Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2001 / Proposed Rules 27483

because the Agency views this as a

noncontroversial submittal and

anticipates no adverse comments. A

detailed rationale for the approval is set

forth in the direct final rule. If no

adverse comments are received in

response to this action, no further

activity is contemplated. If EPA receives

adverse comments, the direct final rule

will be withdrawn and all public

comments received will be addressed in

a subsequent final rule based on this

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a

second comment period. Any parties

interested in commenting on this action

should do so at this time. Please note

that if EPA receives adverse comment

on an amendment, paragraph, or section

of this rule and if that provision may be

severed from the remainder of the rule,

EPA may adopt as final those provisions

of the rule that are not the subject of an

adverse comment.

DATES: Comments must be received in

writing by June 18, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be mailed to David L. Arnold, Chief, Air

Quality Planning and Information

Services Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

Copies of the documents relevant to this

action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the Air Protection Division,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; and

Delaware Department of Natural

Resources & Environmental Control, 89

Kings Highway, P.O. Box 1401, Dover,

Delaware 19903.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cristina Fernandez, (215) 814–2178, at

the EPA Region III address above, or by

e-mail at fernandez.cristina@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

November 17, 2000, the Delaware

Department of Natural Resources and

Environmental Control (DNREC)

submitted a revision to its SIP to

address the requirements of the NOX SIP

Call Phase I. The revision consists of the

adoption of Regulation No. 39—

Nitrogen Oxides Budget Trading

Program. For further information, please

see the information provided in the

direct final action, with the same title,

that is located in the ‘‘Rules and

Regulations’’ section of this Federal

Register publication.

Dated: May 8, 2001.

Thomas C. Voltaggio,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 01–12352 Filed 5–16–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[KY–200108; IN121–1; FRL–6982–2]

Determination of Attainment of Ozone

Standard by Louisville, Kentucky and

Indiana, Area and Determination

Regarding Applicability of Certain

Reasonable Further Progress and

Attainment Demonstration

Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to

determine that the Louisville moderate

ozone nonattainment area (Louisville

area) has attained the 1-hour ozone

National Ambient Air Quality Standard

(NAAQS). The Louisville area includes

Jefferson County and portions of Bullitt

and Oldham Counties, Kentucky, and

Clark and Floyd Counties, Indiana. This

proposed determination is based on

three years of complete, quality-assured,

ambient air monitoring data for the 1998

to 2000 ozone seasons that demonstrate

that the area has attained the 1-hour

ozone NAAQS. On the basis of this

determination, EPA is also proposing to

determine that State Implementation

Plan (SIP) submissions for certain

reasonable further progress (RFP) and

attainment demonstration requirements,

along with certain other related

requirements of part D of Title 1 of the

Clean Air Act (CAA) are no longer

required for the Louisville area for so

long as the area continues to attain the

1-hour ozone NAAQS. All previouslyapproved SIP revisions must continue to

be implemented and enforced and are

not affected by this action.

DATES: Written comments on EPA’s

proposed action must be received on or

before June 18, 2001.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be

addressed to: Allison Humphris,

Environmental Scientist, Regulatory

Planning Section, Air Planning Branch,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia,

30303. J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,

Regulation Development Section, Air

Programs Branch (AR–18J), United

States Environmental Protection

Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604. A copy of the

air quality data and EPA’s analysis are

available at the following addresses for

inspection during normal business

hours: United States Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 4, Air

Planning Branch, Regulatory Planning

Section, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta,

Georgia 30303–8960. United States

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, Air Programs Branch (AR–

18J), Regulation Development Section,

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Allison Humphris, Environmental

Scientist, Regulatory Planning Section,

Air Planning Branch, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW,

Atlanta, Georgia, 30303, (404) 562–9030,

(humphris.allison@epa.gov). Ryan Bahr,

Environmental Engineer, Regulation

Development Section, Air Programs

Branch (AR–18J), United States

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312)

353–4366, (bahr.ryan@epa.gov).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Determination of Attainment

A. What action is EPA proposing to take?

B. Why is EPA taking this action?

C. How was the number of estimated

exceedances at the Charlestown Monitor

determined?

D. What would be the effect of this action?

E. What is the background for this action?

F. Where is the public record and where

do I send comments?

II. What administrative requirements did

EPA consider?

I. Determination of Attainment

A. What Action is EPA Proposing to

Take?

The EPA is proposing to determine

that the Louisville area has attained the

1-hour ozone NAAQS. The Louisville

area includes Jefferson County and

portions of Bullitt and Oldham

Counties, Kentucky, and Clark and

Floyd Counties, Indiana. On the basis of

this determination, EPA is also

determining that certain requirements of

part D of Title I of the CAA do not apply

to the Louisville area. SIP submittals

based on these requirements are no

longer required so long as the Louisville

area continues to attain the NAAQS.

