Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 7, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 9203

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[TX–105–1–7404; FRL–6935–3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality State Implementation Plans;

Texas; Approval of Clean Fuel Fleet

Substitution Program Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is taking direct final

rulemaking action to approve the State

of Texas’ Clean Fuel Fleet (CFF)

substitute plan, incorporating it into the

State Implementation Plan (SIP) under

the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA). The

State’s CFF Substitute Plan is addressed

in the SIP revision submitted on August

27 1998, and supplemented with

additional technical information in a

letter to the EPA dated November 17,

2000, by the State of Texas for the

purpose of establishing a substitute CFF

program.

DATES: This direct final rule takes effect

on April 9, 2001 without further notice,

unless EPA receives adverse or critical

comments by March 9, 2001. If EPA

does receive adverse comments, we will

publish a timely withdrawal of the

direct final rule in the Federal Register

and inform the public that the rule will

not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to Mr.

Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Air Planning

Section (6PD–L), at the EPA Region 6

Office listed below. Copies of

documents relevant to this action,

including the Technical Support

Document (TSD) 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, Dallas, Texas

75202–2733

Texas Natural Resource Conservation

Commission, Office of Air Quality,

12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas

78753

Anyone wanting to examine these

documents should make an

appointment with the appropriate office

at least two working days in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven Pratt, Air Planning Section

(6PD–L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,

Texas 75202–2733. Telephone Number

(214) 665–2140, E–Mail Address:

pratt.steven@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’

and ‘‘our’’ means EPA. This section is

organized as follows:

1. What action Is the EPA Taking Today?

2. What is the background?

3. What did the State submit?

4. How is Texas meeting the Clean Fuel

Fleets Requirements?

5. Why is EPA approving the Texas Clean

Fuel Fleets Substitute Plan SIP revision?

6. How Does Clean Fuel Fleets Affect Air

Quality in Texas?

7. What is the Process for EPA’s Approval

of this SIP Revision?

1. What Action Is the EPA Taking

Today?

The EPA is approving Texas’ CFF

Substitute Plan submitted on August 27

1998, as supplemented with additional

technical information in a letter to the

EPA dated November 17, 2000, into the

Texas SIP as meeting the requirements

of Section 182(c)(4) of the CAA. A

detailed rationale for this direct final

approval is set forth in the

accompanying Technical Support

Document (TSD) available from the U.S.

EPA Region 6 office.

2. What Is the Background?

On November 15, 1990, Congress

enacted amendments to the 1997 Clean

Air Act; Public Law 101–549, 104 Stat.

2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

The Federal Clean Fuel Fleet (CFF)

program is contained under part C,

entitled, ‘‘Clean Fuel Vehicles,’’ of Title

II of the Clean Air Act, as amended

November 15, 1990. Part C was added

to the CAA to establish two programs:

a clean-fuel vehicle pilot program in the

State of California (the California Pilot

Test Program) and the Federal CFF

program in certain ozone and carbon

monoxide (CO) nonattainment areas.

Section 182(c)(4) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.

7511a, allows States to opt-out of the

Federal CFF program by submitting, for

EPA approval, a SIP revision consisting

of a substitute program resulting in as

much or greater long term emissions

reductions in ozone producing and toxic

air emissions as the Federal CFF

program. The EPA may approve such a

revision ‘‘only if it consists exclusively

of provisions other than those required

under this Chapter for the area.’’

The State of Texas chose to opt-out of

the Federal CFF program in a committal

SIP revision submitted to EPA on

November 15, 1992. In July 1994, Texas

submitted the State’s opt-out program in

a SIP revision to EPA and adopted rules

to implement the Texas CFF program.

The Texas Clean Fuel Fleet SIP was

revised based upon State legislation

changes and resubmitted to EPA on

August 6, 1996. On June 20, 1997, the

supporting legislation for the August 6,

1996, submittal was modified and, as a

result, the legislative authority in the

submittal was no longer in effect. On

October 17, 1997, we proposed

disapproval of the Texas Clean Fuel

Fleet SIP due to changes in the State law

that altered the current SIP submittal,

and because the State had not made a

convincing and compelling equivalency

determination with the Federal CFF

program.

