20746 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

§ 501.22 Distribution controls.

* * * * *

(s) A demonstration meter is typically

used to acquaint a potential user with

the features of a meter as part of the

sales effort. The following procedures

must be followed to implement controls

over demonstration meters:

(1) A demonstration meter may print

only specimen indicia and must not be

used to meter live mail.

(2) A demonstration meter must be

recorded as such on internal

manufacturer inventory records and

must be tracked by model number,

serial number, and physical location. If

the meter’s status as a demonstration

meter changes, the meter must be

administered according to the

procedures that apply to its new status.

(3) A demonstration meter may be

used only for demonstrations by a

manufacturer’s dealer or branch

representative and must remain under

the dealer’s or representative’s direct

control. A demonstration meter may not

be left in the possession of the potential

customer under any circumstance.

(t) A postage meter loaned to a

customer for temporary use (a ‘‘loaner

meter’’) is typically used to acquaint a

potential user with the features of a

meter as part of the sales effort, or serves

as a temporary placement while the

customer awaits delivery of a new

meter. The following procedures must

be followed to implement controls over

loaner meters:

(1) A loaner meter prints valid indicia

and may be used to apply postage to a

mailpiece. Only electronic, remote-set

meters may be used as loaner meters.

The city/state designation in the loaner

meter indicia must show the location

where the user’s mail will be deposited.

(2) A customer may have possession

of a loaner meter for a maximum of five

consecutive business days. When the

customer chooses to continue the use of

a postage meter, the loaner meter must

be retrieved and a new meter must be

installed under the customer’s license.

(3) The manufacturer’s dealer or

branch representative (‘‘representative’’)

must have a USPS-issued meter user

license to place a loaner meter. A single

license per USPS district can be used to

issue loaner meters to customers in any

of the different Post Office service areas

within that district.

(4) Loaner meters must be reported

electronically to the USPS meter

tracking system when activated. A Form

3601–C, Postage Meter Activity Report,

must be initiated to activate a loaner

meter under the representative’s meter

license. The licensee and meter location

information on the form will show the

representative rather than the temporary

user. However, loaner meters may only

be placed with customers who have

been issued a USPS meter license.

(5) Representatives must record and

verify the accuracy of the ascending and

descending register readings when a

loaner meter is placed with the

customer. Any discrepancies detected

during the verification process must be

reported immediately to the meter

manufacturer, who will then notify

Postage Technology Management.

(6) The representative is responsible

for resetting the loaner meter with

postage and must arrange for

reimbursement directly with the

customer.

(7) The representative maintains full

responsibility for the loaner meter. As

both a manufacturer’s representative

and a meter licensee, the representative

is subject to the provision of Domestic

Mail Manual part P030 and Code of

Federal Regulations part 501. As a

licensee, the representative assumes all

licensee responsibilities under USPS

meter regulations and must ensure that

loaner meters are available for

examination by the Postal Service on

demand and are examined in

accordance with Postal Service policy.

Any losses incurred by the Postal

Service as a result of fraudulent use of

the loaner meter by the customer are the

responsibility of the meter licensee, the

customer, and the manufacturer.

(8) When the customer returns the

meter, the dealer or branch

representative must record and verify

the accuracy of the ascending and

descending register readings and inspect

the meter. Any discrepancies or

indication of tampering or fraudulent

use must be reported immediately to the

meter manufacturer, who will then

notify Postage Technology Management.

In such circumstance, the meter must

not be used and must be returned to the

manufacturer’s QAR department via

Registered Mail.

(9) Loaner meters must be reported

electronically to the USPS meter

tracking system when withdrawn from

service. The dealer or branch

representative must prepare Form 3601–

C, Postage Meter Activity Report, for

each loaner meter withdrawn.

Stanley F. Mires,

Chief Counsel, Legislative.

