50208 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

1Memorandum from Richard D. Wilson, Acting 

Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, 

dated October 24, 1997, entitled ‘‘Guidance on 

Incorporating Voluntary Mobile Source Emission 

Reduction Programs in State Implementation Plans 

(SIPs).’’ 

[FR Doc. 05–16933 Filed 8–25–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[TX 126–1–7690; FRL–7960–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; 

Dallas-Fort Worth Voluntary Mobile 

Emission Reduction Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of Texas. This 

revision approves the Dallas-Fort Worth 

(DFW) Voluntary Mobile Emission 

Reduction Program (VMEP) which is 

relied upon to achieve the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

for ozone in the DFW nonattainment 

area. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

September 26, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents 

relevant to this action are in the official 

file which is available at the Air 

Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. The file will be made 

available by appointment for public 

inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review 

Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m. 

and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal 

holidays. Contact the person listed in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at 

214–665–7253 to make an appointment. 

If possible, please make the 

appointment at least two working days 

in advance of your visit. There will be 

a 15 cent per page fee for making 

photocopies of documents. On the day 

of the visit, please check in at the EPA 

Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. 

Copies of any State submittals and 

EPA’s technical support document are 

also available for public inspection at 

the State Air Agency listed below 

during official business hours by 

appointment: Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality, Office of Air 

Quality, 12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin, 

Texas 78753. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sandra Rennie, Air Planning Section 

(6PD–L), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, 

telephone (214) 665–7367; fax number 

214–665–7263; e-mail address 

rennie.sandra@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. 

Outline of Topics 

I. What Action Is EPA Taking and Why? 

II. What Are the Federal Requirements? 

III. What Is the Background for This Action? 

IV. What Did the State Submit? 

V. What Does the DFW VMEP Include? 

VI. What Comments Did EPA Receive in 

Response to the January 18, 2001, 

Proposed Rule? 

VII. EPA’s Final Rulemaking Action 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What Action Is EPA Taking and 

Why? 

We are approving the DFW VMEP 

into the Texas SIP. We are taking this 

action because the State submitted a SIP 

revision that relies on the VMEP to 

achieve the NAAQS in the DFW ozone 

nonattainment area. 

II. What Are the Federal Requirements? 

Section 172 of the Act provides the 

general requirements for nonattainment 

plans. Section 172(c)(6) and section 110 

require SIPs to include enforceable 

emission limitations, and such other 

control measures, means or techniques 

as well as schedules and timetables for 

compliance, as may be necessary to 

provide for attainment by the applicable 

attainment date. Today’s action involves 

approval of one of a collection of 

controls adopted by the State to achieve 

the ozone standard in the DFW 

nonattainment area as required under 

section 172. EPA approval of this SIP 

revision is governed by section 110 of 

the Act. 

III. What Is the Background for This 

Action? 

In the Federal Register published on 

January 18, 2001 (66 FR 4756) we 

proposed to approve a Voluntary Mobile 

Emissions Reduction Program (VMEP) 

in nine counties (including the DFW 4- 

county area) as local initiatives. The 

counties are Collin, Dallas, Denton, and 

Tarrant along with the surrounding 

counties of Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, 

Parker, and Rockwall. 

Voluntary mobile source strategies 

that attempt to complement existing 

regulatory programs through voluntary, 

non-regulatory changes in local 

transportation activities or changes in 

in-use vehicle and engine composition 

constitute the VMEP. EPA concludes 

that the Clean Air Act allows SIP credit 

for new approaches to reducing mobile 

source emissions. This flexible 

approach is consistent with section 110. 

Up to 3% of the total future year 

emissions reductions required to attain 

the appropriate NAAQS may be claimed 

under the VMEP policy.1

Specifically, the guidance suggests 

key points be considered for approval of 

credits. The credits should be 

quantifiable, surplus, enforceable, 

permanent, and adequately supported. 