3. What Did the State Submit?

The State submitted a further SIP

revision to Chapter 114 and the State’s

plan for implementing a substitute

program to opt out of the Federal CFF

program on August 27, 1998. The

revision was adopted after reasonable

public notice and public hearing as

required by sections 110(a)(2) and 110(l)

of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.102(f). In the

August 27, 1998, submittal, Texas also

withdrew the August 6, 1996, CFF SIP

revision. On October 1, 1998, we

determined the SIP revision met

completeness criteria. The State

supplemented the SIP with additional

technical information in a letter to the

EPA dated November 17, 2000. This

additional technical information

clarified how the State would make up

the shortfall for nitrogen oxide ( NOX)

and volatile organic compound (VOC)

emissions between the State’s present

(August 27, 1998) CFF program and the

Federal CFF program.

A more detailed discussion of the

Texas Clean Fleet program elements and

control strategy can be found in the

TSD.

4. How Is Texas Meeting the Clean Fuel

Fleets Requirements?

Texas has decided to opt out of the

Federal CFF program. Texas’ CFF

substitute plan relies on a State fleet

program—the Texas Clean Fleet (TCF)

program—supplemented with

additional VOC and NOX emission

controls.

The TCF program is a clean fleet

program that will be implemented in all

serious, severe and extreme

nonattainment areas in Texas. It is

similar to the Federal CFF program, but

with a number of significant differences

that, but for the supplemental controls,

result in an emissions reduction

shortfall as compared to the Federal CFF

program. Key differences include later

dates for scheduled low emission

vehicles (LEV) purchases, number and

type of vehicles allowed in a clean fleet,

exclusions from fleet requirements, and

the emissions credit program. Modeling

of the Federal CFF program and the TCF

program was performed using a

spreadsheet model developed by the

TNRCC’s Mobile Source Section. The

9204 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 7, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

EPA has reviewed and is accepting the

model (refer to the TSD for model

details). The spreadsheet model

estimates the number of low emission

vehicles and conventional vehicles in

each program and extrapolates the

amount of emission reductions

generated by each program through the

number of LEV’s purchased. The

estimated shortfalls for the TCF program

for the 1998–2007 ten-year period for

ozone-producing chemicals are 947.9

total tons (0.38 tons per day (tpd)) for

VOC and 848.2 total tons (0.34 tpd) for

NOX.

Additional emission controls are used

to make up this shortfall between the

TCF and the Federal CFF programs.

These controls, which are beyond those

required by the CAA, are discussed in

the following paragraphs.

The State identified additional VOC

emission reductions from VOC controls

on fugitive emissions and VOC transfer

operations totaling 493.9; 19; and 22.4

tpd for Houston-Galveston (HG), El

Paso, and Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) nonattainment areas, respectively. For the

ten year 1998–2007 period this amounts

to 123,475; 5,600; and 4,750 total tons

for the HG, El Paso, and DFW areas,

respectively. These emission reductions

are achieved through the State

requirements codified in 30 TAC

Sections 115.352–115.359, regarding

Fugitive Emission Control in Petroleum

Refining, Natural Gas/Gasoline

Processing, and Petrochemical Processes

in Ozone Nonattainment Areas, and the

State requirements codified in 30 TAC

Section 115.211(a)(1), regarding Volatile

Organic Compound Transfer Operations

at Gasoline Terminals. 62 FR 27964

(May 22, 1997). These reductions more

than offset the shortfalls for VOCs.

The State also identified excess NOX

emission reductions resulting from State

mandated reduction requirements

placed on electric generating facilities

(EGFs) by the 76th Texas Legislature in

Senate Bill 7 for the HG and DFW areas.

65 FR 64914 (October 31, 2000). These

reductions, combined with other State

mandated reductions as detailed in the

DFW, Beaumont/Port Arthur (BPA), and

HG areas SIPs, all in excess of those

required by the CAA, provide for a 184

tpd reduction in the HG area, and a 129

tpd reduction in the DFW area. As El

Paso has a NOX waiver in place, the

combined VOC and NOX shortfall can

be made up with VOC offsets alone.

The emission reductions for Texas’

implementation of a substitute plan

greatly exceed the reductions that

would have been achieved with the

Federal CFF program. Therefore, the

State’s substitute plan will meet the

Federal CFF requirement for VOC and

NOX emissions reductions. Details on

the calculations for the TCF emission

reductions, shortfalls and control

measures used to make up the shortfalls,

can be found in the TSD for this

rulemaking.

5. Why Is EPA Approving the Texas

Clean Fuel Fleets Substitute Plan SIP

Revision?

