Vehicle Titles and Registration Division "2000 Summer Research Project Parking Lot Survey Report," dated March 2003.

K Submitted 11/14/05

Reserved in the TCEQ, "Specifications for OnBoard Diagnostics II (OBD-II) Analyzer for Use in the Texas Vehicle Emissions Testing Program," dated May 1, 2005.Page 28 12/22/10 submittal *Moved to Chapter 8 in 12/22/2010

L

Submitted 5/29/97 TNRCC and Texas Department of Public Safety "Memorandum of Understa nding," dated January 22, 1997.

Recommendation

All appendices remain unchanged except for Appendix G, I and Appendix K. In a future submittal (December 22, 2010, see Section C6 of this TSD), Appendi x G is reserved and the content is partially moved to Chapter 8: Test Procedures, Standards, a nd Test Equipment of the Texas Water Code. Also, Appendix K is reserved in the December 22, 2010 submittal, as the requirements were duplicated in the “Specifications for Vehicle Exhaust Gas Analyzer Systems for Use in the Texas Vehicle Emissions Testing Program.”

Appendix I includes the DPS waiver rules that we re contained in Section 114.52 and discussed in Section C1 of this TSD. The rule s contain the waiver and extensions for inspection requirements that were repealed in 2002. EPA stated it would approve the repeal c ontingent upon the DPS rules being submitted as a SIP revision. The State repealed those requirements because they are duplicative of those contained in DPS rules 37 TAC §23.93. This submittal contains the revised Appendix I which contains the waivers rules. A copy of the rules in 37 TAC §23.52 can be found in the docket for this rulemaking. The DPS rules fully replace the waiver requirements that TCEQ repealed from 114.52 in the August 16, 2002 submittal. On January 22, 2014, TCEQ provided the DPS rules dated January 1, 2003 as supplemental information indicating that they should have been included with Appendix I. The rules are also available in the docket for this rulemaking. Therefore, we recommend approval of the above I/M SIP revisions, including the DPS rule s, except for any provisions that were superseded as noted above in a section discussion.Page 29 Section C4: December 22, 2010 Submittal

(Proposed rule language as published in the Texas Register is shown below)Page 30Page 31Page 32Page 33Page 34Page 35Page 36 EPA Analysis of December 22, 2010 Submittal:

SUBCHAPTER A. DEFINITIONS

114.2 Inspection and Maintenance Definitions

114.2(4) - As shown above, the revision to Section 114.2(4) changes the definition of low-volume emission inspection station to add the condition that the station “meets all criteria for obtaining a lowvolume waiver from the Texas Department of Public Safety” and deletes the text “performs on-board diagnostics (OBD) testing only and does not exceed 1,200 OBD tests per calendar year.”

The deleted text helps to clarify the definition of low-emission inspection station by removing the limit on tests per calendar year. Initially, TCEQ wanted to ensure that an adequate number of stations were available to provide both ASM and OBD inspections at the start of th e revised I/M program in the DFW and HGB areas. This limit on test per calendar year is contained in the Depart ment of Public Safety Manual entitled “Vehicle Emi ssions Inspection & Maintenance Rules & Regulations Manual For Official Vehicle Inspection Stations and Certif ied Inspectors.” The manual is available at http://www.txdps.state.tx.us /InternetForms/Forms/VI-51.pdf . This revision does not relax the requirement and is therefore approvable.

114.2(10)(A) – the listing of counties remains the same, however, the revision change d the order of listing for Collin county. This is a minor non-substantive change.

SUBCHAPTER C. VEHICLE INSPECTI ON AND MAINTENANCE; LOW INCOME VEHICLE REPAIR ASSISTANCE, RE TROFIT, AND ACCELERATED VEHICLE RETIREMENT PROGRAM; AND EARLY ACTION COMPACT COUNTIES

DIVISION 1. VEHICLE INSP ECTION AND MAINTENANCE

114.51 Equipment Evaluation Procedures for Vehicle Exhaust Gas Analyzers

114.51(a) – the revision removes the sp ecific date of the version of the “Specifications for Vehicle Exhaust Gas Analyzer Systems for Use in the Texas Vehicle Emissions Testing Program” and replaces it with “most recent version of the.” Other changes include refe rencing the web address where the document can be found.

114.51(b) – the revisions changes the terms from “shall” to “must.” These term s essentially have the same legal implication. Therefor e the revision is approvable.

