Texas Register, Volume 38, Number 47, Pages 8313-8478, November 22, 2013 Page: 8,401
8313-8478 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:
fit and best address the goals of the program. The requirement
that an on-road heavy-duty vehicle must have a day cab is in-
tended to help ensure that vehicles purchased under the pro-
gram will be used for local and regional drayage activities in and
near rail yards and seaports and not for long-haul transport out
of the area.
Criteria is also proposed in this section for the models of existing
drayage trucks eligible for replacement under the program, to
include a heavy-duty on-road vehicle with a GVWR over 26,000
pounds and a non-road yard truck. The proposed criteria for
vehicles being replaced do not require that an existing on-road
heavy-duty vehicle only have a day cab. Although a vehicle
with a sleeper berth is intended to facilitate long-haul, overnight
travel, many older long-haul vehicles have been used for shorter
drayage activities as those vehicles become less reliable for
long-distance travel. The proposed criteria would allow for re-
placement of these older long-haul vehicles that have a sleeper
berth, if those vehicles are currently being used for drayage
activities. The vehicle purchased to replace the older vehicle
may not have a sleeper berth.
Fiscal Note: Costs to State and Local Government
Nina Chamness, Analyst, Strategic Planning and Assessment,
has determined that for the first five-year period the proposed
rules are in effect, no significant fiscal implications are antici-
pated for the agency as a result of administration or enforcement
of the proposed rules. The agency will use available funding ap-
propriated out of the Texas Emissions Reduction Plan (TERP) -
Account 5071 to implement the new drayage truck program. For
the 2014 - 2015 biennium, appropriated funding for the program
is a minimum of $1,551,923 each year.
The proposed rules would amend Chapter 114 to implement
the portions of SB 1727 concerning drayage truck replacement.
Specifically, the proposed rules would define key program terms
and establish criteria for the models of drayage trucks eligible for
replacement and for purchase under the program.
Public port and rail authorities operating a seaport or rail yard in
a nonattainment area may own and operate heavy-duty on-road
vehicles and non-road yard trucks to transfer cargo in and near
a seaport or rail yard under their jurisdiction. Those entities and
other state agencies and local governments that own and op-
erate eligible drayage trucks in and through the applicable rail
yards or seaports may benefit if those entities apply for and re-
ceive a grant to replace an older drayage truck with a newer
model.
Applying for a grant would be voluntary, and it is not known at
this time how many state agencies or local governments would
do so. Per the requirements of THSC, 386.182(d), an incen-
tive provided under this program may be used to fund no more
than 80% of the purchase price of the drayage truck. Based on
this criterion, eligible incentive amounts are expected to range
between $60,000 and $100,000.
Public Benefits and Costs
Ms. Chamness also determined that for each of the first five
years the proposed rules are in effect, the anticipated public ben-
efit will be an improvement in air quality in the areas of the state
designated as nonattainment areas by the EPA under the Fed-
eral Clean Air Act and where incentive funding is awarded. The
currently designated nonattainment areas include: El Paso PMi0
Nonattainment Area (City of El Paso); Dallas-Fort Worth Eight-
Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area (ten counties surrounding thecities of Dallas and Fort Worth); and Houston-Galveston-Brazo-
ria Eight-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area (eight counties sur-
rounding the cities of Houston and Galveston). A portion of Collin
County is also designated nonattainment for the 2008 Lead Na-
tional Ambient Air Quality Standard.
The proposed rules may benefit individuals that own or operate
an eligible drayage truck if the individual applies for and receives
a financial incentive under the program. Individuals that can uti-
lize the funding should experience the same cost benefits as a
local government or large business.
Businesses interested in applying for the program may bene-
fit if their projects qualify for an incentive grant. Applying for a
grant would be voluntary, and it is not known at this time how
many businesses would do so. Per the requirements of THSC,
386.182(d), an incentive provided under this program may be
used to fund no more than 80% of the purchase price of the
drayage truck. Based on this criterion, eligible incentive amounts
are expected to range between $60,000 and $100,000.
Staff is not able to determine how many businesses may be eli-
gible to apply for a grant as a result of these proposed rules.
Small Business and Micro-Business Assessment
No adverse fiscal implications are anticipated for small or micro-
businesses as a result of the proposed rules. Small or micro-
businesses are expected to experience the same benefits as a
large business. Staff is not able to determine how many small
and micro-businesses would be eligible to apply for a grant as a
result of these proposed rules.
Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The commission has reviewed this proposed rulemaking and de-
termined that a small business regulatory flexibility analysis is
not required because the proposed rules are required by state
law and do not adversely affect a small or micro-business in a
material way for the first five years that the proposed rules are
in effect.
Local Employment Impact Statement
The commission has reviewed this proposed rulemaking and de-
termined that a local employment impact statement is not re-
quired because the proposed rules do not adversely affect a lo-
cal economy in a material way for the first five years that the
proposed rules are in effect.
Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis Determination
The commission reviewed the rulemaking in light of the reg-
ulatory analysis requirements of Texas Government Code,
2001.0225, and determined that this rulemaking is not subject
to Texas Government Code, 2001.0225, because it does not
meet the definition of a "major environmental rule" as defined
in that statute. A "major environmental rule" means a rule the
specific intent of which is to protect the environment or reduce
risks to human health from environmental exposure and that
may adversely affect in a material way the economy, productiv-
ity, competition, jobs, the environment, or the public health and
safety of the state or a sector of the state.
The new Chapter 114 rules are proposed in accordance with
SB 1727, which amended THSC, Chapter 386. The proposed
rules add eligibility requirements for a voluntary incentive pro-
gram. Because the proposed rules place no involuntary require-
ments on the regulated community, the proposed rules will not
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of thePROPOSED RULES November 22, 2013 38 TexReg 8401
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 38, Number 47, Pages 8313-8478, November 22, 2013, periodical, November 22, 2013; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth379965/m1/89/: accessed July 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.