These requirements include RFP (see

the general requirement of section

172(c)(2) and the more specific

requirement of section 182(b)(1) for a

plan that reduces volatile organic

compound (VOC) emissions by 15%),

attainment demonstration (see the

general requirement of section 172(c)(1))

and the specific requirement of section

182(j) for a multi-state attainment

demonstration) and contingency

measures (see the general requirement

of section 172(c)(9)). Making these

sections inapplicable to the area means

that the States are not required to

27484 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2001 / Proposed Rules

submit future SIP revisions related to

the sections cited above regarding

attaining the NAAQS. Furthermore, EPA

would not be required to act on the

planning SIPs that have been submitted

and not yet approved. However, all

previously-approved SIP revisions must

continue to be implemented and

enforced and are not affected by this

action. In addition EPA will continue to

process any submittals that have not yet

been approved and revise the SIP to

incorporate State- and locally-adopted

rules and other legally-enforceable

requirements which have helped the

area come into attainment prior to the

effective date for this rule. This will

ensure that the rules the area has

depended on for attainment are

permanent and enforceable as part of

the SIP.

B. Why is EPA Taking This Action?

The EPA proposes to make this

determination for the Louisville area

because complete, quality-assured,

ambient air monitoring data for the 1998

to 2000 ozone seasons demonstrate that

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS has been

attained in the entire Louisville area.

For ozone, an area may be considered

attaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS if

there are no violations, as determined in

accordance with 40 CFR 50.9 and

appendix H, based on three complete,

consecutive calendar years of qualityassured ambient monitoring data. A

violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS

occurs when the annual average number

of expected exceedances at a monitoring

site is greater than 1.0 per year, using

conventional rounding techniques.

The calculation for expected

exceedances in a three-year period is

computed by averaging the three

estimated exceedances (one for each of

the three years) during this period. The

calculation for the estimated

exceedances takes into account not only

the number of exceedances during a

given ozone season, but also

completeness of data, and days in the

ozone season that can be assumed to be

less than the level of the standard. An

example calculation of estimated

exceedances at the Charlestown monitor

is given in section C. A daily

exceedance occurs when the maximum

hourly ozone concentration during a

given day is greater than 0.12 parts per

million (ppm), using conventional

rounding techniques. Monitoring data

must be collected and quality-assured in

accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and

recorded in EPA’s Aerometric

Information Retrieval System (AIRS).

The monitors should have remained at

the same location for the duration of the

monitoring period required for

demonstrating attainment.

The Commonwealth of Kentucky

Natural Resources and Environmental

Protection Cabinet (Cabinet) and the

Indiana Department of Environmental

Management (IDEM) submitted qualityassured ozone monitoring data to EPA

for the 1998 to 2000 ozone monitoring

seasons. Table 1 below summarizes

these air quality data.

TABLE 1.—1-HOUR OZONE NAAQS EXCEEDANCES IN THE LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY-INDIANA AREA FROM 1998 TO 2000

Site County Year Exceedances

measured

Estimated

exceedances

Charlestown ........................................................ Clark, IN .............................................................. 1998 3 3.1

Charlestown ........................................................ Clark, IN .............................................................. 1999 0 0.0

Charlestown ........................................................ Clark, IN .............................................................. 2000 0 0.0

New Albany ......................................................... Floyd, IN .............................................................. 1998 2 2.0

New Albany ......................................................... Floyd, IN .............................................................. 1999 0 0.0

New Albany ......................................................... Floyd, IN .............................................................. 2000 0 0.0

Bates ................................................................... Jefferson, KY ....................................................... 1998 1 1.2

Bates ................................................................... Jefferson, KY ....................................................... 1999 0 0.0

Bates ................................................................... Jefferson, KY ....................................................... 2000 0 0.0

Buckner ............................................................... Oldham, KY ......................................................... 1998 1 1.1

Buckner ............................................................... Oldham, KY ......................................................... 1999 1 1.2

Buckner ............................................................... Oldham, KY ......................................................... 2000 0 0.0

Sheperdsville ....................................................... Bullitt, KY ............................................................. 1998 0 0.0

Sheperdsville ....................................................... Bullitt, KY ............................................................. 1999 0 0.0

Sheperdsville ....................................................... Bullitt, KY ............................................................. 2000 0 0.0

Watson ................................................................ Jefferson, KY ....................................................... 1998 1 1.2

Watson ................................................................ Jefferson, KY ....................................................... 1999 0 0.0

Watson ................................................................ Jefferson, KY ....................................................... 2000 0 0.0

WLKY–TV ............................................................ Jefferson, KY ....................................................... 1998 1 1.1

WLKY–TV ............................................................ Jefferson, KY ....................................................... 1999 0 0.0

WLKY–TV ............................................................ Jefferson, KY ....................................................... 2000 0 0.0

During the 1998 to 2000 time period,

the Charlestown monitor recorded a

total of 3 exceedances, with all 3

exceedances occurring during 1998.