114.52 Early Participation Incentive Program

TCEQ adopted the repeal of 114.52 on November 18, 2010.Page 37 The program was meant to encourage owners and operato rs of emission inspection stations to participate early in the purchase of ASM-2 equi pment to ensure an adequate num ber and distribution of stations would be available by the program start date. For exam ple, for affected areas that began ASM-2 testing in May 2003, the incentive was only av ailable to owners or operators of the first 200 eligible inspection stations. The EPIP expired in all I/M program areas on May 1, 2008. Vehicle emission inspection station owners are no longer participating in the program. This ince ntive program is no longer needed because the program is fully implemented, and ther efore, repeal of the programs is approvable.

DIVISION 2. LOW INCOME VEHICLE REPAIR ASSISTANCE, RETROFIT, AND ACCELERATED VEHICLE RETIREMENT PROGRAM

114.64 LIRAP Requirement

Recommendation:

TCEQ’s December 22, 2010 submittal (Page 1 of the Ev aluation of Testimony section) states, “Section 114.64 is not included in the SIP and the amendment to §114.64 will not be submitted to the EPA.” Therefore, we are not proposing to act on these revisions to the LIRAP in this action because the LIRAP program has not been submitted for inclusion in the SIP.Page 38 Section C5: August 30, 2011 Submittal

(Proposed rule language as published in the Texas Register is shown below)Page 39Page 40Page 41Page 42Page 43Page 44 EPA Analysis of August 30, 2011 Submittal:

The EPA provided comments on the proposed rule revisions on March 10, 2011. A copy of the comment letter is in Docket ID EPA- R06-OAR-2011-0762, and can also be found in the “Written and Oral Testimony” section of the State’s SIP submittal (see reference number W-123). We supported some of the rule revisions and for the remainder of the re visions we recommended that additional information and documentation be included in the SIP submittal to allow for EPA approval of the SIP revisions.

We supported the language changes in §114.512 ( Control Requirements for Motor Vehicle Idling ) to extend the enforcement period for the motor vehicle idling rules to year-round. Previously the motor vehicle idling rules were enforced only during the April 1 to October 31 ozone season. This revision is expected to result in additional emissions reductions outside of the ozone season and will help provide protection from potential exposure to moderate ozone levels outside of the ozone season, in particular for certain sensitive groups.

We also encouraged TCEQ to consider extending or removing the September 1, 2009 deadline associated with §114.512(b), which prohibits drivers using a vehicle’s sleeper berth from idling in a residential area, in a school zone, within 1,000 feet of a hospital, or within 1,000 of a public school during operating hours. Instead, TCEQ proposed to eliminate §114.512. However, this revision does not constitute a relaxation of the approved SIP because the prohibition already expired and the prohibition was not approved into the Texas SIP because at th e time EPA took action on the SIP revision that added the prohibition, the prohibition had already expired. Ther efore, this revision results in no changes to the approved SIP.

