[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 78 (Monday, April 23, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20415-20419]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-9973]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[TX-126-4-7475; FRL-6969-5]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality State Implementation 
Plans (SIP); Texas: Low Emission Diesel Fuel

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to fully approve a State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) revision for the State of Texas establishing a Low Emission 
Diesel (LED) fuel for nine counties in the Dallas-Fort Worth 
Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA). Beginning May 1, 
2002, aromatic hydrocarbon content, cetane number and sulfur content 
will be regulated for diesel fuel sold in these counties for use in 
both motor vehicles and nonroad engines. We propose that the Texas LED 
fuel program requirements are necessary to achieve the National Ambient 
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone in the Dallas/Fort Worth ozone 
nonattainment area (DFW), and are therefore exempt from preemption 
under section 211(c)(4) of the Clean Air Act (the Act).

DATES: Comments should be received on or before May 23, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to Mr. 
Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section, at the EPA Regional 
Office listed below. Copies of the documents relevant to this action 
are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the 
following locations.
    Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Planning Section 
(6PD-L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Texas 
Natural Resource Conservation Commission, 12100 Park 35 Circle, Austin, 
Texas 78711-3087. Persons interested in examining these documents 
should make an appointment with the appropriate office at least 24 
hours before the visiting day.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra Rennie, Air Planning Section 
(6PD-L), EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, 
telephone (214) 665-7214.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and 
``our'' refers to EPA.
    Texas submitted an attainment demonstration SIP for the DFW 4-
county nonattainment area on April 25, 2000. The SIP contained measures 
for reducing Nitrogen Oxides (NOX), the pollutant identified 
as controlling the formation of ozone in this area. The LED fuel 
program was submitted as part of the attainment demonstration. This LED 
rule was codified in Chapter 114 of the Texas Administrative Code (TAC) 
(Sections 114.6, 114.312-114.317 and 114.319). See 30 TAC Chapter 114 
(Apr. 19, 2000). Since the SIP submittal, the Texas Natural Resource 
Conservation Commission (TNRCC) has revised these LED regulations to 
expand the covered area, revise recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements and add a second more stringent phase of sulfur standards 
to be implemented May 1, 2006. See 30 TAC 114.312-317, 114.319 (Dec. 6, 
2000). For purposes of today's action, we are proposing approval of the 
current LED regulations only insofar as they apply to the nine counties 
in the DFW CMSA,\1\ and only with respect to the standards to be 
implemented on May 1, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ There are 12 counties in the DFW CMSA. The nine counties 
subject to the LED requirements are Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, 
Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall and Tarrant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Does the State's LED Regulation Include?

    The State's LED SIP submittal for DFW requires that diesel fuel 
produced for delivery and ultimate sale within nine counties of the DFW 
CMSA have a maximum sulfur content of 500 ppm, have no more than 10% 
aromatic hydrocarbons by volume, and have a cetane number of 48 or 
greater. Alternative diesel fuel formulations that achieve equivalent 
emission reductions may also be used. The regulations apply to diesel 
fuel sold in the nonattainment counties of Dallas, Tarrant, Collin, and 
Denton, and the attainment counties of Parker, Johnson, Ellis, Kaufman, 
and Rockwall for use in either on-highway vehicles or nonroad engines. 
The State regulations require compliance by May 1, 2002.

What Are the Requirements of the Clean Air Act?

    Section 211(c)(4)(A) of the Act generally prohibits the State from 
prescribing or attempting to enforce controls respecting motor vehicle 
fuel characteristics or components that EPA has controlled under 
section 211(c)(1), unless the State control is identical to the Federal 
control. Under section 211(c)(4)(C), EPA may approve a non-identical 
state fuel control as a SIP provision, if the state demonstrates that 
the measure is necessary to achieve the NAAQS. We may approve a state 
fuel requirement as necessary if no other measures would bring about 
timely attainment, or if other measures exist and are technically 
possible to implement but are unreasonable or impracticable.
    In this rulemaking, EPA does not need to determine whether the 
State requirements for LED fuel used in motor vehicles are preempted 
under section 211(c)(4)(A) before acting to approve the SIP submittal 
because EPA is finding the fuel requirements necessary under section 
211(c)(4)(C) to achieve the ozone standard in the DFW nonattainment 
area.

What Did the State Submit?