The State must timely assess and 

backfill any shortfall pursuant to 

enforceable commitments in the SIP in 

the event that the projected emission 

reductions are not achieved. In addition, 

VMEPs must be consistent with 

attainment of the standard and with the 

Rate of Progress requirements and not 

interfere with other Clean Air Act 

requirements. 

IV. What Did the State Submit? 

The State submitted program 

descriptions that projected emission 

reductions attributable to each specific 

voluntary program. These program 

descriptions were included in the DFW 

1-hour ozone SIP revision submitted 

April 25, 2000. 

V. What Does the DFW VMEP Include? 

The following Table lists the 

programs and projected credits. 

Programs submitted with no credit 

assigned are also listed. 

VOLUNTARY MOBILE EMISSION REDUCTION PROGRAMS AND CREDITS CLAIMED

Program type VOC benefits 

(tons per day) 

NOX benefits 

(tons per day) 

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

Employee Trip Reduction ........................................................................................................................................ 0.29 0.53 

Public Education Campaign/Ozone Season Fare Reduction ................................................................................. 0.08 0.15 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 50209 

VOLUNTARY MOBILE EMISSION REDUCTION PROGRAMS AND CREDITS CLAIMED—Continued 

Program type VOC benefits 

(tons per day) 

NOX benefits 

(tons per day) 

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

Vehicle Retirement Program/Vehicle Maintenance * ............................................................................................... 0.56 0.77 

Sustainable Development ........................................................................................................................................ ........................ ........................

Non-Road Ozone Season Reductions .................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................

Off-Road Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Retrofits ........................................................................................................ ........................ ........................

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

*

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

Inspection and Maintenance Program. 

The State commits to evaluating each 

program to validate estimated credits, to 

evaluating and reporting on the program 

implementation and results, and to 

timely remedy any credit shortfall. The 

State also commits to additional 

Transportation Control Measures 

(TCMs) that can be substituted for any 

shortfall in credit from the estimated 

credits for VMEP. These include Signal 

Improvements and Freeway Corridor 

Management. 

EPA’s analysis of all the VMEP 

measures shows that each creditable 

measure could be quantified. The 

reductions are surplus by not being 

substitutes for mandatory, required 

emission reductions. The SIP with 

voluntary measures is enforceable 

because the state has committed to fill 

any shortfall in credit, thus any 

enforcement will be against the State. 

The reductions will continue at least for 

as long as the time period in which they 

are used by a SIP demonstration, so they 

are considered permanent. Each 

measure is adequately supported by 

personnel and program resources for 

implementation. The State’s goal is 5.0 

tons per day of NOX benefit from the 

VMEP program. 

VI. What Comments Did EPA Receive in 

Response to the January 18, 2001, 

Proposed Rule? 

Comments were submitted by the 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

(NRDC). 

Comment: The NRDC supports the 

objectives of the voluntary initiatives 

identified in the proposal. They hope 

that greater employment of these 

measures will promote greater public 

awareness of the area’s severe air 

pollution problems and that these 

measures will bring about emissions 

reductions that will lead to healthy air. 

Response: We appreciate the positive 

comments about the voluntary 

initiatives in the VMEP. 

Comment: EPA’s VMEP guidance 

document is not consistent with the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). 

Response: In the final decision on 

October 28, 2003, by the United States 

Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, the 

Court said EPA’s VMEP policy is a 

reasonable interpretation of the statute. 

[See BCCA Appeal Group v. EPA, 355 

F.3 817 (5th Cir. 2003)]. EPA 

determined and the Court agreed, 

‘‘* * * that Texas had made the 

required commitments to monitor, 

assess, report, and remedy any credit 

shortfall from the VMEP measures in 

accordance with EPA guidance and that 

these commitments satisfied the 

enforceability requirements of the 

CAA.’’ Id, at 847. Therefore, the VMEP 

guidance, which is part of the VMEP 

policy is consistent with the CAA. 

