Texas Register, Volume 32, Number 23, Pages 3077-3422, June 8, 2007 Page: 3,176
3077-3422 p. ; 28 cm.View a full description of this periodical.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Support of Rule
EPA, Harris County, and HSC commented that they support the
changes proposed to Chapter 114, thereby ensuring more NOx
reductions. Mothers for Clean Air also commented that they do
not oppose extending the use of low emission diesel to marine
vessels.
The commission appreciates the support for changes in this rule.
ORYXE commented that they support the proposal to bring ma-
rine fuels under the requirements of the low emission diesel pro-
gram to improve air quality in Texas. ORYXE supports the com-
pliance deadlines and believes the timeline provides more than
ample time to phase in the new rule. ORYXE also comments
that there should be adequate supply of TxLED fuel, including
fuel treated with an additive, available in the market by the pro-
posed deadline.
The commission appreciates the support for changes in this rule
and the statement that adequate supplies of LED and/or addi-
tives will be available.
In a letter concerning the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) SIP, the EPA
commented that they support including the TxLED initiative in
the SIP.
The commission appreciates the support for the LED program
but would like to clarify that the LED marine regulations are only
applicable to the marine diesel fuel that may ultimately be used
to power a diesel-fueled compression-ignition engine located on
a marine vessel in any of the eight counties of the HGB ozone
nonattainment area. The LED regulations do not apply to marine
diesel used in the DFW nonattainment counties.
EBI commented that they approve of adding harbor craft vessels
and the DMA and DMX fuels to the regulations.
The commission appreciates the support for changes in this rule.
Locomotive Reductions
EPA commented that locomotive switcher engine NOxemission
reductions from TxLED were not included in the modeling for the
DFW SIP. EPA Region 6 requested that the estimated emission
reductions be provided.
The comment does not relate to the proposed LED marine rule-
making, and no changes to the rule have been made in response
to it. The comment is related to the DFW Attainment Demonstra-
tion SIP (Project 2006-013-SIP-NR). A response to EPA's com-
ment can be found in the DFW Attainment Demonstration SIP
response to comments section.
Takings Impact Assessment
EBI commented that they do not agree with the Takings Impact
Assessment and also find it inapplicable. EBI points out that a
taking can be a taking of real, personal, or intangible property
and that no real property is involved. However, EBI comments
that they agree with the conclusion that establishment of regula-
tions for harbor class marine vessels do not create a regulatory
imposition on real property because a harbor class marine ves-
sel is not real property.
The commission disagrees with the commenter that a Takings
Impact Assessment is inapplicable. According to Texas Gov-
ernment Code, 2007.043(a), a governmental entity shall pre-
pare a written takings impact assessment of a proposed gov-
ernmental action. Part of this assessment is a determination bythe agency as to whether the governmental action will constitute
a taking. A rulemaking is defined as a "governmental action."
The Takings Impact Assessment contained in this rulemaking ful-
fills this statutory requirement. The commission appreciates the
commenter's agreement with the conclusion that this rulemaking
does not constitute taking of private real property. However, the
Texas Government Code's requirement to conduct this assess-
ment remains regardless of whether real property is affected.
Expanding Affected Counties
The Port Authority commented that they believe restricting the
applicability to only the eight-county nonattainment area of HGB
limits the NOx-reducing benefit and real world effectiveness of
the proposed revision. The Port Authority also commented that
limiting the counties to HGB would create an economic incentive
for owner/operators of vessels to purchase fuel from areas out-
side the HGB area that are not subject to TxLED regulations and
recommended expanding the applicability of the proposed revi-
sion to the remainder of the 110 counties, which will also keep
the implementation of the rule simple for diesel fuel producers
and distributors. Kirby commented that they strongly object to
revising the TxLED regulations solely within the HGB nonattain-
ment counties. Kirby stated that this action will create market
forces that will lead other marine operators that operate in and
through the HGB area to fuel vessels outside the HGB area in
order to save up to $0.04 per gallon. Kirby, who will continue
to use TxLED-compliant fuel, will be disadvantaged by this reg-
ulation on an annualized basis of $384,000. Kirby commented
that the rulemaking as proposed undermines the emissions re-
duction from TxLED use. Kirby commented that they support
the proposed revision only if TCEQ contemporaneously revises
the areas affected to include all 110 TxLED counties. GHASP
commented that the TxLED rules should be applied to the entire
state.
The commission disagrees with the comments for applying the
amended LED rules to the marine fuels used in all 110 counties.
The commission considers the applicability of the rule to certain
marine fuels in the eight-county HGB ozone nonattainment area
to be sufficient at this time. This rule revision is part of the SIP
strategy that is the first step in addressing the eight-hour ozone
standard in the HGB area. The TCEQ is committed to attaining
the standard as expeditiously as practicable. As a part of devel-
oping the HGB Eight-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration SIP
revision, the TCEQ will determine the most cost-effective and
feasible strategies to obtain the needed emission reductions of
NOx and/or volatile organic compounds (VOC).
Fuel Grade Expansion
GHASP commented that they welcome the expansion of low
emissions diesel fuels, but believe the TCEQ could do more to
reduce harmful fuel emissions. GHASP commented that they
are concerned that owners and operators will switch to marine
fuels not included in the proposed revised definition. GHASP
recommended applying this standard to any ocean-going vessel
and stated that having one fuel standard would facilitate imple-
mentation and inspection.
Most ocean-going vessels use fuels of a different grade called
residual fuels that do not share many properties of distillate fu-
els covered under the LED regulations. Since the fuel properties
are not similar, the emission reductions from applying the LED
requirements to residual fuels cannot be estimated. The com-
mission made no changes as a result of this comment.32 TexReg 3176 June 8, 2007 Texas Register
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
Texas. Secretary of State. Texas Register, Volume 32, Number 23, Pages 3077-3422, June 8, 2007, periodical, June 8, 2007; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth97400/m1/98/: accessed July 16, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.