    The State submitted the LED rules as part of the DFW SIP by letter 
from the Governor dated April 25, 2000. The SIP submittal contains 30 
TAC Chapter 114 rules as adopted on April 19, 2000,\2\ a request for a 
waiver from Federal preemption pursuant to Section 211(c)(4)(C) of the 
Act, and Texas laws providing the authority for the State to adopt and 
implement revisions to the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As explained above, TNRCC subsequently revised these LED 
regulations on December 6, 2000. Because the State's SIP submittal 
for the DFW nonattainment area only requested approval of the LED 
program for the nine counties and only for the standards effective 
May 1, 2002, today's action proposes approval of the current State 
LED regulations only insofar as they apply to the nine counties and 
only with respect to the standards to be implemented May 1, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Texas submitted data and analyses to support a finding under 
section 211(c)(4)(C) that the LED fuel requirement for the nine 
counties is necessary for the DFW nonattainment area to achieve the 
ozone NAAQS. The State has (1) identified the quantity of reductions of 
NOX needed to achieve attainment of the ozone NAAQS; (2) 
identified all other control measures and the quantity of reductions 
each would achieve; (3) identified those control alternatives that were 
deemed

[[Page 20416]]

unreasonable or impracticable; and (4) shown that even with the 
implementation of all reasonable and practicable control measures, the 
State would need additional emissions reductions for the nonattainment 
area to meet the ozone NAAQS on a timely basis, and that the LED fuel 
requirement would supply some of such additional reductions.
    Texas submitted its demonstration of necessity for the LED fuel 
requirement in the State's attainment demonstration for DFW. The 
State's submission used the CAMx photochemical modeling to estimate the 
quantity of NOX emission reductions necessary to achieve the 
ozone NAAQS by 2007. Based on this analysis, Texas estimates that 
NOX reductions of 370.12 tons per day (tpd) are necessary to 
achieve the ozone NAAQS by 2007. Without the LED requirements for the 
nine counties in the DFW CMSA, implementation of the reasonable and 
practicable non-fuel control measures would reduce NOX 
emissions by only 367.64 tpd.

What Are the Benefits From the LED Fuel Program?

    The primary benefit of LED fuel in the DFW attainment demonstration 
is reduction of NOX emissions. Without the proposed fuel 
controls, the 9-county area subject to the proposed fuel control would 
receive diesel fuel for nonroad use that is subject to no federal 
emissions-related standards or diesel fuel for on-highway use that 
meets the less stringent, current Federal standards.
    Texas is controlling three components of diesel fuel for on-road 
vehicles: aromatic hydrocarbons, cetane number and sulfur. The State's 
sulfur standard, however, is the same as the current Federal 
requirement for diesel fuel used in motor vehicles. Texas estimated 
that the 10% cap on aromatic hydrocarbons reduces NOX from 
diesel combustion. The cetane number is an indication of ignition 
properties of the fuel. A fuel with better ignition properties will 
ignite at a lower heat of compression, thereby reducing the amount of 
NOX produced during combustion.
    For nonroad engines, Texas' sulfur content standards will provide 
additional emissions reductions. There is no direct NOX 
benefit from controlling sulfur in fuel. However, the State is 
including the sulfur requirement for nonroad engines because lower 
sulfur levels prevent fouling of aftermarket NOX emission 
control devices that may be installed on off-road diesel equipment to 
comply with other State rules like the Construction Shift. The State 
does not need a waiver of preemption for fuel components of nonroad 
diesel because section 211(c)(4)(A) applies only to State controls 
respecting motor vehicle (i.e., on-highway) fuel characteristics or 
components. In addition, there are no Federal requirements promulgated 
under section 211(c)(1) for characteristics or components of nonroad 
diesel fuel.
    Currently, EPA is in the process of doing a comprehensive review 
and analysis of data to quantify the emission reduction effects of low 
emission diesel fuels. The outcome of this evaluation could result in a 
need to reconsider the emission reduction estimates used by the State 
in their LED rule. We expect the evaluation process to be completed by 
May of 2001. If the results of EPA's evaluation indicate that Texas has 
overestimated the emission reductions attributable to their LED rule, 
then EPA will work with the State to address this shortfall.

What Other Measures Did Texas Consider Before Selecting LED?

    The State evaluated a broad range of potential control measures and 
estimated the quantity of reductions that could be achieved through 
implementation of these measures. Over three hundred potential control 
strategies were initially considered by the State and DFW regional 
stakeholders as part of the planning process. This list is included in 
the Technical Support Document (TSD) for this document. The measures 
that were selected for the attainment demonstration are in Table 1.

  Table 1.--State and Local Control Measures \3\ in the DFW Attainment
                              Demonstration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Measure                      NOX  reductions in  tpd
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection and Maintenance (ASM, OBD, and   54.45
 remote sensing in 9 counties).
Major Point Source NOX reductions in 4      129
 counties.
Low Emission Diesel in 9 counties (the      3.48
 subject of this rulemaking).
Heavy-duty diesel operating restriction in  2.5
 4 counties.
Accelerated Purchase of Tier II/III off-    13.8
 highway diesel equipment in 4 counties.
Airport Ground Support Equipment            9.54
 electrification 4 counties.
Speed limit reductions 9 counties.........  5.42
Voluntary Mobile Emission Reduction 9       3.9 average (2.40-5.40)
 counties.
Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) in   4.73
 4 counties.
Heavy equipment fleets--gasoline in 9       1.8
 counties.
Gas-fired water heaters, small boilers,     0.5
 and process heaters statewide.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Measures Were Considered But Not Selected?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The attainment demonstration includes additional 
NOX reductions from Federal measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Measures that were quantified but not selected for the SIP are 
listed in Table 2. (See Appendix D of the TSD for more detailed 
descriptions of these measures). The State chose not to implement these 
measures after performing cost/benefit analysis and considering whether 
each was reasonable or practicable for the DFW nonattainment area. Many 
of the measures from the original list of over 300 are not quantifiable 
and so could not be shown to help achieve the NAAQS.

       Table 2.--Measures Quantified But Not Selected for the SIP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extend Federal RFG to surrounding 8         4.6
 counties.
Electric Automobile mandate...............  2.3
Heavy-Duty Vehicle I/M....................  1.5
Truck idle shut-off.......................  1
Natural gas buses.........................  0.6
Energy Efficiencies (building codes)......  0.5
California LEV............................  0 tons per day
                                            (Federal Tier 2 vehicles are
                                             expected to get essentially
                                             equivalent NOX reductions)
Controls beyond 30% in Ellis county.......  0 tons per day in NA
(1 county)................................   counties
                                            9.1 tons/day at 30%
                                             reduction
                                            11.1 tons/day reduced at 50%
                                             reduction
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of the control measures identified above, for purposes of section 
211(c)(4)(C), all measures but one (truck idling shut-off) in Table 2 
are considered unreasonable or impracticable for the DFW area to 
implement in comparison to the State's LED requirement.

[[Page 20417]]

    Extending Federal RFG to surrounding 8 counties. TNRCC is not 
required to demonstrate that expanded use of RFG, a fuel measure, is 
unreasonable or impracticable in order to support the necessity of the 
LED fuel measure.
    Electric vehicle mandate. This rule is not reasonable or 
practicable because of high cost to the general public and availability 
concerns.
    Heavy-duty vehicle I/M. Inspection and maintenance is neither 
reasonable nor practicable for heavy duty vehicles because the 
technology is not currently available to implement a program and 
determine associated NOX reductions. The 1.5 tpd 
NOX reduction value in Table 2 is questioned by EPA. 
Existing heavy-duty I/M programs consist primarily of opacity testing, 
which is testing for particulates.
    Natural gas buses. This type of bus is more costly than clean 
diesel. The difference in cost would not justify the small additional 
emission reduction benefits, so to mandate natural gas buses would be 
unreasonable. In addition, TNRCC would have to get changes to existing 
statutory authority in order to regulate bus fleets. The time required 
to draft and seek passage of such legislation renders this an 
unreasonable and impracticable measure. It should be noted that both 
Dallas and Fort Worth have voluntarily purchased natural gas buses when 
their budgets allowed.
    California LEV. This measures provides essentially no additional 
credit to the nonattainment areas. Federal Tier 2 vehicles will provide 
essentially the same or more credit. Therefore, California LEV is 
unreasonable.
    NOX Controls on cement kilns beyond 30% in Ellis county. 
For Ellis County, Table 2 shows 2.0 tpd NOX reductions if 50 
percent, rather than 30 percent, control is in place. The technology to 
achieve 50 percent reductions produces a high cost/benefit ratio, which 
makes this measure unreasonable and impracticable.
    Energy efficiencies (building codes). Energy efficiency measures 
are implemented through local building codes. Each municipality would 
have to adopt the measures in order for them to be enforceable. This 
would cause extensive delay in implementation. In addition, the State 
is requiring significant reductions in emissions from electric 
generating facilities. As a result, it is unclear what additional 
emission reductions could be obtained from energy efficiency 
improvements.
    Truck idle shut-off. Although this measure may now be considered 
reasonable and practicable for other nonattainment areas, the State 
would still need additional emission reduction credits even if it were 
implemented. (See discussion in TSD).
    In addition to the above controls, TNRCC also considered expanding 
several of the control measures in Table 1 beyond the 4-county DFW 
nonattainment area. Five of the six measures were considered 
unreasonable or impracticable in the 9-county area.
    Major Point Source NOX reductions in 4 counties. Major 
point source NOX reductions are mandated only for the 4 
county area because NOX controls for those sources in the 
attainment areas are mandated by other rules. These rules are 
NOX reductions of 30% for grandfathered sources, 50% 
reductions for grandfathered Electric Generating Facilities, and 30% 
reductions for Cement Kilns. Therefore the extreme cost of adding 
additional controls does not justify the relatively small benefit that 
would result.
    Heavy-duty diesel operating restriction in 4 counties. Analysis of 
the area and nonroad emissions inventory showed that 16% of the 
region's total NOX emissions come from construction 
equipment within the 4-county area. Implementation of this measure will 
be difficult. It is not considered reasonable to extend this measure to 
the less urban attainment counties at this time. Construction in these 
counties is considerably less than in the more urbanized counties. The 
benefit from this measure would be too small to make a significant 
contribution to emission reductions compared to the cost to implement.
    Accelerated Purchase of Tier II/III off-highway diesel equipment in 
4 counties. Implementation of this measure will be difficult, and 
little if any benefit is available. Construction in these counties is 
considerably less than in the more urbanized counties. The benefit from 
this measure would be too small to make a significant contribution to 
emission reductions compared to the cost to implement. It is not 
considered reasonable to extend this measure to the less urban 
attainment counties at this time.
    Airport Ground Support Equipment electrification in 4 counties. It 
is not necessary (or reasonable) to impose airport GSE electrification 
in the attainment counties because there are no major airports in those 
counties.
    Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) in 4 counties. A TCM is a 
project that attempts to reduce vehicle use, change traffic flow, or 
reduce congestion conditions. Due to the semi-rural nature of the 
attainment counties, reducing vehicle use is not a viable option in 
this lower population density area. Generally traffic flow is 
satisfactory and congestion is not an issue. Therefore, implementing 
TCMs is not reasonable or practicable in the attainment counties.
    Speed limit reductions in 9 counties. The reduced speed limit 
measure is based on vehicle emission information from EPA's MOBILE5 
model. There is a significant amount of vehicle miles traveled and 
ample fleet size in the additional 5 counties to justify expanding this 
measure beyond the 4-county area.
    Based on the discussion above, we propose to find that reasonable 
or practicable non-fuel measures which would bring the DFW 
nonattainment area into attainment in a timely manner do not exist.