[FR Doc. 01–10148 Filed 4–24–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[TX–101–1–7394a; FRL–6969–3]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Texas; Post 96

Rate of Progress Plan, Motor Vehicle

Emissions Budgets (MVEB) and

Contingency Measures for the

Houston/Galveston (HGA) Ozone

Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is taking direct final

action on portions of the Texas Ozone

State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revision submitted by the Governor of

Texas on May 19, 1998, to meet the

reasonable further progress

requirements of the Federal Clean Air

Act (the Act). We are approving the

Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress (ROP) Plan,

the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

(MVEB) established by the ROP Plan,

revisions to the contingency measures,

and revisions to the 1990 base year

emissions inventory for the Houston/

Galveston (HGA) 1-hour ozone

nonattainment area.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

June 25, 2001 unless adverse or critical

comments are received by May 25, 2001.

If adverse comments are received, EPA

will publish timely withdrawal of the

rule in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to Mr.

Thomas Diggs, Chief, Air Planning

Section (6PD–L), at the EPA Region 6

Office listed below.

Copies of the documents, including

the Technical Support Document,

relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the following

locations. Interested persons wanting to

examine these documents should make

an appointment with the appropriate

office at least two working days in

advance.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 6, Air Planning Section (6PD–

L), Multimedia Planning and

Permitting Division, Dallas, 1445 Ross

Avenue, Texas 75202–2733,

telephone: (214) 665–7214.

Texas Natural Resource Conservation

Commission, Office of Air Quality,

12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas

78753.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Guy R. Donaldson, Air Planning Section

(6PD–L), Multimedia Planning and

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 20747

Permitting Division, Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733,

telephone: (214) 665–7242.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

and ‘‘our’’ refers to EPA.

I. What Action Are We Taking?

We are approving portions of the

revision to the Texas Ozone State

Implementation Plan for the HGA ozone

nonattainment area received May 19,

1998, to meet the Reasonable Further

Progress requirements of the Act. We are

approving the Post 96 Rate of Progress

(OP) plan that is designed to reduce

ozone forming emissions by November

15, 1999 from the baseline emissions by

an additional 9% in the HGA

nonattainment area. In addition, we are

approving the MVEBs associated with

the 9% ROP Plan. We are also

approving the revisions to the

contingency plan, and the 1990 base

year emissions inventory for the HGA

area, which were included with the May

19, 1998, SIP revision. In this action, we

are not acting on other portions of the

May 19, 1998, SIP revision regarding the

attainment demonstration. In a separate

action, we proposed conditional

approval, and alternatively, disapproval

of the portions of the May 19, 1998, SIP

revision that pertained to the attainment

demonstration (64 FR 70548, December

16, 1999).

II. Why Is Texas Required To Develop

a Post 96 Rate of Progress Plan for

Houston?

Section 182(c)(2) of the CAA requires

each serious and above ozone

nonattainment area to submit a SIP

revision by November 15, 1994, which

describes, in part, how the area will

achieve an actual volatile organic

compound (VOC) emission reduction

from the baseline emissions of at least

3 percent of baseline emissions per year

averaged over each consecutive 3-year

period beginning 6 years after

enactment (i.e., November 15, 1996)

until the area’s attainment date. Section

182(c)(2)(C) explains the conditions

under which reductions of oxides of

nitrogen (NOX) may be substituted for

reductions in VOC emissions. The HGA

ozone nonattainment area is classified

as severe-17, with an attainment date of

2007.

Texas submitted a plan to achieve the

9% reductions in a letter dated

November 9, 1994. This plan was

revised in a letter dated August 9, 1996.

On March 9, 1998, we proposed to

disapprove the 1994 Post ’96 ROP plan,

as revised in 1996, primarily because

the plan projected too much emission

reductions from the Compliance

Assurance Monitoring program. The

May 19, 1998, SIP revision addresses

the concerns expressed in our proposed

disapproval.

III. When Will Texas Submit Plans for

the Remaining Required Rate of

Progress Reductions?

Section 182(c)(2) requires that States

provide a plan that includes emission

reductions of at least 3% of baseline

emissions per year from November 15,

1996, until the attainment date. It was

anticipated that these emission

reductions would be consistent with the

attainment demonstration modeling that

was due November 15, 1994. We,

however, have acknowledged the

difficulty States were having in meeting

the November 15, 1994 deadline to

develop attainment demonstrations. In a

March 2, 1995 policy memorandum, we

provided that States could submit their

attainment demonstration and Rate-ofProgress plans in phases. Phase I was to

insure that progress was maintained

while a complete plan was developed.

The Phase I plan was to include a set

of specific control measures to obtain

major reductions in ozone precursors.

For Texas, these were to include:

• Rules to insure that Reasonably

Available Control Technology (RACT)

was implemented on major sources of

volatile organic compounds,

• A demonstration that 3% of

baseline emissions per year reduction in

emissions would occur during the time

period 1997–1999 (Post 96 Rate of

Progress),

• An enforceable commitment to

submit an attainment demonstration by

mid-1997, and

• A commitment to participate in a

consultative process to address Regional

transport of ozone and precursors.

A December 29, 1997, guidance

memorandum provided for submittal of

an attainment demonstration from mid1997 until April, 1998. The December

29, 1997, memorandum explained that

additional time was warranted because

the consultative process to address

transport, which had become know as

the ozone transport assessment group

(OTAG), had been delayed by 9 months

so it was appropriate to delay the

submittal of the attainment

demonstrations.

The December 29, 1997,

memorandum indicated EPA’s view that

by April, 1998, States should submit the

following:

• An attainment demonstration for

the one-hour ozone standard, modeling

analysis and supporting documentation.

• Evidence that all measures and

regulations required for the

nonattainment area by subpart 2 of title

I of the Act to control ozone and its

precursors have been adopted and

implemented or are on an expeditious

schedule to be adopted and

implemented.

• A list of measures and regulations

and/or a strategy including technology

forcing controls needed to meet ROP

requirements and attain the 1-hour

NAAQS.

• For severe and higher classified

nonattainment areas, a SIP commitment

to submit a plan on or before the end of

2000 which contains (a) target

calculations for post-1999 ROP

milestones up to the attainment date

(unless already submitted to satisfy

EPA’s previous findings of failure to

submit) and (b) adopted regulations

needed to achieve the post-1999 ROP

requirements up to the attainment date

and to attain the 1-hour NAAQS.

• A SIP commitment and schedule to

implement the control programs and

regulations in a timely manner to meet

ROP and achieve attainment.

• Evidence of a public hearing on the

State submittal.

The May 19, 1998 SIP revision

contains a commitment to submit a plan

by December 15, 2000, which contains

target calculations for Post-1999 ROP

milestones up to the attainment date

and adopted regulations to achieve the

Post-99 ROP requirements up to the

attainment date and to attain the 1-hour

National Ambient Air Quality Standard

(NAAQS). In a letter from the Governor

dated December 20, 2000, Texas

submitted a plan to achieve the Post 99

Rate of Progress requirements. EPA will

be evaluating the December 20, 2000,

SIP revision in a separate action.

IV. Why Control Volatile Organic

Compounds (VOC) and NOX?

VOCs participate in a chemical

reaction with Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX)

and oxygen in the atmosphere to form

ozone, a key component of urban smog.

Inhaling even low levels of ozone can

trigger a variety of health problems

including chest pains, coughing, nausea,

throat irritation, and congestion. It can

worsen bronchitis, asthma and reduce

lung capacity.

V. How Much Reduction in Emission Is

Needed?

Calculating the needed emission

reductions is a multi-step process as

described below.

Emissions Inventory

The 1990 Final Base Year Inventory is

the starting point for calculating the

reductions necessary to meet the

requirements of the 1990 Act. The 1990

20748 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Final Base Year Inventory includes all

area, point, and mobile sources

emissions in the 8 county HGA ozone

nonattainment area. The 1990 base year

inventory was originally approved

November 8, 1994 (59 FR 55586). The

State revised the VOC inventory on

August 8, 1996. These changes were

approved November 10, 1998. As part of

the May 19, 1998, SIP revision, Texas

again revised the 1990 base year

inventory. We are approving these

changes to the inventory. The new

inventory is summarized in Table 1. The

changes to the inventory are described

later.

TABLE 1.—1990 RATE-OF-PROGRESS

BASE YEAR INVENTORY

Source type VOC

Tons/day

NOX

Tons/day

Point ...................... 483.28 794.85

Area ...................... 200.07 14.37

Mobile ................... 251.52 337.03

Nonroad ................ 129.98 198.08

Total .................. 1064.85 1344.33

Adjusted Base Year Inventory

Section 182(b)(2)(C) explains that the

baseline from which emission

reductions are calculated should be

determined as outlined in section

182(b)(1)(B) for 15% ROP plans. This

requires that the baseline exclude

emission reductions due to Federal

Motor Vehicle Control Programs

promulgated by the Administrator by

January 1, 1990, and emission

reductions due to the regulation of Reid

Vapor Pressure promulgated by the

Administrator prior to the enactment of

the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.

These measures are not creditable to the

Rate of Progress Plans.

Estimates of Growth

States need to provide sufficient

control measures in their ROP plans to

offset any emissions growth. To do this

the State must estimate the amount of

growth that will occur. The State uses

population and economic forecasts to

estimate how emissions will change in

the future. Generally, Texas followed

standard EPA guidelines in estimating

the growth in emissions. For the

projection of NOX emissions from

industrial sources, Texas used data

collected during the development of the

1996 periodic emissions inventory.

With the 1996 periodic inventory, Texas

surveyed industry to determine why

emissions were changing, to see if

changes were actual changes in

emissions to the atmosphere or just

changes in the emission estimation

methodology. For example, many

sources installed continuous emission

monitors between 1990 and 1996 and

actual measurements replaced

engineering estimates. For more detail

on how emissions growth was estimated

see the Technical Support Document for

this action.

Calculation of Target Level

Table 2 shows how the emissions

inventory, adjusted inventories and

growth estimates are used to calculate

the target levels of emissions and

needed emission reductions.

TABLE 2: CALCULATION OF REQUIRED REDUCTIONS

[tons/day]

VOC NOX

1990 Emission Inventory ................................................................................................................................................. 1064.85 1344.33

1990 Adjusted Relative to 1996 ...................................................................................................................................... 976.72

1990 Adjusted Relative to 1999 ...................................................................................................................................... 964.98 1269.53

RVP and Fleet Turnover .................................................................................................................................................. 11.74 76.39

3% of adjusted VOC, 6% of adjusted NOX ..................................................................................................................... 28.95 76.19

1996 Target level ............................................................................................................................................................. 812.77 * NA

1999 Target level ............................................................................................................................................................. 772.08 1191.77

1999 Projection ................................................................................................................................................................ 1076.76 1306.21

Total Reductions required by 1999 ................................................................................................................................. 304.68 114.44

Reductions required by 15% ........................................................................................................................................... 213.27 NA

Additional Reductions Required ...................................................................................................................................... 91.41 114.44

* The 1996 Target level comes from the 15% Rate of Progress plan. The 15% plan could only rely on VOC reductions so there is no 1996 target level for NOX.

VI. How Are Those Emission

Reductions Achieved?

Tables 3 and 4 document how the

VOC and NOX emission reductions for

this 9% ROP plan are to be achieved.

The following control measures and

emission reductions were unchanged

from the previous 1994, as revised in

1996, 9% SIP revision: Aircraft Engines,

Recreational Marine, Utility Engines,

Underground Storage Tank

Remediation, Transportation Control

Measures, Reformulated Gasoline in

Storage Tanks, Reformulated Gasoline

in Loading Racks and Rule Effectiveness

in Floating Roof Storage Tanks. In our

proposed disapproval (63 FR 11387,

March 9, 1998), we explained why we

could accept the projected emission

reductions from the above-listed

measures. Please refer to the proposed

disapproval Federal Register notice and

its Technical Support Document where

we explained our basis for acceptance of

the projected emission reductions from

these measures.

In the May 19, 1998, SIP revision,

Texas did change its projected emission

reductions from the Pulp and Paper

MACT measure. The State had

originally based their estimate of

emission reductions on the proposed

MACT standard. The final MACT rule

did not achieve as much emission

reduction as anticipated. The difference

between the proposed and final MACT

standard was 2.2 tons/day. The State,

however, has documented 2.2 tons/day

estimated emission reductions due to its

vent gas control rule and permits

containing vent gas controls.

The State also changed its estimates of

on-road motor vehicle emissions based

on revised Vehicle Miles Traveled

estimates. We reviewed the revised

estimates and find them acceptable.

Refer to the TSD for further discussion.

Finally, Texas is now projecting

emission reductions due to the

implementation of NOX Reasonably

Available Control Technology (RACT)

in the Houston/Galveston area. We

approved the NOX RACT rules in a

separate Federal Register (see 65 FR

53172, September 1, 2000). We have

reviewed the projected emission

reductions from the NOX RACT rules

and find them acceptable. Refer to the

TSD for the NOX RACT action for the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 20749

discussion of the projected emission

reductions from each approved rule for

each source category.

TABLE 3.—SUMMARY OF VOC EMISSION REDUCTIONS HOUSTON/GALVESTON

[tons/day]

Required Reduction ........................ 91.41

Creditable Reductions:

HON ............................................ 0.47

Aircraft Engines ........................... 0.97

Pulp and Paper MACT ................ 2.20

Recreational Marine .................... 0.06

Utility Engine 1997–1999 ............ 6.31

UST remediation ......................... 2.05

TCMs ........................................... 0.5

Tier I, I/M, RFG ........................... 18.59

MSW landfills—NSPS ................. 4.06

RFG—Tanks ............................... 2.45

RFG—Loading Racks ................. 3.76

RE—Floating Roof Tanks ........... 26.86

Excess emissions from the 15%

plan .......................................... 23.37

Total ................................................ 92.03

TABLE 4.—SUMMARY OF NOX EMISSION REDUCTIONS HOUSTON/GALVESTON

[tons/day]

Required Reduction ........................ 101.61

Creditable Reductions:

NOX RACT .................................. 95.00

RFG, I/M, FMVCP Tier I ............. 36.49

Total ......................................... 131.49

VII. How Has Texas Addressed EPA’s

Concerns Identified in Our Proposed

Disapproval?

In the March 9, 1998, proposed

disapproval, we proposed to disapprove

the emission reductions that Texas had

projected for three control measures.

These were the Federal Compliance

Assurance Monitoring Program, Texas

Alternative Fuel Fleets and surplus

emissions from the 15% plan due to the

gas cap check. In the May 19, 1998,

submission, Texas has, in effect,

replaced these three programs’ projected

emission reductions with the reductions

projected from the NOX RACT rules.

VIII. What Is a Motor Vehicle

Emissions Budget (MVEB) and Why Is

It Important?

The MVEB is the level of total

allowable on-road emissions established

by a control strategy implementation

plan or maintenance plan. In this case,

the MVEB establishes the level of onroad emissions that can be produced in

1999, when considered with emissions

from all other sources, that meets the

RFP milestones. It is important because

the MVEB is used to determine the

conformity of transportation plans and

programs to the SIP, as described by

section 176(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

IX. What Are the MVEB’s Established

by This Plan and Approved by This

Action?

The MVEB’s established by this plan

and that the EPA is approving are

contained in the following table.

TABLE 5.—HOUSTON 1999 MOTOR

VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGET

[tons/day]

Pollutant VOC NOX

Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget ............. 132.68 283.01

X. What Is the Applicable MVEB To

Use for Conformity Analysis After

1999?

When evaluating transportation plans,

emissions in years after 1999 must be

less than the 1999 ROP progress MVEB

being approved here. In November 1999,

the State submitted the 2007 attainment

year MVEBs for VOC and NOX. On May

31, 2000, EPA found these MVEB

adequate for conformity purposes. This

decision was effective June 29, 2000.

The projected emissions in years after

2007 must be less than the appropriate

MVEBs.

On December 20, 2000, Texas

submitted Rate of Progress MVEBs for

2002, 2005 and 2007. They also

submitted revised attainment level

MVEBs for 2007 which were initially

submitted in November 1999. If EPA

finds these MVEBs adequate for

conformity purposes, then they will be

the applicable budgets that must be

used for such later years in future

conformity evaluations.

XI. What Are the Contingency Measures

for Houston?

Ozone areas classified as moderate or

above must include in their submittals

under section 172(b) of the CAA,

contingency measures to be

implemented if RFP is not achieved or

if the standard is not attained by the

applicable date. The General Preamble

to Title I, (57 FR 13498) states that the

contingency measures should at a

minimum ensure that an appropriate

level of emissions reduction progress

continues to be made if attainment or

RFP is not achieved and additional

planning by the State is needed.

Therefore, we interpret the Act to

require States with moderate and above

ozone nonattainment areas to include

sufficient contingency measures so that

upon implementation of such measures

additional emissions reductions of up to

3 percent of the emissions in the

adjusted base year inventory (or a lesser

percentage that will cure the identified

failure) would be achieved in the year

following the year in which the failure

has been identified. States must show

that their contingency measures can be

implemented with minimal further

action on their part and with no

additional rule making actions such as

public hearings or legislative review.

Texas has developed contingency

measures to be implemented if they fail

to achieve the required reductions, that

were expected as part of the 9% plan.

They have chosen to meet the 3%

emission reductions contingency with

2% VOC emission reductions and 1%

additional NOX reductions. These

contingency measures are summarized

in Tables 6 and 7. Consult the Technical

Support Document for this action for

more information.

TABLE 6.—SUMMARY OF VOC CONTINGENCY MEASURES HOUSTON/

GALVESTON

[tons/day]

Required Contingency ...................... 19.33

Creditable Reductions:

Tier I, RFG, Phase II .................... 15.07

Recreation Marine (2000) ............. 0.31

Offset Printing ............................... 2.34

Naptha Dry Cleaning .................... 1.97

Utility Engine ................................. 1.51

Surplus Emission Reductions from

the 9% ROP Plan ...................... 0.41

Total ........................................... 21.61

TABLE 7.—SUMMARY OF NOX CONTINGENCY MEASURES HOUSTON/GALVESTON

[tons/day]

Required Contingency ...................... 12.70

Creditable Reductions:

Excess Emission Reductions 9%

ROP Plan .................................. 17.05

Tier I, RFG, Phase II .................... 7.42

Total ........................................... 24.47

The 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 today’s Federal Register

publication, we are publishing a

separate document that will serve as the

proposal to approve the SIP revision if

adverse comments are received. This

rule will be effective on June 25, 2001

without further notice unless we receive

adverse comment by May 25, 2001. If

EPA receives adverse comments, we

20750 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

will publish a timely withdrawal in the

Federal Register informing the public

that the rule will not take effect. We will

address all public comments in a

subsequent final rule based on the

proposed rule. We will not institute a

second comment period on this action.

Any parties interested in commenting

must do so at this time.

III. 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 June 25, 2001 unless

EPA receives adverse written comments

by May 25, 2001.

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 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, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

oxides, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compounds.

Dated: April 5, 2001.

Jerry Clifford,

Acting 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, paragraph (e) in the

table entitled ‘‘EPA Approved

Nonregulatory Provisions and QuasiRegulatory Measures in the Texas SIP’’

two entries are added to the end of the

table to read as follows:

§ 52.2270 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

EPA APPROVED NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES IN THE TEXAS SIP

Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or

nonattainment area

State

submittal

date/effective

date

EPA approval date Comments

*******

Post 96 Rate of Progress Plan Houston, Texas .............. 5/19/98 4/25/01 66 FR 20750 ................ Originally submitted 11/9/94

and revised 8/9/96.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 25, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 20751

EPA APPROVED NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES IN THE TEXAS SIP—Continued

Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or

nonattainment area

State

submittal

date/effective

date

EPA approval date Comments

Contingency Measures .............. Houston, Texas .............. 5/19/98 4/25/01 66 FR 20751 ................ Originally submitted 11/9/94

and revised 8/9/96.

3. Section 52.2309 is amended by

adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:

§ 52.2309 Emissions inventories.

* * * * *

(f) The Texas Natural Resource

Conservation Commission submitted a

revision to the State Implementation

Plan (SIP) on May 19, 2000. This

revision was submitted for the purpose

of satisfying the 9 percent Rate-ofProgress requirements of the Clean Air

Act, which will aid in ensuring the

attainment of the National Ambient Air

Quality Standards for ozone. This

submission also contained revisions to

the 1990 base year emissions inventory

for the Houston/Galveston areas.

[FR Doc. 01–10117 Filed 4–24–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 13 and 97

[WT Docket No. 98–143, RM–9148, RM–

9150, RM–9196; FCC 01–108]

Amateur Service Rules

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; petition for

reconsideration.

SUMMARY: This document denies in part

and grants in part various petitions for

reconsideration of the Report and Order

in this proceeding. It also revises part 13

of the rules to ensure the telegraphy

requirements for commercial radio

operator licenses remain unchanged and

it makes minor editorial changes to

certain part 97 rules. This action will

allow current Amateur Radio Service

licensees to contribute more to the

advancement of the radio art; reduce the

administrative costs that the

Commission incurs in regulating this

service and streamline our licensing

processes; and promote efficient use of

spectrum allocated to the Amateur

Radio Service.

DATES: Effective July 1, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William T. Cross, Public Safety and

Private Wireless Division, Wireless

Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418–

0680, TTY (202) 418–7233.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s

Memorandum Opinion and Order, WT

Docket No. 98–143, FCC 99–412,

adopted March 27, 2001, and released

April 6, 2001. The complete text of this

document is available for inspection

and copying during normal business

hours in the FCC’s Reference

Information Center, 445 12th Street SW.,

Room CY–A257, Washington, DC. The

complete text of this document may also

be obtained from the Commission’s

copy contractor, International

Transcription Services, Inc., 1231 20th

St., NW., Washington, DC 20036,

telephone (202) 857–3800. Alternative

formats (computer diskette, large print,

audio cassette, and Braille) are available

to persons with disabilities by

contacting Martha Contee at (202) 418–

0620 (voice) or (202) 418–2555 (TTY), or

at mcontee@fcc.gov. The complete (but

unofficial) text is also available on the

Commission’s Internet site at http://

www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/

2001.

Summary of Memorandum Opinion

and Order

1. In the Notice of Proposed Rule

Making (NPRM) (63 FR 49059,

September 14, 1998) in WT Docket No.

98–143, the Commission initiated the

instant proceeding to examine the

Amateur Radio Service rules in an effort

to streamline its licensing processes and

eliminate unnecessary and duplicative

rules.

2. By its Report and Order, (65 FR

6548, February 10, 2000) the

Commission substantially revised the

amateur service license structure by

streamlining our licensing processes

and eliminating unnecessary and

duplicative rules. This Memorandum

Opinion and Order addresses pending

petitions for reconsideration of the

Report and Order. Because the

petitioners’ suggested clarifications

generally already were considered and

rejected, or because they are beyond the

scope of the proceeding, the

Commission has not modified any part

97 provisions based on the petitions.

The Commission granted the request of

petitioners that the amateur service

database distinguish between

Technician and Technician Plus Class

licensees, however, to the extent that

these database changes already have

been implemented. Additionally, on its

own motion, the Commission adopted

changes to its part 13 rules to ensure the

telegraphy requirements for commercial

radio operator licenses remain

unchanged and the Commission made

minor editorial changes to certain part

97 rules.

3. The Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA) requires that an agency prepare a

regulatory flexibility analysis for noticeand-comment rulemaking proceedings,

unless the agency certifies that ‘‘the rule

will not, if promulgated, have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.’’ 5

U.S.C. 605(b). In the NPRM, the

Commission certified that the proposed

rule amendments, if promulgated,

would not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

business entities, as defined in section

601(3) of the RFA because the rule

amendments do not apply to small

business entities. Rather, these rules

apply to individuals who are interested

in radio technique solely with a

personal aim and without pecuniary

interest. No comments were received

concerning this certification. The

Commission now affirms this

certification with respect to the rules

adopted in this Memorandum Opinion

and Order. Accordingly, because small

business entities, as defined in section

601(3) of the RFA, are not eligible to

make an application for an amateur

service license or be a licensee in the

amateur service, the Commission

certifies, pursuant to section 605(b) of

the RFA, that the rules adopted herein

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities, as defined in the RFA.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 13

Radio.

47 CFR Part 97

Radio, Volunteers.