[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 220 (Wednesday, November 14, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57247-57252]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-27585]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[TX 28-1-7538; FRL-7092-4]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; 
Houston/Galveston Ozone Nonattainment Area Vehicle Miles Traveled 
Offset Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this final action, the EPA is approving, as part of the 
Texas State Implementation Plan(SIP) for the Houston/ Galveston Ozone 
Nonattainment Area (HGA), the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Offset Plan 
to offset any growth in emissions from growth in VMT, or number of 
vehicle trips in the Houston/ Galveston severe ozone nonattainment 
area. This is part of the State's effort to attain the National Ambient 
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. The State demonstrated that 
emissions from increases in VMT or numbers of vehicle trips within HGA 
will not rise above an established ceiling by 2007; thereby not 
requiring additional transportation control measure (TCM) offsets to 
prevent an increase in VMT above the ceiling. The requirements for the 
VMT Offset plan to be consistent with the State's demonstration of 
Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) and attainment are addressed in a 
corresponding action for the HGA area taken and published separately in 
this Federal Register. This action approves the proposed approval 
published on July 10, 2001 (66 FR 35920). Comments made on the direct 
final rule, published on July 10, 2001 (66 FR 35903) and withdrawn on 
September 4, 2001 (66 FR 46220), are addressed later in this action. 
This action is being taken under sections 110 and 182 of the Federal 
Clean Air Act, as amended (the Act, or CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on December 14, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the relevant material for this action are 
available for inspection during normal business hours at the following 
locations. Persons interested in examining these documents should make 
an appointment at least 24 hours before the visiting day.
    Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Planning Section 
(6PD-L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, TX 75202-2377.
    Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, 12100 Park 35 
Circle, Austin, Texas 78753.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Brooke M. Ivener at (214) 665-7362 
or Mr. Bill Deese at (214) 665-7253, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), EPA 
Region 6, Suite 700, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and 
``our'' means EPA.

Table of Contents

1. What Are We Approving?
2. Response to Comments on the Direct Final Action.
3. Final Action.
4. Administrative Requirements.

1. What Are We Approving?

    The EPA is approving a new SIP revision for VMT Offset submitted by 
the State on May 17, 2000. Specifically, we are approving the VMT 
Offset SIP, submitted by the State on August 25, 1997 and with minor, 
non-substantive revisions submitted on May 17, 2000. For information 
regarding our analysis

[[Page 57248]]

of the State submittal, please refer to the Technical Support Document 
for this action.
    Section 182(d)(1)(A) of the Act directs states containing ozone 
nonattainment areas classified as severe, pursuant to section 181(a) of 
the Act, to adopt transportation control strategies and TCMs to offset 
increases in emissions resulting from growth in VMT or numbers of 
vehicle trips, and to obtain reductions in motor vehicle emissions as 
necessary (in combination with other emission reduction requirements) 
to comply with the Act's Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) milestones 
(CAA sections 182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2)(B)) and attainment demonstration 
requirements (CAA section 182(c)(2)(A)). The EPA General Preamble to 
Title I of the CAA (57 FR 13498, 13521-13523, April 16, 1992) explains 
our interpretation regarding how states may demonstrate that the VMT 
requirement is satisfied. (We incorporate that discussion by 
reference.)
    In summary, the purpose of the VMT offset requirement is to prevent 
growth in motor vehicle emissions from cancelling out the emission 
reduction benefits of federally mandated programs in the Act. 
Sufficient measures must be adopted so projected motor vehicle volatile 
organic compound (VOC) emissions will stay beneath a ceiling level 
established through modeling of mandated transportation-related 
controls. When growth in VMT and vehicle trips would otherwise cause a 
motor vehicle emissions upturn, this upturn must be prevented by TCMs. 
If projected total motor vehicle emissions during the ozone season in 
one year are not higher than during the previous ozone season due to 
the control measures in the SIP, the VMT Offset requirement is 
satisfied.
    For several years, we have consistently implemented this 
interpretation in response to several states' submissions of VMT SIPs 
under section 182(d)(1)(A) of the Act.\1\ We first announced our intent 
to apply this longstanding interpretation to the HGA's SIP in 1997. See 
62 FR 54598 (October 21, 1997) (proposed disapproval of HGA SIP). We 
similarly followed the General Preamble's approach in the July 10, 2001 
direct final rule that would have approved the HGA SIP (see 66 FR at 
35903, 35904).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See, e.g., 62 FR 23410, 23417 (Apr. 30, 1997) (proposed 
approval of New Jersey's SIP); 61 FR 53624, 53624-25 (Oct. 15, 1996) 
(direct final approval of New York's SIP); 61 FR 51214, 51216 (Oct. 
1, 1996) (direct final approval of New York's SIP); 60 FR 48896, 
48897 (Sept. 21, 1995) (final approval of Illinois' SIP); 60 FR 
38718, 38719-20 (July 28, 1995) (final approval of Indiana's SIP); 
60 FR 2565, 2566-67 (January 10, 1995) (proposed approval of 
Wisconsin's SIP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The August 25, 1997 VMT SIP submittal from the State includes a 
projection of the mobile source emissions profile for HGA through 2007, 
the date by which the HGA area is to attain the NAAQS for ozone. The 
August 25,1997 submittal fulfills the first required element under CAA 
section 182(d)(1)(A)for a VMT Offset Plan in the HGA severe ozone 
nonattainment area. The second and third required elements under 
section 182(d)(1)(A) are fulfilled in the corresponding action 
addressing RFP and attainment for the HGA area taken and published 
separately in this Federal Register.

2. Response to Comments on the Direct Final Action

    On July 10, 2001, the EPA published a direct final rule approving 
the Texas VMT Offset SIP, with the condition that if any adverse 
comments were received by the end of the public comment period on 
August 9, 2001 the direct final rule would be withdrawn, and that we 
would respond to the comments in taking final action on the proposal to 
approve the Texas VMT Offset SIP, published concurrently on July 10, 
2001,(66 FR 35920). One set of comments was received from Environmental 
Defense (ED). The following summarizes the comments and EPA's response 
to these comments:
    Comment 1: The comment argues that section 182(d)(1)(A) of the Act 
requires offsets for increased emissions attributable to all growth in 
VMT above 1990 levels, and that EPA is required by the House Report 
language (H. R. No. 101-490, Part I, 101st Cong., 2nd session at 242) 
to ensure emission reductions despite an increase in VMT. The comment 
states that EPA is acting inconsistently with the law by not applying 
``the guidance provided by the House committee report in the review of 
VMT Offset SIPs[.]'' In other words, the comment challenges the 
longstanding interpretation of section 182(d)(1)(A) that we discussed 
in the General Preamble and in our other rulemaking actions approving 
states' VMT SIPs.
    Response: As discussed in the General Preamble, EPA believes that 
section 182(d)(1)(A) of the Act requires the State to ``offset any 
growth in emissions'' from growth in VMT, but not, as the comment 
suggests, all emissions resulting from VMT growth. See 57 FR at 13522-
23. As we explained in response to similar comments objecting to our 
application of the General Preamble's approach when approving Illinois' 
and Indiana's SIPs, the purpose is to prevent a growth in motor vehicle 
emissions from canceling out the emission reduction benefits of the 
federally mandated programs in the Act. See 60 FR at 48898; 60 FR at 
38720-21. The baseline for emissions is the 1990 level of vehicle 
emissions and the subsequent reductions in emission levels required to 
reach attainment with the NAAQS for ozone. Thus, the anticipated 
benefits from the mandated measures such as the Federal motor vehicle 
pollution control program, lower Reid vapor pressure, enhanced 
inspection and maintenance and all other motor vehicle emission control 
programs are included in the ceiling line calculations used by Texas in 
the VMT Offset SIP. Appendix B, Table 2, in the Texas submittal shows 
how emissions will decline substantially and will not begin to turn up, 
nor does it reach the ceiling established by the mandated controls. 
Emission reductions are expected every year through the year 2007.
    Our approach is consistent with the purposes Congress had in 
enacting section 182(d)(1)(A). The ceiling line level decreases from 
year to year as the state implements various control measures, and the 
decreasing ceiling line prevents an upturn in mobile source emissions. 
Dramatic increases in VMT that could wipe out the benefits of motor 
vehicle emission reduction measures will not be allowed and will 
trigger the required implementation of TCMs. This prevents mere 
preservation of the status quo, and ensures emissions reductions 
despite an increase in VMT or number of vehicle trips. To prevent 
future growth changes from adversely impacting emissions from motor 
vehicles, States are required under section 182(c)(5) of the Act to 
track actual VMT and to periodically demonstrate that the actual VMT is 
equal to or less than the projected VMT, with TCMs required to offset 
VMT that is above the projected levels.
    Under the commenter's approach to section 182(d)(1)(A), Texas would 
have to offset VMT growth even while vehicle emissions are declining. 
Although the statutory language could be read to require offsetting any 
VMT growth, EPA believes that the language can also be read so that 
only actual emissions increases resulting from VMT growth need to be 
offset. The statute by its own terms requires offsetting of ``any 
growth in emissions from growth in VMT.'' It is reasonable to interpret 
this language as requiring that VMT growth must be offset only where 
such growth results in emissions increases from the motor vehicle fleet 
in the area. Our interpretation of the language of section