We commented that revisions to §114.517 ( Exemptions ) appeared to be relaxa tions of the approved Texas SIP. The revisions add a new exemption for armored vehicles and remove the September 1, 2009 expiration date of the exemption for idling to power a heater or air conditioner while a driver is using the vehicle’s sleeper berth for a government-mandated rest period and is not within two miles of a facility offering external heating and air conditioning connections. Particularly, the exemption for idling while a driver is using the vehicle’s sl eeper berth for a government-manda ted rest period is currently not approved into the SIP because at the time EPA took action on the May 15, 2006 and February 28, 2008 SIP submittals that added and subsequently revised that exemption, the exemption had already expired. TCEQ had indicated that the revision to §114.512 to allow year-round enforcemen t of the motor vehicle idling limits is expected to provide additional emissi ons reductions in the months that are currently not subject to enforcement and to offset the emissions increases due to the new exemption for armored vehicles. We questioned whether the expected additional emissions reductions from extending enforcement to year-round would be sufficient to offset the increase in emissions expected to result from the new exemption for armored vehicles. We recomm ended that TCEQ include a CAA section 110(l) demonstration to show that EPA SIP approval of the new exemption for armored vehicles and the exemption for idling while a driver is using the vehicle’s sleeper berth for a government-mandated rest period would not interfere with attainment or reasonable further progress in the SIP.Page 45 In response to our comments, TCEQ included informa tion in the SIP submittal sufficient to demonstrate that the exemptions do not violate 1 10(l). The analysis explains that the Locally Enforced Motor Vehicle Idling Limitations are part of the Voluntary Mobile Source Emission Reduction Program (VMEP) commitments in the Dallas-Fort Worth Attainment Demonstration SIP (DFW Attainment SIP) revision for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 3 and that based on the North Cent ral Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) estimates, the DFW area exceeded the NOx and VOC emission reductions required as part of the VMEP commitments (see Table 3). 4 Although the NCTCOG estimated that the actual emissions achieved individually by the Locally Enforced Moto r Vehicle Idling Limitations fell short of the commitments in the DFW Attainment SIP by 0.12 NOx tons per day (tpd) and 0.004 VOC tpd (see Table 4), the 0.86 NOx tpd and 3.66 VOC tpd excess em issions reductions accomplished for the overall VMEP made up for the shortfal l. In fact, the 0.86 NOx tpd and 3.66 tpd VOC excess emissions reductions accomplished by the overall VMEP, as estimated in the NCTCOG’s quantification of emissions reductions benefits, are greater than the total 0.62 NOx tpd and 0.02 VOC tpd emissions reduction commitments for the Locally Enforced Mo tor Vehicle Idling Limita tions component of the VMEP. Thus, the analysis demons trates that any potential emissi ons increases resulting from the exemption for armored vehicles and the exemption fo r drivers using the vehicle’s sleeper berth for a government-mandated rest period will be offset by the excess emissions re ductions achieved by the overall VMEP. Further, any emissions reductions ach ieved from extending enforcement of the motor vehicle idling limits to year-round are surplus.

3 On January 14, 2009, EPA fully approved the VMEP and one other local control measure relied upon in the DFW Attainment SIP (74 FR 1903).
4 The CAA section 110(l) demonstration makes reference to the NCTCOG’s VMEP accounting for the Locally Enforced Idling Restrictions without providing documentation of this in the SIP submittal. However, this documentation was provided to EPA by TCEQ via email on March 25, 2011, in response to the comment letter provided by EPA during the State’s public notice and comment period (please see the “Written and Oral Te stimony” section of the August 30, 2011 SIP submittal- the reference number for EPA’s written comments is W-123). The documentation consists of a report from the NCTCOG dated August 26, 2010. The report quantifies the emissions reductions benefits achieved by the VMEP and other local programs in the DFW Attainment SIP as of March 2009 . The report quantifies the emissions reduction benefits achieved by the overall VMEP and by each component of the VMEP . A copy of the TCEQ’s March 25, 2 011 email to EPA and a copy of the NCTCOG’s August 26, 2010 “Voluntary Mobile Source Emission Reduction Program and Other Local Program Achievements” report can be found in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.Page 46 Table 3. VMEP Emissions Reduction Commitments and Achievements

VMEP 1 NOx (tons/day) VOCs (tons/day)

Emissions Reduction Commitment 2.63 0.61

Emissions Reduction Achieved 2 3.49 4.27

Excess Emissions Reductions Achieved 2 0.86 3.66

1 The VMEP consists of the following local control measures: Clean Vehicle Program, Employee Trip Reduction, Locally Enforced Idling Restrictions, Diesel Freight Idling Reduction Program, SmartWay Transport Demonstration Project, Public Agency Policy for Construction Equipment, and Aviation Efficiencies.

2 As quantified in the NCTCOG’s “Voluntary Mobile Source Emi ssion Reduction Program and Other Local Program Achievements” report dated August 26, 2010.

Table 4. Locally Enforced Idling Restrictio ns- Emissions Reduction Commitments and Achievements

Locally Enforced Idling Restrictions NOx (tons/day) VOCs (tons/day)

Emissions Reduction Commitment 0.62 0.020

Emissions Reduction Achieved 1 0.50 0.016

Emissions Reduction Shortfall 1 0.12 0.004

1 As quantified in the NCTCOG’s “Voluntary Mobile Source Emission Reduction Program and Other Local Program Achievements” report dated August 26, 2010.