Why Is the State Requiring LED Fuel in Attainment Counties of the 
DFW CMSA?

    Requiring LED in the attainment areas will reduce emissions of 
NOX in those areas, which, in turn, benefits the DFW 
nonattainment area by reducing the transport of ozone and 
NOX from the attainment areas to the nonattainment area.

The LED Fuel Program Will Reduce the Transport of Ozone From the 
Attainment Areas to the Nonattainment Area

    Texas conducted several studies (see Appendix A of the TSD for a 
list of studies) to evaluate the transport of ozone and its precursors 
in and around the DFW nonattainment area and other urban areas. 
Photochemical grid modeling showed that urban ozone plumes disperse 
with distance and that significant impact extended to about 300 km 
downwind. Each plume adds to the background concentration, making it 
more difficult for the downwind areas to reach attainment. The Seasonal 
Modeling for Regional Air Quality, in which Texas participated, showed 
similar results: that mobile source reductions, along with point and 
area source reductions, in the eastern part of Texas resulted in 
modeled decreases in ozone in the nonattainment areas in the eastern 
half of Texas. This modeling supports the concept that ozone formed in 
attainment counties is carried into the nonattainment areas as a result 
of meteorologic conditions and that transport from upwind attainment 
areas affects background ozone concentrations in downwind urban 
nonattainment areas.
    In addition, the Baylor Aircraft Study showed the impact of ozone 
plumes between the attainment and nonattainment areas. Part of this 
study

[[Page 20418]]

demonstrated the potential for significant ozone levels when high 
background levels of ozone are transported into the DFW area from 
attainment areas. Results of the analysis show area, point, and mobile 
sources contribute about 40 ppb to the regional background, resulting 
in background concentrations of approximately 79 ppb in the attainment 
areas. Further, the study demonstrated transport of this ozone into the 
nonattainment areas.
    In the Coastal Oxidant Assessment for Southeast Texas (COAST) 
Study, researchers collected aerometric (meteorological and air 
quality) data to improve understanding of the causes of high ozone in 
Southeast Texas. This data was then used in conjunction with 
photochemical modeling to determine control strategy effectiveness 
including the sensitivity of ozone concentrations in the nonattainment 
areas to emission reductions in the attainment region. This sensitivity 
modeling indicated there was an influence of emission reductions in the 
attainment areas on the nonattainment areas.

