Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 20927

this final rule will not have a significant

economic impact on substantial number

of small entities.

This rule will affect the following

entities, some of which may be small

entities: fishing vessels and construction

vessels transiting the Kennebec River

from 7 a.m. April 4, 2001 to 12 p.m.

June 16, 2001. s

This safety zone will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities for

the following reasons: This rule will

only be in effect for approximately 73

days, is limited in duration and area,

and will be advertised in advance.

Assistance for Small Entities

Under section 213(a) of the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–

121), we offer to assist small entities in

understanding the rule so that they may

better evaluate its effects on them and

participate in the rulemaking process.

Small businesses may send comments

on the actions of Federal employees

who enforce, or otherwise determine

compliance with, Federal regulations to

the Small Business and Agriculture

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman

and the Regional Small Business

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The

Ombudsman evaluates these actions

annually and rates each agency’s

responsiveness to small business. If you

wish to comment on actions by

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–

888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247).

Collection of Information

This rule contains no collection of

information requirements under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.).

Federalism

The Coast Guard has analyzed this

rule under the principles and criteria

contained in Executive Order 113132

and have determined that this rule does

not have sufficient federalism

implications for Federalism under that

order.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) governs

the issuance of Federal regulations that

require unfunded mandates. An

Unfunded Mandate is a regulation that

requires a state, local or tribal

government or the private sector to

incur costs without the Federal

government’s having first provided the

funds to pay those costs. This rule will

not impose an Unfunded Mandate.

Taking of Private Property

This rule will not effect a taking of

private property or otherwise have

taking implications under Executive

Order 12630, Governmental Actions and

Interference with Constitutionally

Protected Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

This rule meets applicable standards

in section 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive

Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to

minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity

and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

The Coast Guard has analyzed this

rule under Executive Order 13045,

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks. This rule is not an economically

significant rule and does not concern an

environmental risk to health or risk to

safety that may disproportionately affect

children.

Indian Tribal Governments

This rule does not have tribal

implications under Executive Order

13175, Consultation and Coordination

with Indian Tribal Governments. A rule

with tribal implications has 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.

Environment

The Coast Guard has considered the

environmental impact of this regulation

and concluded that, under Figure 2–1,

paragraph 34(g) of Commandant

Instruction M16475.1C, this rule is

categorically excluded from further

environmental documentation. A

Categorical Exclusion Determination

and an Environmental Analysis

Checklist is available in the docket for

inspection or copying.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation

(water), Reporting and record keeping

requirements, Security measures,

Waterways.

Regulation

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33

CFR part 165 as follows:

1. The authority citation for part 165

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191;

33 CFR 1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6 and 160.5;

49 CFR 1.46.

2. Add temporary section, 165.T01–

047 to read as follows:

§ 165.T01–047 Naval Force Protection,

Bath Iron Works, Bath, ME.

(a) Location. The following is a safety

zone: all waters in a 400-foot radius

around Bath Iron Works, Bath, ME.

(b) Effective date. 7 a.m. April 4, 2001

to 12 p.m. June 16, 2001.

(c) Regulations. (1) The general

regulations contained in § 165.23 and

the regulations specifically relating to

safety zones in § 165.20 of this part

apply.

(2) All persons and vessels shall

comply with the instructions of the

Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the

designated on scene patrol personnel.

Upon being hailed by designated

personnel via siren, radio, flashing light,

bull horn, or other means, the operator

of the vessel and other persons inside

the safety zone shall proceed as

directed.

(3) Entry or movement within this

zone is prohibited unless authorized by

the Captain of the Port, Portland, ME.

Dated: April 4, 2001.

Roy A. Nash,

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of

the Port.

[FR Doc. 01–10420 Filed 4–25–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[TX–114–2–7494; FRL–6969–4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality State Implementation Plans

(SIP); Texas: Control of Gasoline

Volatility

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

submitted by the State of Texas

establishing a low-Reid Vapor Pressure

(RVP) fuel requirement for gasoline

distributed in 95 counties in the eastern

and central parts of Texas. Texas

developed this fuel requirement to

reduce emissions of volatile organic

compounds (VOCs) as part of the State’s

strategy to achieve the National

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)

for ozone in the Houston-Galveston and

Dallas-Fort Worth nonattainment areas.

We are approving Texas’ fuel

requirement into the SIP because we

found that the fuel requirement is in

accordance with the requirements of the

Clean Air Act (the Act) as amended in

1990 and is necessary for these

20928 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

nonattainment areas to achieve the

ozone NAAQS.

DATES: This final rule is effective on

May 29, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the following

locations. Persons interested in

examining these documents should

make an appointment with the

appropriate office at least 24 hours

before the visiting day.

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 78753.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Sandra G. Rennie, Air Planning Section

(6PD–L), EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733,

telephone (214) 665–7367.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

and ‘‘our’’ means EPA.

What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

We are granting final approval of

Texas’ low RVP fuel requirement for

gasoline distributed in 95 counties in

the eastern and central parts of Texas.

The State’s low-RVP program will only

apply in the attainment counties listed

in this action and will not apply in the

designated nonattainment counties in

the Houston-Galveston (HGA), DallasFort Worth (DFW), or Beaumont-Port

Arthur (BPA) ozone nonattainment

areas because these areas are already

subject to Federal fuel controls that are

at least as stringent.

What Are the Clean Air Act

Requirements?

Section 172 of the Act provides the

general requirements for nonattainment

plans. Section 172(c)(6) and section 110

require SIPs to include enforceable

emission limitations, and such other

control measures, means or techniques

as well as schedules and timetables for

compliance, as may be necessary to

provide for attainment by the applicable

attainment date. Today’s SIP revision

involves approval of one of a collection

of controls adopted by the State to

achieve the ozone standard in the DFW

and HGA nonattainment areas as

required under section 172. EPA

approval of this SIP revision is governed

by section 110 of the Act.

In addition to these general

requirements, section 211(c)(4)(C)

provides that a state fuel control,

otherwise preempted under section

211(c)(4)(A), may only be approved into

a SIP if EPA finds the fuel control is

‘‘necessary’’ to achieve a NAAQS.

Today’s approval of the State’s fuel

control also meets the requirements of

section 211(c)(4)(C) because we have

found that the control is ‘‘necessary’’ to

achieve the NAAQS in the DFW and

HGA ozone nonattainment areas.

Why Is EPA Taking This Action?

We are taking this action because the

State submitted an adequate

demonstration to show the necessity for

this fuel requirement to achieve the

NAAQS in the DFW and HGA ozone

nonattainment areas.

What Does the State’s Low-RVP

Regulation Include?

The State’s low-RVP regulation

requires that gasoline sold within the 95

attainment counties listed in the

regulations have a maximum RVP of 7.8

psi. The regulations apply to gasoline

sold at gasoline dispensing facilities

between June 1 and October 1 of each

year, and between May 1 and October 1

of each year for bulk plants, gasoline

terminals and gasoline storage vessels.

The 95 central and eastern Texas

counties affected by these rules are

Anderson, Angelina, Aransas, Atascosa,

Austin, Bastrop, Bee, Bell, Bexar,

Bosque, Bowie, Brazos, Burleson,

Caldwell, Calhoun, Camp, Cass,

Cherokee, Colorado, Comal, Cooke,

Coryell, De Witt, Delta, Ellis, Falls,

Fannin, Fayette, Franklin, Freestone,

Goliad, Gonzales, Grayson, Gregg,

Grimes, Guadalupe, Harrison, Hays,

Henderson, Hill, Hood, Hopkins,

Houston, Hunt, Jackson, Jasper,

Johnson, Karnes, Kaufman, Lamar,

Lavaca, Lee, Leon, Limestone, Live Oak,

Madison, Marion, Matagorda,

McLennan, Milam, Morris,

Nacogdoches, Navarro, Newton, Nueces,

Panola, Parker, Polk, Rains, Red River,

Refugio, Robertson, Rockwall, Rusk,

Sabine, San Jacinto, San Patricio, San

Augustine, Shelby, Smith, Somervell,

Titus, Travis, Trinity, Tyler, Upshur,

Van Zandt, Victoria, Walker,

Washington, Wharton, Williamson,

Wilson, Wise, and Wood Counties.

What Did the State Submit?

The State submitted SIP revisions for

30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC)

114 on August 16, 1999, and April 25,

2000, as well as technical supplements

dated October 13, 1999, and February

11, 2000. The submittals contained data

and analyses to support a finding under

section 211(c)(4)(C) that the State’s lowRVP requirement is necessary for the

DFW and HGA nonattainment areas to

achieve the ozone NAAQS. For further

discussion of the submittal, see the

proposed approval, 65 FR 69720

(November 20, 2000) and accompanying

Technical Support Document.

What Comments Did EPA Receive in

Response to the November 20, 2000,

Proposed Rule?

EPA received comments on the Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) from the

Texas Oil and Gas Association (TxOGA)

and Southwest Research Institute. A

summary of the comments received and

EPA’s response is presented below.

A. State Regulation of Fuels Outside

Nonattainment Areas

Comment: TXOGA supports the use of

cleaner burning fuel, but opposes the

regional regulation of gasoline in areas

outside of designated nonattainment

areas because they do not believe that

regulation of gasoline in attainment

areas has been demonstrated to be

necessary for NAAQS attainment in the

HGA or DFW areas.

Response: We believe it is reasonable

to justify fuel controls in attainment

areas as ‘‘necessary to achieve the

NAAQS’’ where, as here, it is

demonstrated that emissions reductions

associated with fuel use in the

surrounding attainment areas benefit the

nonattainment areas of concern and

there are no reasonable or practicable

non-fuel alternatives that would bring

about timely attainment. Regional

approaches to reducing pollution are

acceptable to EPA because air pollution

does not recognize political or

geographic boundaries.

In our Technical Support Document

(TSD) accompanying the proposed

approval, we explained the way in

which the low-RVP program will help

the nonattainment areas achieve the

NAAQS (more detailed discussions of

how the regional fuel benefits the

nonattainment areas are provided in the

responses to comments below). Second,

we reviewed the reasonableness and

practicability of non-fuel control

alternatives. Finally, we showed that

with implementation of all reasonable

and practicable control measures

including the regional fuel control, the

HGA and DFW nonattainment areas will

be able to attain the ozone NAAQS but

with no margin for error.

B. Transport of Emissions and

Emissions From Commuting Vehicles

Comment: TXOGA points out that

controls in areas downwind of the

nonattainment areas do not benefit DFW

or HGA. TXOGA also notes a recent

modeling study showed Corpus Christi

does not affect HGA and asserts that

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 20929

other areas in North Texas claim similar

lack of influence on the DFW area.

Response: The TSD presents specific

modeling data identifying those

counties from which NOX and ozone are

transported to the DFW and/or HGA

nonattainment areas. TXOGA does not

dispute these modeling results or

provide reason not to rely on this data.

The models show that at least 82 of the

95 counties subject to the regional lowRVP control have some meteorological

connection with the DFW and HGA

nonattainment areas such that it is

reasonable to conclude that emissions

reduction in these counties will benefit

the DFW and HGA areas. TxOGA’s

specific examples do not undermine our

overall conclusion that many areas

transport ozone and/or VOCs and that

reduction of emissions in these areas

will benefit nonattainment areas.

Comment: TXOGA argues that the

evaporative benefits from controlling

RVP used in newer vehicles are small

because new vehicle standards already

result in evaporative emissions controls.

In addition, TXOGA argues that the

benefit attributed to vehicles fueling-up

in the attainment areas and commuting

into the nonattainment areas is small

because the large geographic area has

little commuting and people more often

purchase gas in cities and go to

surrounding areas than vice-versa.

Response: TXOGA’s claims that the

benefits associated with commuting

vehicles are small, are unsupported, and

do not undermine the overall

conclusion that controls in these

surrounding areas are reasonably related

to attainment in the DFW and HGA

areas. It should be noted, at the outset,

that TXOGA does not question the

modeled benefits of the low-RVP

program. Its claims regarding the

benefits associated with commuting

vehicles therefore are taken only as a

challenge to EPA’s justification for

approving of the fuel control in

surrounding attainment areas.

The State provided data on

commuting for counties surrounding

DFW and HGA areas. This showed

where potential impacts from

commuting are most significant. For

example, in the DFW area, 17 of the 22

attainment counties immediately

surrounding the nonattainment counties

have 10 percent or more of their county

work trips being made into the

nonattainment counties. These numbers

support EPA’s conclusion that

controlling the fuel in these areas will

benefit the DFW and HGA

nonattainment areas.

TXOGA has provided no basis to

support its assertion that commuting

vehicles are more likely to refuel in the

cities than in the areas in which the

commuters live. It is equally as

reasonable to expect that, given price

and convenience factors, commuters are

at least as likely to refuel in the

surrounding attainment areas as they are

in the nonattainment areas.

In addition, we note that even though

the benefits of a low-RVP fuel are not as

significant in newer vehicles, there is

still a benefit from controlling RVP

across the fleet as a whole. EPA’s

estimates of nationwide vehicle fleet age

distribution indicate that more than half

of the existing light duty vehicle fleet is

eight years or older. Additionally, these

estimates show that the light duty fleet

includes a significant percentage of

trucks (about 40%) which are currently

subject to less stringent emission

standards than passenger cars.

Therefore, it is still reasonable to

conclude that the low-RVP control will

benefit the nonattainment areas, not

only through transport of emissions but

also through reduction in direct

emissions.

C. Distribution

Comment: TXOGA argues that

approval of the regional fuel program

cannot be justified based on distribution

issues because distribution within the

geographic area has nothing to do with

air quality. TXOGA supports as broad a

fuel program as possible including a

national program but argues that even

with the regional plan there will be a

patchwork because pipelines supply

both sides of the program boundary.

Response: We looked at distribution

to support the conclusion that the scope

of the program is reasonable even

though not all of the 95 counties

covered by the rule contribute to air

quality in DFW and HGA. The analysis

shows that at least 82 of these 95

counties contribute emissions to the

DFW and/or HGA nonattainment areas

through either meteorologic transport or

via commuting vehicles, or both. Fuel

controls are therefore justified in these

counties. We concluded that extending

the low-RVP program to the remaining

13 counties was reasonable to simplify

distribution and compliance. EPA has

used similar considerations in

approving other regional fuel controls.

See 54 FR 26030 (June 21, 1989)

(approving low-RVP program in New

York); 55 FR 20601 (May 18, 1990)

(approving low-RVP program in Maine).

We believe that the broader program is

more reasonable than limiting the scope

of the program to only those areas

demonstrated to impact DFW and HGA

air quality, which would result in a

county-by-county patchwork.

D. Necessity

Comment: TxOGA also challenges

EPA’s analysis of the availability of nonfuel alternatives. TxOGA argues that

because the emission reduction benefit

was not quantified in terms of actual

VOC reductions, EPA cannot support

the conclusion that the Regional LowRVP fuel program is the most reasonable

and practicable measure to reduce

background ozone levels and curtail

transport of ozone and precursors in the

nonattainment areas. They argue that

without quantifying the VOC reductions

attributable to the use of low-RVP fuel

in each county, it is not possible to

determine the cost-effectiveness of the

rule in each attainment county and

impossible to determine if more

reasonable and practicable measures are

available.

Response: Texas considered over 300

measures within the nonattainment

areas and submitted a long list of nonfuel measures that it considered for

implementation outside the

nonattainment areas. All reasonable and

practicable measures have been adopted

and the reasons for rejecting the others

have been provided. TxOGA has not

pointed to any particular alternative

control measure that EPA or the State

improperly rejected as unreasonable or

impracticable. Instead, TXOGA argues

generally that the analysis of

alternatives was incomplete. We believe

the analysis of alternatives was

thorough and appropriate even without

strict comparison of cost-effectiveness.

We disagree that a reasonable analysis

of alternatives must be based on a

county-by-county comparison of the

cost-effectiveness of the fuel program

and the cost-effectiveness of other

controls. First, the county-by-county

approach TXOGA suggests is itself

unreasonable to the extent it implies

that the State must mix and match

regulations at the county level to ensure

that the most cost-effective controls are

used in each county. Such a regulatory

approach could not realistically be

implemented and has never been

required.

Second, we disagree with TXOGA’s

claim that non-fuel alternatives can only

be rejected based on a comparison to the

cost-effectiveness of the fuel measure.

EPA’s 1997 Guidance (Guidance on Use

of Opt-in to RFG and Low RVP

Requirements in Ozone SIPs, August,

1997, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Office of Mobile Sources)

describes the factors generally to be

considered in evaluating the

reasonableness and practicability of

non-fuel alternatives under section

211(c)(4)(C). These factors include, but

20930 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

are not limited to, the following: length

of time to implement the measure;

length of time to achieve ozone

reduction benefits; degree of disruption

entailed by implementation; other

implementation concerns such as

supply issues; costs to industry,

consumers and/or the state; cost

effectiveness; or reliance on

commercially unavailable technology.

Some factors may be appropriate for

some areas but not for others. Costeffectiveness is not the only factor to be

considered in making the determination

for reasonableness and practicability.

Given the deadlines imposed by the Act

and consequences for failure to attain,

length of time to achieve ozone

reduction benefits and supply issues

were also critical factors for today’s

action.

Even though some point source

control programs can be cost-effective, a

regional fuel program can be

implemented on a faster timetable and

impacts a much larger geographic area.

Those additional factors make the

Regional Fuel program more reasonable

and practicable than point and area

source controls of similar cost and

benefit.

We continue to believe there are no

reasonable or practicable alternative

control measures that would bring about

timely attainment.

E. Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE)

Comment: TXOGA asks EPA to clarify

whether the proposed SIP and section

211(c)(4)(C) waiver address the portion

of the Texas RVP rule that restricts the

use of MTBE to levels used in

conventional gasoline prior to the

implementation of this requirement.

Response: EPA did not make a

determination under section

211(c)(4)(C) on the MTBE provision of

the Texas rule because the State did not

submit that portion of the rule for SIP

approval. Therefore, we are not acting

on the MTBE provisions.

F. Exemptions

Comment: Southwest Research

Institute (SwRI) commented that the

fuel rule would not allow them to

conduct research during the summer

ozone season because there were no

exemptions provided for research and

development operations to utilize test

fuels that do not meet the 7.8 RVP

requirement.

Response: EPA agrees with the

commenter that the Texas rule contains

no exemptions for research facilities.

While we understand that this was an

oversight, this is not cause for

disapproval. It is our understanding that

Texas has committed to revising 30

Texas Administrative Code (TAC) 114 at

the earliest opportunity to provide an

exemption for research and

development operations from the 7.8

RVP requirement. We will review such

a regulatory change to determine the

impact upon the attainment

demonstration when Texas submits the

measure as a formal SIP revision.

EPA’s Rulemaking Action

We are granting final approval

pursuant to sections 110 and

211(c)(4)(C) because we find that the

State has (1) identified the reduction in

modeled peak values needed to achieve

attainment of the ozone NAAQS; (2)

identified all other reasonable and

practical control measures; (3) shown

that even with the implementation of all

reasonable and practicable control

measures, the State would need

additional emissions reductions for

these nonattainment areas to meet the

ozone NAAQS (124 ppb) on a timely

basis; and (4) demonstrated that the

low-RVP requirement would contribute

to those additional reductions.

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. This

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 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 preexisting 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).

This 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,

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 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 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 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. 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. 804(2). This rule

will be effective May 29, 2001.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 20931

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by June 25, 2001.

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, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: April 9, 2001.

Lynda F. Carroll,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, Code of

Federal Regulations, is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority for citation for part

52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart SS—Texas

2. In § 52.2270(c) the table is amended

by revising the entry for ‘‘Section 114.1’’

and adding to the end of the section

‘‘Chapter 114 (Reg 4)—Control of Air

Pollution From Motor Vehicles’’ a new

heading with entries for ‘‘Subchapter

H—Low Emission Fuels’’ 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 ............................................................. 08/16/99 4/26/01 [and Federal

Register citation].

New definitions added.

*******

Subchapter H—Low

Emission Fuels; Division I: Gasoline Volatility:

Section 114.301 ...... Control Requirements for Reid Vapor Pressure .. 04/25/00 4/26/01 [and Federal

Register citation].

Part (c) is not approved.

Section 114.304 ...... Registration of Gasoline Producers and Importers.04/25/00 4/26/01 [and Federal

Register citation].

Section 114.305 ...... Approved Test Methods ....................................... 04/25/00 4/26/01 [and Federal

Register citation].

Section 114.306 ...... Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Certification Requirements.04/25/00 4/26/01 [and Federal

Register citation].

Section 114.307 ...... Exemptions ........................................................... 04/25/00 4/26/01 [and Federal

Register citation].

Section 114.309 ...... Affected Counties ................................................. 04/25/00 4/26/01 [and Federal

Register citation].

*******

[FR Doc. 01–10251 Filed 4–25–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

46 CFR Parts 10 and 15

[USCG 1999–6224]

RIN 2115–AF23

Licensing and Manning for Officers of

Towing Vessels

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Interim rule with request for

comments.

SUMMARY: By this interim rule, the Coast

Guard amends the interim rule of

November 19, 1999, on licensing and

manning for officers of towing vessels.

This amendment is necessary to clarify

confusion caused, and lessen the

burdens imposed, by that rule. The

Coast Guard intends this amendment to

facilitate obtaining the appropriate

licenses under the rule.

DATES: This interim rule is effective on

May 21, 2001. Comments and related

material must reach the Docket

Management Facility on or before July

25, 2001. Except as amended by this

rule, the interim rule published on

November 19, 1999 (64 FR 63213), and

delayed on October 7, 2000 (65 FR

64388), remains effective on its terms.

ADDRESSES: To make sure your

comments and related material are not

entered more than once in the docket

[USCG–1999–6224], please submit them

by only one of the following means:

(1) By mail to the Docket Management

Facility, U.S. Department of

Transportation, room PL–401, 400

Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC

20590–0001.

(2) By delivery to room PL–401 on the

Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400

Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC,

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.