Comment: EPA’s proposed approval 

of VMEP Measures for SIP credit is 

unlawful. The identified voluntary 

measures, or any voluntary measures do 

not provide the certainty, enforceability, 

quantifiability, replicability, 

permanency, and accountability 

required for SIP attainment 

demonstrations. 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

comment, and continues to believe that 

the voluntary measures proposed by 

Texas for inclusion in the SIP are 

approvable under the Act. EPA 

acknowledges that by themselves the 

measures would not be approvable, 

because as noted by the commenter they 

are not enforceable against the entities 

producing the emissions reductions and 

thus do not meet the enforceability 

requirement of section 110(a)(2)(A). 

However, EPA did not propose to 

approve the measures by themselves. 

EPA proposed to approve them only in 

conjunction with an enforceable 

commitment by the state of Texas to 

monitor implementation of the 

voluntary measures, determine whether 

the anticipated reductions from the 

measures were in fact achieved, and if 

not to either alter the program such that 

the requisite reductions will be 

achieved, adopt substitute measures, or 

demonstrate that the attainment and 

maintenance goals of the ozone SIP can 

still be met without the reductions from 

these measures. Thus, EPA did not 

propose to approve voluntary measures 

as satisfying the enforceability 

requirements of section 110. Rather, 

EPA proposed to approve the voluntary 

programs into the SIP as part of the 

overall attainment plan, and proposed 

to approve the state’s enforceable 

commitment to monitor, assess, and 

rectify any shortfall as meeting the 

enforceability requirements of the Act. 

EPA continues to believe that this 

approach is a proper means of 

encouraging implementation of 

innovative mobile source control 

measures while providing an 

enforceable SIP backstop measure. 

Ideally, the voluntary measures will 

produce the estimated emissions 

reductions without need for any state 

backfill or Federal or citizen 

enforcement. However, should any 

shortfall result, Texas will be bound by 

the enforceable SIP commitment to 

rectify the problem and supply the 

necessary emissions reductions. Both 

EPA and private citizens retain all of 

their rights under sections 113 and 304 

to bring appropriate enforcement 

pressure to bear against the state should 

Texas fail to monitor, assess or fill any 

shortfall in emissions reductions 

resulting from implementation of the 

voluntary measures in the SIP. Contrary 

to the commenter’s allegations, the 

emissions reductions associated with 

the voluntary measures in the Dallas SIP 

are required to be achieved; it is 

however the state and not the 

individuals implementing the voluntary 

measures who must ultimately produce 

them. 

Comment: The commenter raises 

numerous arguments concerning the 

unenforceability of the voluntary 

measures, which will be addressed 

below. However, the commenter makes 

no mention of the enforceable State 

commitment other than to refer to it as 

insufficient. This statement without 

further explanation does not give EPA 

any guidance on the alleged inadequacy 

50210 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

2The Act does require that enhanced I/M 

programs include state enforcement through denial 

of vehicle registration without proof of compliance 

with inspection requirements. However, the 

enforceable SIP requirement is to develop a 

program that includes registration denial, and any 

enforcement would be against the state for failing 

to deny registration. The Act does not contemplate 

enforcement actions against individual vehicle 

owners attempting to register their vehicles. 

of the commitment nor how the 

commenter would have EPA improve 

upon it. 

Response: EPA continues to maintain 

that the commitment is approvable as 

meeting the enforceability requirements 

of the Act. In the past, EPA has often 

approved enforceable state 

commitments to take future actions 

under the SIP, and these actions have 

been enforced by courts against states 

that have failed to comply with those 

commitments. See, Trustees for Alaska 

v. Fink, 17 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir. 1994); 

Coalition Against Columbus Center v. 

City of New York, 967 F.2d 764 (2d Cir. 

1992); Citizens for a Better Environment 

v. Deukmejian, 731 F.Supp. 1448, 

reconsideration granted in part, 746 

F.Supp. 976 (N.D. Cal. 1990); American 

Lung Ass’n of New Jersey v. Keane, 871 

F.2d 319 (3d Cir. 1989); NRDC v. New 

York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation, 668 

F.Supp. 848 (S.D.N.Y. 1987); Council of 

Commuter Organizations v. Gorsuch, 

683 F.2d 648 (2d Cir. 1982) and Friends 

of the Earth v. EPA, 499 F.2d.-1118 (2d 

Cir. 1974) . EPA believes that the Texas 

commitments associated with the 

voluntary measures portion of the SIP 

are similarly enforceable and thus 

approvable. 

Comment: The commenter alleges that 

the Act requires all control measures to 

be enforceable against individual 

polluters and not just against states. 

Response: Many mobile source 

control measures are enforceable only 

against the state or local transit operator, 

and not the individual entities actually 

producing the emissions reductions, 

e.g., state obligations to establish vehicle 

inspection and maintenance programs 

or to purchase buses or expand transit 

systems. The Clean Air Act does not 

require Federal enforcement capability 

against individual vehicle owners or 

transit users prior to approval of such 

programs into the SIP.2

Comment: The commenter alleges that 

the public cannot adequately monitor 

implementation of the voluntary 

measures nor determine whether the 

emissions reductions are achieved. 

Response: Texas is required by its 

enforceable commitment to do just that, 

and will make such assessments 

available to the public in the normal 

course of administrative practice. The 

VMEP measures adopted by the state 

covering the Dallas-Fort Worth 

nonattainment area are available to the 

public on the agency’s Web site. 

Citizens may check on the measures 

enacted by the TCEQ at the following 

link: http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/ 

sips/sipdfw.html. 

Paper copies are also available upon 

request by contacting Ms. Kelly Keel of 

the Air Quality Planning and 

Implementation Division at the TCEQ’s 

Chief Engineer’s Office. Ms Keel may be 

reached at 512–239–3607 or 

kkeel@tceq.state.tx.us. 

Because VMEP measures are local 

initiatives, citizens may check on the 

implemenation of each measure by 

contacting the region’s transportation 

planners, the North Central Texas 

Council of Governments (NCTCOG). 

VMEP measures are proposed and 

implemented by local sponsors. 

Comment: The commenter also claims 

that the state itself has raised concerns 

about the emissions reductions that will 

be achieved from these measures. 

Response: Such concerns may be 

valid, but notwithstanding Texas has 

made a commitment to fill any shortfall 

in emissions, which both EPA and 

citizens can enforce under the Act. The 

State relies on reports from the 

NCTCOG regarding implementation of 

each VMEP measure. The TCEQ has 

received no reports from the NCTCOG 

regarding problems with implementing 

the VMEP measures enacted in the SIP. 

Therefore, the State does not believe 

there is a gap that needs to be backfilled 

with other emission reduction 

measures. 

Comment: The commenter makes 

various arguments about the 

unacceptability of the voluntary 

measures program stemming from the 

stationary source permitting program 

under Title V of the Act. 

Response: Title V is totally irrelevant 

to these mobile source programs. The 

voluntary measures program Texas has 

included in the Dallas SIP applies only 

to mobile sources that are not subject to 

regulation under the Title V stationary 

source permitting program. 

Comment: The commenter also argues 

that EPA can not alter its past 

interpretations without completing 

notice-and-comment rulemaking. 

Response: EPA believes that this 

action is consistent with its past 

interpretations that enforceable state 

commitments to take future action are 

approvable SIP measures. For example, 

see EPA actions approving California 

plans at 62 FR 1150 ( January 8, 1997) 

and 65 FR 18903 (April 10, 2000), and 

the Houston Attainment Demonstration 

at 66 FR 57160 (November 14, 2001). In 

addition, this action is consistent with 

the guidance cited in section IV of this 

document that EPA issued in 1997 

indicating its belief that voluntary 

programs could be approved in 

conjunction with enforceable state 

commitments to fill any resultant 

shortfall. The individual SIP approval 

actions implementing the VMEP 

guidance constitute the notice-andcomment rulemaking required to 

effectuate action under the guidance. 

Thus, this SIP rulemaking satisfies both 

CAA and APA rulemaking requirements 

with respect to final interpretations of 

the Act consistent with the guidance. 