The LED Fuel Program Will Reduce the Transport of NOX 
From the Attainment Areas to the Nonattainment Area

    EPA policy recognizes that ozone precursors emitted in attainment 
areas that surround nonattainment areas may be transported into those 
nonattainment areas and contribute to ozone problems therein. With the 
December 29, 1997, Guidance for Implementing 1-Hour Ozone and Pre-
Existing PM10 NAAQS, EPA recognized that both VOCs and NOX 
outside the nonattainment areas at 100 km and 200 km respectively could 
influence the nonattainment area. We allowed taking credit from sources 
within these areas of influence in the 9 percent Rate of Progress 
Plans. The fact that NOX influence has been shown to be 
meaningful within 200 km of a nonattainment area supports Texas' 
justification for controlling the components of diesel in many of the 
attainment areas surrounding the DFW nonattainment area. We believe it 
is appropriate to conclude that NOX emission reductions 
within this area will benefit the nonattainment area.
    The Baylor Aircraft Study also demonstrated that ozone precursors 
were present in the ozone plumes being studied. The actual formation of 
ozone within plumes from point sources in the attainment areas suggests 
that ozone precursors are present in those plumes and are transported 
into nonattainment areas along with ozone. The evidence of transport of 
NOX from the attainment area into the nonattainment areas 
supports the statement that the LED fuel program will help to prevent 
ozone formation in the nonattainment area.

Is the LED Fuel Program Necessary To Achieve the NAAQS?

    Without the LED program in the nine counties, implementation of all 
reasonable and practicable non-fuel control measures, including truck 
idling, would reduce NOX emissions by only 367.64 tpd. An 
additional 2.48 tpd of NOX emissions reductions is necessary 
for DFW to achieve timely attainment of the ozone NAAQS. The LED fuel 
program will supply additional reductions needed for the DFW area to 
demonstrate attainment. Therefore, we propose to find the LED fuel 
requirements for the nine counties necessary to achieve timely 
attainment of the ozone NAAQS in the DFW nonattainment area. This 
satisfies the requirement of necessity in section 211(c)(4)(C).

Does the State Submittal Meet the SIP Approval Requirements Under 
Section 110?

    The LED fuel control program meets the requirements outlined in 
section 110. Texas submitted the fuel portion of the DFW attainment SIP 
under a Governor's letter April 25, 2000. The submittals contain the 
appropriate hearing actions, a preamble, and the LED fuel rules. The 
SIP was deemed complete by letter on June 23, 2000.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As noted above, the regulations as submitted in the DFW SIP 
have since been revised. Today's action proposes approval of the 
current State LED regulations only insofar as they apply to the nine 
counties and only with respect to the standards to be implemented 
May 1, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

How Will the Program Be Enforced?

    The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission will implement 
the LED fuel rule. Anyone, including producers and importers, who 
sells, offers for sale, supplies, or offers for supply to affected 
counties the LED fuel are subject to provisions of this rule. 
Registration, recordkeeping, reporting, and certification requirements 
are included. This rule will be enforced in the same way as other 
regulations implemented by TNRCC. State law allows collection of 
administrative penalties up to $10,000 per day and civil penalties up 
to $25,000 per day for violations of air quality regulations. See 
Vernon's Texas Statutes & Codes, Annotated (VTCA) Water Code, sections 
7.002, and 7.051. The TNRCC may also seek injunctive relief under 
section 7.032 of the Water Code.
    Texas revised the enforcement portion of the State's LED rules on 
December 6, 2000, in response to our comments on the Houston Attainment 
Demonstration. That rule supersedes the enforcement provisions of the 
DFW LED rule.

What Is Proposed?

    We are proposing to approve rules establishing a LED fuel 
requirement for all diesel fuel sold in nine counties in the DFW CMSA. 
We are also proposing to find, under section 211(c)(4)(C), that the 
State has demonstrated the fuel measure is necessary for attainment of 
the NAAQS and that no other measures exist which would bring about 
timely attainment or if such measures exist, they are not reasonable or 
practicable.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future implementation 
plan. Each request for revision to the State Implementation Plan shall 
be considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and 
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and 
regulatory requirements.

Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and 
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and 
Budget. This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as 
meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements 
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator 
certifies that this proposed 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 proposes to 
approve 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 proposed rule also does 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), nor will it 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,

[[Page 20419]]

August 10, 1999), because it merely proposes to approve 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 proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 
13045 (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. As required by section 3 
of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing 
this proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate 
drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and 
provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied 
with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining 
the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney 
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and 
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive order. 
This proposed 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.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: April 9, 2001.
Lynda F. Carroll,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 01-9973 Filed 4-20-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P