EPA is approving Texas’ Clean Fuel

Fleets Substitute Plan SIP revision

because the State has successfully

demonstrated that it will achieve long

term reductions in emissions of ozone

producing and toxic air pollutants

equivalent to those that would have

been achieved by the Federal CFF

program. We agree with the State’s

emission reduction calculations and the

modeling it used. Further information

on Texas’ Clean Fuel Fleets Substitute

Plan SIP revision and EPA’s evaluation

of the SIP revision can be found in the

TSD for this rulemaking Copies of this

document are available, upon request,

from the EPA Regional Office listed in

the ADDRESSES section of this document.

6. How Does Clean Fuel Fleets Affect

Air Quality in Texas?

EPA’s approval of Texas’ CFF

Substitute Plan will have a positive

benefit on air quality in Texas. The

Texas CFF substitute plan achieves

equivalent or better long term

reductions in emissions of ozone

producing and toxic air pollutants than

the Federal CFF program in the DFW, El

Paso, and HG ozone nonattainment

areas.

7. What Is the Process for EPA’s

Approval of This SIP Revision?

EPA is publishing this rule without

prior proposal because we view this as

a noncontroversial amendment and

anticipate no adverse comments.

However, in the proposed rules section

of this Federal Register publication,

EPA is also publishing a separate

document that will serve as the proposal

to approve this SIP revision should we

receive relevant adverse. This action

will be effective April 9, 2001 without

further notice unless we receive relevant

adverse comments by March 9, 2001.

If EPA does receive adverse

comments, we will withdraw the direct

final rule and publish a document

stating that the rule will not take effect.

We will then respond to all public

comments received in a subsequent

final rule based on the proposed rule.

The EPA will not institute a second

comment period on the proposed rule.

If you are interested in commenting on

this action, you should do so at this

time. If no such comments are received,

you should know that this rule will be

effective on April 9, 2001 and no further

action will be taken on the proposed

rule.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or establishing

a precedent for any future request for

revision to any State 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

approves 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

(Public Law 104–4). For the same

reason, this proposed rule also does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of tribal governments, as

specified by Executive Order 13084 (63

FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This proposed

rule will not have substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government, as

specified in Executive Order 13132 (64

FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it

merely approves a State rule

implementing a federal standard, and

does not alter the relationship or the

distribution of power and

responsibilities established in the Clean

Air Act. This 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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 7, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 9205

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. The proposed

rule does not involve special

consideration of environmental justice

related issues as required by Executive

Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16,

1994). 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. The

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 oxides, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: January 4, 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 § 52.2270 the table in paragraph

(c) is amended by revising all of Chapter

114 (Reg 4)—Control of Air Pollution

From Motor Vehicles, to read as follows:

§ 52.2270 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

EPA APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE TEXAS SIP

State citation Title/subject

State approval/submittal date

EPA approval date Explanation

*******

Chapter 114 (Reg 4)—Control of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles

Subchapter A—Definitions

Section 114.1 ........................... Definitions .............................. 07/29/1998 [2/7/01 and Federal Register

cite].

Section 114.3 ........................... Low Emission Vehicle Fleet

Definitions.

07/29/1998 [2/7/01 and Federal Register

cite].

Subchapter E—Low Emission Vehicle Fleet Requirements

Section 114.150 ....................... Requirements for Mass Transit Authorities.07/29/1998 [2/7/01 and Federal Register

cite].

Section 114.151 ....................... Requirements for Local Governments and Private Federal entities.07/29/1998 [2/7/01 and Federal Register

cite].

Section 114.153 ....................... Exceptions ............................. 07/29/1998 [2/7/01 and Federal Register

cite].

Section 114.154 ....................... Exceptions for Certain Mass

Transit Authorities.

07/29/1998 [2/7/01 and Federal Register

cite].

Section 114.155 ....................... Reporting ............................... 07/29/1998 [2/7/01 and Federal Register

cite].

Section 114.156 ....................... Recordkeeping ...................... 07/29/1998 [2/7/01 and Federal Register

cite].

Section 114.157 ....................... Low Emission Vehicle Fleet

Program Compliance Credits.

07/29/1998 [2/7/01 and Federal Register

cite].

Subchapter F—Vehicle Retirement and Mobile Emission Reduction Credits

Division 1: Mobile Emission Reduction Credits

Section 114.201 ....................... Mobile Emission Reduction

Credit Program.

07/29/1998 [2/7/01 and Federal Register

cite].

Section 114.202 ....................... Texas Mobile Emission Reduction Credit Fund.07/29/1998 [2/7/01 and Federal Register

cite].