At this time, we also note that before or at the same time that we propose approval of the revision to §114.517 that removes the September 1, 2009 expiration date of the exemption for idling while a driver is using the vehicle’s sleeper berth for a government-m andated rest period, we must propose approval of (1) the portion of the May 15, 2006 SIP submittal that revised §114.517 by adding the exemption for a motor vehicle when idling is necessary to power a h eater or air conditioner while a driver is using the vehicle’s sleeper berth for a government-mandated rest period; and (2) the porti on of the February 28, 2008 SIP submittal that narrowed the exemption by a dding language such that the exemption applies only when the motor vehicle is not within two miles of a facility offering external heating and air conditioning connections at a time when those co nnections are available. The rule language (as published in the Texas Register) from the May 1 5, 2006 and February 28, 2008 submittals is shown below highlighted in yellow.Page 47 We did not specifically provide comments on the revision to §114.517 that eliminates language from paragraphs (1) and (2) to remove a duplicative exemption for a motor vehicle that has a gross vehicle weight rating of 14,000 pounds or less. We note that the vehicle idling rules currently approved in the Texas SIP state that after Septem ber 1, 2009, all motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 14,000 pounds or less will be exempt from the motor ve hicle idling rules. Theref ore, the revisions to paragraphs (1) and (2) before us are not a rela xation of the approved SIP, but instead eliminate redundant language to clarify that motor vehicles with a gross vehi cle weight rating of 14,000 pounds or less are exempt from the motor vehicle idling rules.

The Locally Enforced Motor Vehicle Idling Limitati ons are also part of the Austin Early Action Compact (EAC) SIP. In the Austin EAC SIP, the Au stin area committed to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standard by December 31, 2007, and to maintain the standard through the end of 2012. The Austin area met these commitments, and the Austin EAC SIP has now expired. Therefore, it is not necessary for the 110(l) analysis to address the Austin EAC SIP. Additionally, we note that the 2010-2012 design value (DV) for the Austin area for the 2008 ozone standar d, which at 75 ppb is more stringent than the 1997 ozone standard (80 ppb), was 74 ppb and the area was designated as attainment under the 2008 ozone standard on April 30, 2012 (77 FR 30088). The area’ s preliminary 2011-2013 ozone DV, which would reflect any impacts at the monitor from the idling rule revisions for over one full year since the State’s rule revisions became effective, is 73 ppb. 5 This demonstrates that the rule revisions in qu estion have not affected the Austin area’s ability to main tain the more stringen t 2008 ozone standard.

August 30, 2011 SIP revision

114.512 Control Requirements for Motor Vehicle Idling

114.512 (a) and (b) – the revisions re move the enforcement period of April 1 through October 31 of each year to allow for enforcement year round. This revision enhances the SIP because it will result in a reduction of emissions and is approvable. Also, rem oves the prohibition for drivers using sleeper berths to idle in residential areas, school zones, and ne ar hospitals and removes the expiration date in subsection (b) because it has expired. As explained above, this revision is not a SIP relaxation and is approvable. Additionally, the designa tion of (a) and (b ) are removed.

114.517 Exemptions

114.517(2) – the revisions add an exemption to the control requirements for motor vehicle idling. The new exemption is for armored vehicles while the employee remains inside the vehicle to guard the contents, or while the vehicle is being loaded or unloaded. Also th e revision removes the exemption in paragraph (2) for a motor vehicle that has a gro ss vehicle weight rating of 14,000 pounds or less after

5 The State’s revisions to the Motor Vehicle Idling Limitations were adopted on August 8, 2012, and became effective on August 30, 2012.Page 48 September 1, 2009. As discussed above, these revisi ons are approvable because the State provided an analysis sufficient to demonstrat e compliance with CAA § 110(l).

114.517(12)

The revision amends 115.517(12) to remove the expiration date. The revision retains the exemption of idling for heating and air conditioni ng while a driver is using th e vehicle’s sleeper berth for a government-mandated rest period and not within two miles of a facility offeri ng external heating or conditioning, which expired on September 1, 2009. As discussed above, these revisions are approvable because the State provided an analysis sufficien t to demonstrate compliance with CAA § 110(l).

