Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP). This includes revisions that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) submitted to EPA on January 3, 2003, to require that equipment associated with a new or relocated concrete crushing facility be located or operated at least 440 yards from any building used as a single or multi-family residence, school, or place of worship. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Federal Clean Air Act (the Act, or CAA).
This direct final rule will be effective December 1, 2003 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by October 30, 2003. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Written comments on this action should be addressed to Mr. Guy Donaldson, Acting Chief, Air Permits Section (6PD–R), at the EPA Region 6 Office listed below. Electronic comments should be sent to either
Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733.
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Office of Air Quality, 12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753.
Mr. Stanley M. Spruiell, Air Permits Section, Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, at (214) 665–7212, or
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” or “our” means EPA.
In today's action we are taking direct final action to approve revisions to Title 30 of the Texas Administrative Code (30 TAC) Section 116.112—Distance Limitations into the Texas SIP. The TCEQ adopted these revisions on December 18, 2002, and submitted the revisions to us for approval as a revision to the SIP on January 3, 2003.
Section 116.112 currently establishes distance limitations for lead smelters in Section 116.112(1) and distance limitations for hazardous waste permits in Section 116.112(2). The existing distance limitations were approved September 18, 2002 (67 FR 58607).
On December 18, 2002, TCEQ added a new paragraph (3) to Section 116.112, to implement House Bill (HB) 2912, Section 5.07, 77th Texas State Legislature, 2001. HB 2912, Section 5.07 amended the Texas Health and Safety Code to add a new Section 382.065, which requires the TCEQ, by rule, to restrict the location or operation of new and relocated concrete crushing facilities. Paragraph (3) requires all equipment associated with a concrete crushing facility to be located or operated at least 440 yards from any building used as a single or multi-family residence, school, or place of worship. The distance limitation does not apply to existing concrete crushing facilities which are authorized and actually located or operating at the site as of September 1, 2001. An existing facility does not include a concrete crushing facility authorized but not actually located or operating at the site as of September 1, 2001.
The restriction on location and operation of new or relocated concrete crushing plants provides additional protection for persons occupying any building used as a single or multi-family
The revision also meets 40 CFR 51.160(e) by identifying a type of facility that will be subject to review under 40 CFR 51.160(a). In this case, Texas has identified concrete crushing facilities and specified a distance requirement for such facilities.
This distance limitation does not apply to an existing concrete crushing facility which was authorized and actually located or operating at a site as of September 1, 2001. This provision allows an existing concrete crushing facility to continue operating at the site and to change its existing permit at such a site without being required to meet the distance limitation that otherwise applies to new and relocated facilities. If an existing facility were to relocate to another location after September 1, 2001, then the facility must comply with the distance limitation in Section 116.112(3).
As proposed by TCEQ on September 27, 2002, the distance limitations in Section 116.112(3) would have applied to all equipment and stockpiles associated with a concrete crushing facility. In response to public comments on the proposed rule, the TCEQ changed the rule to remove the references to stockpiles. This change was based upon TCEQ's determination that a stockpile associated with a concrete crushing facility is not subject to House Bill (HB) 2912, Section 5.07, the legislation that required TCEQ to adopt this distance limitation.
The exclusion from the distance limitation in Section 116.112(3) to an existing concrete crushing facility authorized and actually located or operating at a site as of September 1, 2001, and to stockpiles associated with a concrete crushing facility does not affect our ability to approve the distance limitations in Section 116.112(3). Such facilities must continue to meet the existing SIP-approved requirements in Section 116.111(2)(A)(i), which require sources subject to new source permitting in Texas to protect public health and welfare. This meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.160(a) by ensuring that emissions from such facilities will not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of a national standard. Such facilities are also subject to the current SIP-approved requirements of Section 116.111(2)(A)(ii) which provides that when TCEQ issues a permit for construction or modification of any facility within 3,000 feet of an elementary, junior high/middle, or senior high school, the TCEQ shall consider any adverse short-term or long-term side effects that an air contaminant or nuisance odor from the facility may have on the individuals attending the schools. This ensures protection of individuals in such schools from adverse effects of emissions of air contaminants from such facilities.
The Technical Support Document, which is part of the record for this action, contains more detailed information on how the revision meets the requirements of the Act, including Section 110 and implementing regulations.
We are approving as a revision to the Texas SIP revisions of 30 TAC Section 116.112—Distance Limitations, which Texas submitted on January 3, 2003. We are processing this action as a direct final action because it adds noncontroversial regulations to the SIP. We do not anticipate any relevant adverse comments. However, we are today publishing in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's
The EPA is committed to ensuring public access to the information used to inform the public of the Agency's decisions regarding the environment and human health and to ensuring that the public has an opportunity to participate in the Agency's decision-making process. The official public rulemaking file consists of the documents specifically referenced in a particular agency action, any public comments received, and other information related to the action. The public rulemaking file does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information for which disclosure is restricted by statute, although such information is a part of the Agency's official administrative record for the action.
1.
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Office of Air Quality, 12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753.
2.
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, through hand delivery/courier or by facsimile. Instructions for submitting comments by each method are discussed below. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate ID No. in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” The EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Section D below.
1.
i.
ii.
iii.
2.
3.
4.
You may assert a business confidentiality claim covering CBI information included in comments submitted by mail or hand delivery in either paper or electronic format. CBI should not be submitted via e-mail or at the Regulations.gov Web site. Clearly mark any part or all of the information submitted which is claimed as CBI at the time the comment is submitted to EPA. CBI should be submitted separately, if possible, to facilitate handling by EPA. Submit one complete version of the comment that includes the properly labeled CBI for EPA's official administrative record and one copy that does not contain the CBI to be included in the public rulemaking file. If you submit CBI on a disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or the CD ROM that it contains CBI and then identify the CBI within the disk or CD ROM. Also submit a non-CBI version if possible. Information which is properly labeled as CBI and submitted by mail or hand delivery will be disclosed only in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2. For comments submitted by EPA's e-mail system or through the Regulations.gov Web site, no CBI claim may be asserted. Do not submit CBI to the Regulations.gov Web site or via EPA's e-mail system. Any claim of CBI will be waived for comments received through the Regulations.gov Web site or EPA's e-mail system. For further advice on submitting CBI to the Agency, contact the person listed in the
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at your estimate.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Offer alternatives.
7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.
8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate ID No. in the subject line on the first page of your response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and
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
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), because it 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
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801
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 December 1, 2003. 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. (
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *