[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