Comment: The commenter alleges that 

EPA may not alter interpretations of the 

Administrator through SIP rulemaking 

signed by the Regional Administrator. 

Response: The Administrator has 

properly delegated the authority for SIP 

rulemakings to the Regional 

Administrators under Delegation 7–10 

dated May 6, 1997, and section 301(a)(1) 

of the Act. Thus, the Regional 

Administrators are authorized to act for 

the Administrator with respect to all 

matters pertaining to SIP approvals, 

including interpretations of the Act 

relevant to a given SIP approval. 

Additionally, as we stated in the 

previous response, this action is 

consistent with EPA’s past 

interpretations that enforceable state 

commitments to take future action are 

approvable SIP measures. Compliance 

with voluntary programs is ensured 

through the enforceable state 

commitments to fill any resultant 

shortfall. 

Comment: The commenter questions 

the 3% limit on voluntary measures, 

arguing that this limit itself implicitly 

acknowledges that such measures are 

not approvable. 

Response: EPA did not impose the 3% 

limit because it believed the measures to 

be suspect, but rather, as noted in the 

VMEP guidance, based this decision on 

the innovative nature of the measures 

and the agency’s lack of experience both 

with implementation and calculating 

appropriate credit for such measures. 

Therefore, EPA created the 3% limit as 

a policy matter, indicating in the 

guidance that it did not think it would 

be appropriate to approve a greater 

percentage while the agency begins to 

implement the program. EPA further 

indicated that it would reassess the 

limit after several years of experience 

with the program. Since all VMEP 

measures would be approved only with 

enfoceable state commitments to fill any 

resultant shortfall, EPA felt confident 

that including voluntary programs up to 

3% of required emissions reductions in 

SIPs would not jeopardize attainment 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 50211 

3Memorandum from John Seitz, Director, Office 

of Air Quality Planning and Standards, dated 

January 19, 2001, entitled ‘‘Stationary Source 

Voluntary Measures Final Policy.’’ 

4 ‘‘Incorporating Voluntary Measures in a State 

Implementation Plan,’’ September 2004. 

and maintenance goals during initial 

implementation under the policy. 

Further, EPA did not indicate that 3% 

of required emissions reductions could 

be considered de minimis, as the 

commenter implies. EPA agrees with the 

commenter that it should not conclude 

in advance that any given percentage of 

emissions reduction could be 

considered per se de minimis for all 

areas and types of SIPs. Any conclusion 

about the de minimis nature of required 

emission reductions should be made in 

light of the specific circumstances of the 

areas and CAA requirements at issue. 

Therefore, all of the commenter’s 

arguments relating to the availability of 

a de minimis exemption and the need 

for notice-and-comment rulemaking to 

effectuate it are not relevant to EPA’s 

approval of the voluntary measures in 

the Dallas SIP. 

Comment: NRDC claims the record is 

insufficient to support our credit claims. 

Response: EPA reviewed the 

documentation for each measure of the 

VMEP. We found that for each measure 

the documentation was acceptable to 

demonstrate that the criteria for 

approval were met. For each measure 

the State was able to show that the 

measure plus the State commitment was 

quantifiable, surplus, enforceable, 

permanent, and adequately supported. 

In addition this SIP contained a firm 

commitment to cover any shortfall by 

supplementing additional TCMs that are 

in addition to those already credited to 

the SIP. 

Comment: In its conclusion the 

commenter refers in passing to delays 

that may result from identifying and 

rectifying emissions shortfalls. 

Response: EPA acknowledges that 

reductions will be somewhat delayed 

where states must first monitor and 

assess implementation and 

subsequently implement corrections. 

For this reason EPA indicated in the 

VMEP guidance that states should fill 

any shortfalls in a timely fashion. EPA 

issued a companion voluntary measures 

policy for stationary sources.3 In that 

policy EPA indicated that where 

voluntary measures were included in 

attainment or rate of progress SIPs, any 

shortfalls would have to be filled prior 

to the relevant attainment or progress 

milestone date. EPA believes this is an 

appropriate interpretation of the 

requirement to fill shortfalls in a timely 

fashion under the VMEP policy. 