9206 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 26 / Wednesday, February 7, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

EPA APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE TEXAS SIP—Continued

State citation Title/subject

State approval/submittal date

EPA approval date Explanation

Subchapter G—Transportation Planning

Section 114.260 ....................... Transportation Conformity ..... 12/10/98 7/8/99, 64 FR 36794 ............. 1. No action is taken on the

portions of 30 TAC

114.260 that contain 40

CFR 93.102(c), 93.104(d),

93.109(c)–(f), 93.118(e),

93.120(a)(2), 93.121(a)(1),

and 93.124(b). 2. TNRCC

order (Docket No. 98–0418

RUL) November 23, 1998.

[FR Doc. 01–1824 Filed 2–6–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR PART 52

[IL198–1a; FRL–6935–4]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Illinois

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The USEPA is approving a

negative declaration submitted by the

State of Illinois which indicates there is

no need for regulations covering the

industrial cleaning solvents category in

the Chicago ozone nonattainment area.

The Chicago ozone nonattainment area

includes Cook County, DuPage County,

Aux Sable and Goose Lake Townships

in Grundy County, Kane County,

Oswego Township in Kendall County,

Lake County, McHenry County and Will

County. The State’s negative declaration

regarding industrial cleaning solvents

category sources was submitted to

USEPA in a letter dated December 23,

1999.

DATES: This rule is effective on April 9,

2001, unless USEPA receives adverse

written comments by March 9, 2001. If

adverse comment is received, USEPA

will publish a timely withdrawal of the

rule in the Federal Register and inform

the public that the rule will not take

effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be sent to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,

Regulation Development Section, Air

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604.

Copies of the negative declarations are

available for inspection at the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604. (Please telephone

Randolph O. Cano at (312) 886–6036

before visiting the Region 5 Office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Randolph O. Cano, Environmental

Protection Specialist, Regulation

Development Section, Air Programs

Branch (AR–18J), USEPA, Region 5,

Chicago, Illinois 60604,(312) 886–6036.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document wherever

‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’, or ‘‘our’’ is used we mean

USEPA.

Table of Contents

I. What is the background for this action?

II. Negative declarations and their

justification.

III. USEPA review of the negative

declarations.

IV. Administrative requirements.

A. Executive Order 12866

B. Executive Order 13045

C. Executive Order 13084

D. Executive Order 13132

E. Regulatory Flexibility

F. Unfunded Mandates

G. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

I. What Is the Background for This

Action?

Under the Clean Air Act (Act), as

amended in 1977, ozone nonattainment

areas were required to adopt emission

controls reflective of reasonably

available control technology (RACT) for

sources of volatile organic compound

(VOC) emissions. USEPA issued three

sets of control technique guidelines

(CTGs) documents, establishing a

‘‘presumptive norm’’ for RACT for

various categories of VOC sources. The

three sets of CTGs were: (1) Group I—

issued before January 1978 (15 CTGs);

(2) Group II—issued in 1978 (9 CTGs);

and (3) Group III—issued in the early

1980’s (5 CTGs). Those sources not

covered by a CTG are called non-CTG

sources. USEPA determined that an

area’s State Implementation Plan (SIP)

approved attainment date established

which RACT rules the area needed to

adopt and implement. In those areas

where the State sought an extension of

the attainment date under section

172(a)(2) to as late as December 31,

1987, RACT was required for all CTG

sources and for all major (100 tons per

year or more of VOC emissions under

the pre-amended Act) non-CTG sources.

Illinois sought and received such an

extension for the Chicago area. Section 182(b)(2) of the Act as

amended in 1990 requires States to

adopt RACT rules for all areas

designated nonattainment for ozone and

classified as moderate or above. There

are three parts to the section 182(b)(2)

RACT requirement: (1) RACT for

sources covered by an existing CTG—

i.e., a CTG issued prior to the enactment

of the amended Act of 1990; (2) RACT

for sources covered by a post-enactment

CTG; and (3) all major sources not

covered by a CTG. These section

182(b)(2) RACT requirements are

referred to as the RACT ‘‘catch-up’’

requirements. Section 183 of the amended Act

requires USEPA to issue CTGs for 13

source categories by November 15, 1993.

CTGs were published by this date for

the following source categories—

Synthetic Organic Chemical

Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI)

Reactors and Distillation, aerospace

manufacturing coating operations,

shipbuilding and ship repair coating

operations, and wood furniture coating

operations; however, the CTGs for the

remaining source categories have not

been completed. The amended Act

requires States to submit rules for

sources covered by a post-enactment

CTG in accordance with a schedule

specified in the CTG document. The USEPA created a control

guideline document as Appendix E to

the General Preamble for the