[[Page 57249]]

182(d)(1)(A) is entitled to deference. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 
467 U.S. 837, 842-44 (1984).
    While it is true that the language in the House Committee Report 
could appear to support the ED's interpretation of the statutory 
language, such an interpretation would have drastic implications for 
Texas if the State were forced to impose such draconian control 
measures as mandatory no-drive restrictions to fully offset the effects 
of increasing VMT if the area were forced to ignore the beneficial 
impacts of all vehicle tailpipe and alternative fuel controls. Although 
the original authors of this provision and of the House Committee 
Report on this provision may in fact have intended this result, EPA 
does not believe that the Congress as a whole, or even the full House 
of Representatives, believed at the time it voted to pass the CAA 
Amendments that the words of this provision would impose such severe 
restrictions. There is no further legislative history on this aspect of 
the provision, nor was it discussed at all by any member of Congress 
during subsequent legislative debate and adoption.
    Given the susceptibility of the statutory language to these two 
alternative interpretations, EPA believes it is the Agency's role in 
administering the statute to take the interpretation most reasonable in 
light of the practical implications of such interpretation, and the 
purposes and intent of the statutory scheme as a whole. In the context 
of the intricate planning requirements Congress established in title I 
to bring areas towards attainment of the ozone standard, and in light 
of the absence of any discussion of this aspect of the VMT Offset 
provision by the Congress as a whole (either in floor debate or in the 
Conference Report), EPA has consistently concluded that the appropriate 
interpretation of section 182(d)(1)(A) requires offsetting VMT growth 
only when such growth would result in actual emissions increases.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As noted above, EPA has applied this interpretation since 
the enactment of the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act adding 
section 182(d)(1)(A), even in response to adverse comments submitted 
on other rulemaking actions. See, e.g., 60 FR 48898 (final approval 
of Illinois'' SIP) and 60 FR 39720-39721 (final approval of 
Indiana's SIP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 2: The comment asserts that the VMT Offset SIP submitted by 
the State ``does not contain sufficient measures to limit motor vehicle 
emissions to the levels needed for attainment'' because ``the area has 
not adopted sufficient control measures to ensure that total area 
emissions will attain the NAAQS.'' The comment argues that EPA has not 
adequately assessed the VMT Offset SIP against the statutory 
requirement that the SIP provide adequate enforceable control measures. 
In effect the comment asserts that EPA may not approve the HGA's VMT 
SIP until the HGA is able to demonstrate that its entire SIP will 
attain the NAAQS.
    Response: As an initial matter, EPA does believe the area has an 
approvable RFP and attainment demonstration SIP, and we refer you to 
that corresponding final action for the HGA area taken and published 
separately in this Federal Register. The inclusion of the RFP and 
attainment demonstration in the corresponding final action satisfies 
the second and third elements of VMT Offset in 182(d)(1)(A), as 
discussed below.
    As described in the General Preamble and above, the purpose of 
section 182(d)(1)(A) of the Act is to prevent growth in motor vehicle 
emissions from cancelling out the emissions reduction benefits of the 
federally mandated programs in the Act. EPA believes it is appropriate 
to interpret the VMT Offset provisions of the Act to account for how 
States can practicably comply with each of the provision's elements, as 
discussed in detail below.
    The VMT Offset provision requires that States submit by November 
15, 1992 specific enforceable Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) 
and Strategies to offset any growth in emissions from growth in VMT or 
number of vehicle trips, sufficient enough to allow total area 
emissions to comply with the RFP and attainment requirements of the 
Act. The EPA has observed that these three elements (i.e. offsetting 
growth in mobile source emissions, attainment of the RFP reduction, and 
attainment of the ozone NAAQS) create a timing problem of which 
Congress was perhaps not fully aware.\3\ The SIP submittals showing 
attainment of the 1996 15 percent Rate-of-Progress (ROP) and the post-
1996 RFP and NAAQS attainment demonstration are broader in scope than 
growth in VMT or in numbers of vehicle trips in that they necessarily 
address emissions trends and control measures for non motor vehicle 
emissions sources and, in the case of attainment demonstrations, 
involve complex photochemical modeling studies. It was neither 
practicable nor reasonable to expect that the subsequently required 
submissions could be developed and implemented so far ahead of schedule 
as to effectively influence the VMT Offset submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See, e.g., 61 FR 53624-25; 61 FR 51215; 60 FR 48896; 60 FR 
38719; 60 FR 22284, 22285 (May 5, 1995) (final approval of 
Wisconsin's SIP); and 60 FR 2565-2567.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA does not believe that Congress intended the VMT Offset 
provisions to advance the dates for these broader submissions. 
Consequently, EPA believes it is appropriate to interpret the Act to 
provide for staged deadlines for submittal of the elements of the VMT 
Offset SIP.
    Section 182(d)(1)(A) sets forth three elements that must be met by 
a VMT Offset SIP. Under EPA's interpretation, the three required 
elements of section 182(d)(1)(A) are separable, and could be divided 
into three separate submissions that could be submitted on different 
dates. Section 179(a) of the Act, in establishing how EPA would be 
required to apply mandatory sanctions if a State fails to submit a full 
SIP, also provides that the sanctions clock starts if a State fails to 
submit one or more SIP elements, as determined by the Administrator. 
The EPA believes that this language delegates to EPA the authority to 
determine that the different elements of the SIP submissions are 
separable. Moreover, given the continued timing problems addressed 
above, EPA believes it is appropriate to allow States to separate the 
VMT Offset SIP into three elements, each to be submitted at different 
times: (1) The initial requirement to submit TCMs that offset growth in 
emissions; (2) the requirement to comply within the 15 percent periodic 
reduction requirement of the Act; and (3) the requirement to comply 
with the post-1996 periodic reduction and attainment requirements of 
the Act.
    Under this approach, the first element--the emissions growth offset 
element--was due on November 15, 1992. The EPA believes this element is 
not necessarily dependent upon the development of the other elements. 
The State could submit the emissions growth offset element independent 
of an analysis of that element's consistency with the RFP or attainment 
requirements of the Act. Emissions trends from other sources need not 
be considered to show compliance with this particular offset element. 
The first element requires that a State submit a revision that 
demonstrates the trend in motor vehicle emissions from a 1990 baseline 
to the year for attaining the NAAQS for ozone, that year is 2007. As 
described in the General Preamble, and reiterated above, the purpose is 
to prevent growth in motor vehicle emissions from canceling out the 
emission reduction benefits realized from the federally mandated 
programs in the Act. The EPA interprets section