Similarly, the same process is described 

in the recently issued umbrella policy 

for use of voluntary measures in SIPs.4

VII. EPA’s Final Rulemaking Action 

The DFW VMEP meets the criteria for 

credit in the SIP. The State has shown 

that the credits are quantifiable, surplus, 

enforceable, permanent, adequately 

supported, and consistent with the SIP 

and the Act. We are granting final 

approval of the VMEP into the DFW SIP. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely approves 

state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this 

rule approves pre-existing requirements 

under state law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). 

This rule also does not have tribal 

implications because it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

approves a state rule implementing a 

Federal standard, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it is not economically 

significant. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This rule does 

not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by October 25, 2005. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

50212 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 165 / Friday, August 26, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: August 12, 2005. 

Richard E. Greene, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

■ 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart SS—Texas 

■ 2. In § 52.2270, the table in paragraph 

(e) entitled ‘‘EPA Approved 

Nonregulatory Provisions and QuasiRegulatory Measures in the Texas SIP’’ 

is amended by adding one new entry to 

the end of the table to read as follows: 

§ 52.2270 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA APPROVED NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES IN THE TEXAS SIP 

Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State 

submittal/effective date EPA approval date Comments 

* * * * * * * 

Voluntary Mobile Emission 

Program.

Dallas/Fort Worth, TX ........................ 4/25/00 8/26/05, [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

[FR Doc. 05–17030 Filed 8–25–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[R10–OAR–2005–WA–0005; FRL–7959–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Designation 

of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes: Wallula, WA, Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA or Agency) is taking final 

action to approve a PM10 State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) maintenance 

plan revision for the Wallula, 

Washington nonattainment area and to 

redesignate the area from nonattainment 

to attainment. PM10 air pollution is 

suspended particulate matter with a 

nominal diameter less than or equal to 

a nominal ten micromenters. We are 

approving the maintenance plan 

revision and redesignation request 

because the State has adequately 

demonstrated that the control measures 

being implemented in the Wallula area 

will result in maintenance of the PM10

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

and that all other requirements of the 

Clean Air Act for redesignation to 

attainment have been met. 

DATES: Effective September 26, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the State’s request 

and other supporting information used 

in developing this action are available 

for inspection during normal business 

hours at the following locations: EPA, 

Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics (AWT– 

107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, 

Washington 98101. Interested persons 

wanting to examine these documents 

should make an appointment with the 

appropriate office at least 24 hours 

before the visiting day. A reasonable fee 

may be charged for copies. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Donna Deneen, Office of Air, Waste, and 

Toxics (AWT–107), EPA Region 10, 

1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, 

Washington, 98101, (206) 553–6706. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What Is the Background of This 

Rulemaking? 

II. What Comments Did We Receive on the 

Proposed Action? 

III. What Is Our Final Action? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What Is the Background of This 

Rulemaking? 

On July 1, 2005, we proposed to 

approve a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) maintenance plan revision and 

redesignation request, dated March 29, 

2005, from the Director of the 

Washington State Department of 

Ecology (Ecology) for the Wallula PM– 

10 nonattainment area. 70 FR 38073. We 

proposed our approval based on the 

State’s demonstration that the control 

measures being implemented in the 

Wallula area would result in 

maintenance of the PM10 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards and that 

all other Clean Air Act requirements for 

redesignation to attainment have been 

met. See the proposed action for a full 

description of how the maintenance 

plan and redesignation request meet 

Clean Air Act requirements. 

II. What Comments Did We Receive on 

the Proposed Action? 

EPA provided a 30-day review and 

comment period on the proposal 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 1, 2005 (70 FR 38073). We received 

no comments on our proposed 

rulemaking. 

III. What Is Our Final Action? 

We are taking final action to approve 

the Wallula PM10 maintenance plan and 

redesignate the Wallula nonattainment 

area to attainment for PM10. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely approves 

state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this 

rule approves pre-existing requirements 

under state law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or