May 15, 2006 SIP revision

114.517 Exemptions

114.517(11)

The revision adds an exemption to the contro l requirements for motor vehicle idling. The new exemption is for a motor vehicle when idling is nece ssary to power a heater or air conditioner while a driver is using the vehicle’s sl eeper berth for a government-manda ted rest period. This exemption expired September 1, 2007.Page 49Page 50 February 28, 2008 SIP revision

114.517 Exemptions

114.517(11)

The revision amends language to extend the expirati on date of the exemption for 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 government-mandated rest period. The expira tion date is extended from September 1, 2007 to September 1, 2009. Language is also added to narrow the exemption such that it applies only the motor vehicle is not within two miles of a facility offering external heating and air conditi oning connections at a time when those connections are available. The pr ovision is also renumbered from (11) to (12).Page 51Page 52 Recommendations:

Participation in the idling program is voluntary. However, participa tion in the vehicle idling program provides local governments with additional options to reduce emissions and main tain attainment with the federal ozone standards. Additionally, Texas is implementing the vehicle idling program as one of several local control measures under the VMEP in the DFW Attainment Demonstration SIP.

One of the revisions is expected to result in addi tional emissions reductions outside of the ozone season and will help provide protection from potential exposure to moderate oz one levels outside of the ozone season. The SIP submittal includes a CAA section 110(l) demonstration to show that EPA SIP approval of new exemptions to the motor vehicle idling limits will not interfere with attainment or reasonable further progress in the SIP. Therefore, we recommend approval of the aforementioned May 15, 2006, February 28, 2008, and August 30, 2011, revisions to §114.517. The remaining revi sions in the August 30, 2011 SIP submittal are ministerial and/or add clarifi cation to the rules and ar e therefore approvable.Page 53 Section C6: August 31, 2012 Submittal

(Proposed rule language as published in the Texas Register is shown below)Page 54 EPA Analysis of the August 31, 2012 Submittal:

The EPA provided comments on the proposed rule revisions on April 9, 2012. A copy of the comment letter is in Docket ID EPA- R06-OAR-2011-0762, and can also be found in the “Written and Oral Testimony” section of the State’s SIP submittal (see reference number W-3).

We recommended that TCEQ include in the SIP submittal a CAA section 110(l) demonstration along with proper documentation to show that EPA SIP a pproval of the new exemption for a motor vehicle that has a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds and th at is equipped with a 2008 or subsequent model year heavy-duty di esel engine or liquefied or comp ressed natural gas engine that has been certified by the EPA or a stat e environmental agency to emit no more than 30 grams of NOx per hour when idling, would not interfere with any a pplicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress. In response to our comments, TCEQ in cluded a revised 110(l) demonstration in the SIP submittal. The State’s revised 110(l) analysis explains th at 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. These “clean idle engines” emit lower NOx emissions both while idling and while in transit. As the 2008 and newer vehicles with “clean idle e ngines” replace the olde r uncontrolled vehicles, the emissions benefit gained by allowing the exemption of the “clean idle engines” is e xpected to outweigh any potential increase in emissions that may result from incr eased idling. TCEQ did not quantify the emissions reductions or provide a mode ling analysis to demonstrat e that as the “clean idle engine” vehicles replace the older uncontrolled vehicles, there will be emissions reductions that will offset any potential increase in emissions that may result from increased idling by the “clean idle engines.” However, the new exemption would provide drivers with a new option th at would allow them to comply with the motor vehicle idling limits, and may even serve as an incentive for replacing older, higher-emitting vehicles with the newer “clean idle engines.” Without this exemption, drivers of clean idle engines would have to use an idle reduction technology to comply with th e motor vehicle idling limits when they find it necessary to idle for longer than 5 minutes (provide d that none of the existing exemptions are applicable in that situation). 6 Idle reduction technology allows the use of an alternativ e energy source in lieu of idling the vehicle’s main engine, thus reducing long-duration engine idling. Auxiliary power units (APUs) are one commonly used idle reduction technology used in heavy duty trucks to allow drivers to comply with the motor vehicle idling limits. An AP U is a device that can be installed in heavy duty trucks to supply cooling, heating, an d electrical power for other applica tions while the main truck engine is turned off. For illustrative purposes, Table 5 compares the NOx emissions of a clean idle engine while idling and the estimated NOx emissions generate d by operation of an APU. The estimated NOx emissions from APUs, as shown in Table 5, are ba sed on the EPA emission standards for non-road small engines (see Table 6), as most APUs employ an EPA emission-certifie d small non-road diesel engine. 7

6 For a list of EPA SmartWay verified idle reduction technologies, please visit http://epa.gov/smartway/forpartners/technology.htm#tabs-4.
7 The estimated NOx emissions from APUs, as shown in Table 5, were calculated by multiplying the NOx emission rates in Table 6 by the engine horsepower and the assumed load factor (assuming the APU employs the newest model year engine available for the horsepower category, and assuming an APU load factor of 0.43).Page 55 A clean idle engine emits no more than 30 NOx gr ams per hour (g/hr) when idling, while one of the larger APUs available (23 horsepow er) can be expected to emit appr oximately 53 NOx g/hr and one of the smaller APUs available (14 horsepower) can be expected to emit approximately 32 NOx g/hr. Without the new exemption, clean idle engines could potentially use an APU to comply with the motor vehicle idling limits, potentially resulti ng in higher NOx emissions than if the clean idle engine is idled instead. Therefore, we believe the new exemption will provide drivers with a new option allowing them to comply with the motor vehicle idling limits, and will not result in backsliding.

Table 5. Comparison of NOx Emissions from Clean Idle Engine vs. APUs

Engine Type NOx (grams/hr)

Clean Idle Engine (while idling) 30

APU (14 hp) 53

APU (23 hp) 32

Table 6. NOx Emission Rates Base d on EPA Emission Standards fo r Non-Road Small Engines at 40 CFR Part 89

Engine Power 8 (hp) Tier Model Year Nonmethane Hydrocarbon + NOx (g/bhp-hr) NOx (g/bhp-hr) 9

<11 Tier 1 2000-2004 7.8 7.41

Tier 2 2005-2007 5.6 5.32

11-25 Tier 1 2000-2004 7.1 6.745

Tier 2 2005-2007 5.6 5.32

25-50 Tier 1 1999-2003 7.1 6.745

Tier 2 2004-2012 5.6 5.32

8 EPA’s emission standards at 40 CFR Part 89 for non-road engines are based on engine power ratings in units of kW, but values in this table have been converted to horsepower units for ease of comparison.
9 For the engine power categories shown in this table, EPA has emission standards at 40 CFR Part 89 for nonmethane hydrocarbon + NOx. In the “NOx” column, the NOx only component of the “Nonmethane Hydrocarbon + NOx” emission standard has been estimated.Page 56 114.517 Exemptions

114.517(2) – the revisions add to the exemptions for c ontrol requirements for a mo tor vehicle that has a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds a nd that is equipped with a 2008 or subsequent model year heavy-duty diesel engi ne or liquefied or compressed na tural gas engine that has been certified by the United States Environmental Protecti on Agency or another stat e environmental agency to emit no more than 30 grams of nitrogen oxides emissions per hour when id ling. As discussed above, these revisions are approvable because the State provided an analysis su fficient to demonstrate compliance with CAA § 110(l).

114.517(3)-(13) are renumbered to account fo r the addition of the exemption above.

Recommendation:

Adding the exemption for motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds and equipped with certain low NOx emitting engines will provide drivers with more options for complying with the vehicle idling limits. The State’s 110(l) analysis explains that the new exemption will not interfere with any applicable requirement s concerning attainment and reasonable further progress because the newly exempt clean idle engine s will emit lower NOx emissions both while driving and while in transit than the olde r uncontrolled vehicles. The Sate an ticipates that as the 2008 and newer vehicles with “clean idle engine s” replace the older uncontrolled ve hicles, there will be emissions reductions that will offset any pot ential increase in emissions that may result from increased idling by the clean idle engines. TCEQ did not quantify the emissions reductions or provide a modeling analysis to demonstrate this. However, we believe that w ithout the new exemption, cl ean idle engines could potentially use a type of idle redu ction technology to comply with th e motor vehicle idling limits that could result in higher NOx emissions than those resulting from idling th e clean idle engine. Therefore, we believe the new exemption will provide drivers w ith a new option allowing them to comply with the motor vehicle idling limits, and will not result in backsliding. EPA recommends approval of this revision. We also recommend approval of the revi sion that re-numbers the exemptions under section 114.517, as it is a ministerial revi sion that is necessary to a ccount for the new exemption.Page 57 D. References

EPA Guidance: Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs was used to evaluate the
revisions to the TERP. In 2005, the TERP was approved into the SIP as an Economic Incentive Program (EIP). Please see 70 FR 48647, August 19, 2005. With the submitted revisions to the TERP, this program continues to adhere to EP A’s EIP guidance.