[[Page 57250]]

182(d)(1)(A) to require that sufficient measures be adopted so that 
projected motor vehicle VOC emissions will never be higher during the 
ozone season in one year than during the ozone season the year before. 
When growth in VMT and vehicle trips would otherwise cause a motor 
vehicle emissions upturn, this upturn must be prevented. The emissions 
level at the point of potential upturn becomes a ceiling on motor 
vehicle emissions. This requirement applies to projected emissions in 
the years between the submission of the SIP revision and the attainment 
deadline and is above and beyond the separate requirements for the RFP 
and attainment demonstration.
    Comment 3. The comment argues that EPA is allowing emissions 
reduction credit for elements contributing to reduced VMT and reduced 
emissions ``without requiring that such measures be enforceable 
obligations of the SIP.'' The comment claims that EPA has allowed Texas 
to base its calculations for compliance ``on emissions expected from 
the implementation of all facilities and services included in the H-GAC 
regional transportation plan and TIP prior to the attainment date, and 
not based solely on the TCMs contained in the VMT SIP revision.''
    Response: EPA allowed Texas to calculate compliance with the 
emissions ceiling line using only the TCMs contained in the VMT SIP 
revision as further described below. The only TCMs EPA allowed Texas to 
receive credit for are those included in the 15 Percent ROP Plan 
submitted on July 24, 1996. See the corresponding final action for the 
HGA area taken and published separately in this Federal Register, see 
also the Final Conditional Interim Rule (63 FR 62943) and the Proposed 
Conditional Interim Rule (62 FR 37175, 37180). These TCMs have been 
included in the VMT Offset SIP as measurable emission reduction 
credits. As is stated in the direct final rule to which this comment 
applies (66 FR 35903), the TCMs approved for emission reduction credit 
are as follows in Table 1, with their associated emission benefits, as 
submitted in the VMT Offset SIP State submittal and as corresponds to 
Appendix 7K of the 15 Percent ROP Plan submittal:

                       Table 1.--Transportation Control Measures Approved for VMT Offsets
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   TCM                               Quantity                  Emissions benefit in 1996
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes.............  14.7 miles..................  Approximately 424 pounds of VOC per
                                                                          day.
Park-and-Ride Lots.......................  3,745 parking spaces........  Approximately 69 pounds of VOC per
                                                                          day.
Arterial Traffic Management Systems......  41 miles....................  Approximately 77 pounds of VOC per
                                                                          day.
Computer Transportation Management         22.2 miles..................  Approximately 169 pounds of VOC per
 Systems.                                                                 day.
Signalization............................  2.9 miles...................  Approximately 3 pounds of VOC per
                                                                          day.
                                             ..........................  Total: approximately 742 pounds per
                                                                          day = 0.36 tons per day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These emission benefits are enforceable, as they are approved in 
the 15 Percent ROP SIP and all TCMs included in the SIP are enforceable 
by rule. The direct final rule also stated that no credit is taken in 
the SIP for any additional TCMs. Thus the lower curve, depicting the 
mandated controls, the Motorist Choice I/M Program, and TCMs, includes 
only the enforceable TCMs through FY 1996 described above. The TCMs for 
FY 1999 and FY 2007, although explained, are not credited for the VMT 
Offset SIP demonstrations. In addition, although the State chose to 
include the five 1996 TCMs as enforceable measures, the analysis shows 
that even these measures are not necessary to offset emissions from 
growth in VMT.
    Modeling of the lower curve in Graph 1 of the Technical Support 
Document, at no time, shows the emission estimates meeting or exceeding 
the lowest point in the upper curve, reached in 2007. The upper curve 
reached its lowest point in 2007, so there is no upward turn 
demonstrated in this instance. Usually the low point establishes the 
ceiling, but no true ceiling is established because there is no upward 
turn of the curve by which to identify the lowest point. Since the 
curve does not turn upward (indicating the control programs are 
efficiently offsetting increases from growth in VMT) no TCMs would be 
necessary to offset emissions from growth in VMT. The State included 
the five TCMs, although they are not necessary for this plan to be 
approved.
    Three comments were also received in response to the proposed 
disapproval (referenced above) of the 1993 and 1994 submittals which 
comprised the VMT Offset requirement. Two comments supported the 
proposed disapproval because the SIP relied upon the repealed I/M and 
ETR Programs. The SIP submittal being acted upon in this action does 
not rely on those two programs. A third comment supported approval of 
the August 1997 VMT Offset submittal.

3. Final Action

    The EPA has determined that Texas has adequately demonstrated that 
emissions from growth in VMT and number of vehicle trips will not rise 
above the ceiling, or low point shown as the effects of required 
reductions from mandatory programs. Therefore, based on the State's 
submittal and in consideration of the comments received in response to 
the proposal, we are approving the VMT Offset SIP, submitted by the 
State on August 25, 1997 and with minor, non-substantive revisions 
submitted on May 17, 2000, under sections 110 and 182 of the Act, as 
meeting the requirements of the first element of section 182(d)(1)(A). 
Please see the corresponding final action for the HGA area on RFP and 
attainment taken and published separately in this Federal Register for 
EPA's conclusions regarding the State's satisfaction of the second and 
third elements of section 182(d)(1)(A).

4. Administrative Requirements

    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, I hereby certify 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

[[Page 57251]]

unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, 
as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 
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. section 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. 
section 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 January 14, 2002. 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).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 
oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 
organic compounds.

    Dated: October 15, 2001.
Gregg A. Cooke,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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 Sec. 52.2270, paragraph (e), in the table entitled ``EPA 
Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the 
Texas SIP,'' one entry is added to the end of the table to read as 
follows:


Sec. 52.2270  Identification of Plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

              EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            State
                                        Applicable        submittal
      Name of SIP provision            geographic or        date/       EPA approval date         Comments
                                    nonattainment area    effective
                                                             date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
                                                        *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Miles Traveled Offset      Houston/Galveston      05/09/2000  [Insert 11/14/2001    Originally submitted
 Plan.                              Ozone nonattainment                Federal Register      11/12/93 and
                                    area.                              cite.].               revised 11/06/94, 8/
                                                                                             25/97, and 05/17/
                                                                                             00.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 57252]]

[FR Doc. 01-27585 Filed 11-13-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P