Remaining monitors recorded 2 or fewer

exceedances for this same time period.

Calculation of the estimated

exceedances for 1998 for the

Charlestown monitor, in accordance

with 40 CFR part 50, appendix H, yields

3.1 estimated exceedances for 1998. Due

to no exceedance occurring at the

Charlestown monitor in 1999 or 2000,

the total estimated exceedances for the

years of 1998 through 2000 is also 3.1,

or 1.0 average expected exceedance per

year. This indicates that the monitoring

site with the most exceedances is

attaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. As

a result, the Louisville area is currently

meeting the air quality requirement for

this determination of attainment of the

1-hour ozone NAAQS.

C. How was the Number of Estimated

Exceedances at the Charlestown

Monitor Determined?

During the 1998 to 2000 time period,

the Charlestown monitor was

determined to have a total of 3.1

estimated exceedances. This value was

determined in accordance with 40 CFR

50.9 and appendix H, as follows: e = v

+ [(v/n)*(N-n-z)] where:

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2001 / Proposed Rules 27485

Variable description

Value for

Charlestown

monintor for

1998

Comments

e = the estimated number of exceedances for the year ............ 3.1 Calculated.

N = the number of required monitoring days in the year ........... 183 Indiana’s ozone season is April 1–September 30.

n = the number of valid daily maxima ........................................ 172 Days with valid data based on 40 CFR part 50 and appendix

H.

v = the number of daily values above the level of the standard 3 Based on monitored values.

z = the number of days assumed to be less than the standard

level.

3 Based on 40 CFR part 50. Appendix H, for days that were

likely below the standard.

The current version of the AIRS

database calculates the Charlestown

monitor as having 3.2 estimated

exceedances during the 1998 ozone

season, based on the availability of valid

AIRS data for 172 out of 183 ozone

season days. However, EPA has

determined, in accordance with 40 CFR

part 50, appendix H, that for three days

during the 1998 ozone monitoring

season for which no air quality data was

available, it is highly unlikely that the

ozone NAAQS was exceeded, and air

quality can be assumed to have been

below the ozone NAAQS. Part 50,

appendix H states, in part, that: ‘‘Some

allowance should also be made for days

for which valid daily maximum hourly

values were not obtained but which

would quite likely have been below the

standard.’’ It then suggests a criterion

that ‘‘may be used’’ for ozone. Since

appendix H lists only a permissible, but

not exclusive method for determining

when a missing value may be assumed

to have been below the standard, it

leaves room for Agency discretion to

define alternative conditions for making

such a determination. For two days

early in the 1998 ozone monitoring

season (April 3–4, 1998), this

conclusion is based on records of valid

daily maxima well below the standard

for the remaining 6 Louisville area

monitors and overwhelming

meteorological evidence that conditions

were not highly conducive to ozone

formation. In addition, no exceedances

have ever been recorded at this

monitoring site in early April. For a

third day (August 1, 1998), this

conclusion is based on records of valid

daily maxima below the 75 percent level

of the standard for the Charlestown

monitor for the days immediately

preceding and following this date.

Calculation of the estimated

exceedances for the Charlestown

monitor using the above equation, and

assuming that the ozone standard was

not exceeded for 175 out of 183 ozone

season days yields a total of 3.1

estimated exceedances for the 1998

ozone season. Since no exceedance was

recorded for 1999 or 2000, the average

number of expected exceedances for this

monitor are 1.0 per year for the threeyear period of 1998 through 2000, using

conventional rounding techniques.

D. What Would Be the Effect of This

Action?

The EPA believes it is reasonable to

interpret that the Clean Air Act

provisions regarding RFP and

attainment demonstrations, along with

certain other related provisions, do not

require certain SIP submissions if an

ozone nonattainment area subject to

those requirements is monitoring

attainment of the ozone standard (i.e.,

has three consecutive years of complete,

quality-assured, air quality monitoring

data) without those provisions being

implemented. Specifically, the

requirements of sections 172(c)(1) and

182(j) concerning submission of an

ozone attainment demonstration, the

requirements of sections 172(c)(2) and

182(b)(1) concerning submission of a

15% VOC emission reduction plan, and

the requirements of section 172(c)(9)

concerning contingency measures for

RFP or attainment will not be applicable

to the Louisville area. EPA intends,

however, to approve the regulations that

were submitted by the Commonwealth

with its 15% plan, since these

regulations were adopted by the

Commonwealth or the Air Pollution

Control District of Jefferson County

prior to 1998 and provided permanent

and enforceable reductions for the

Louisville area during the 1998 to 2000

ozone seasons. Likewise, previouslyapproved SIP revisions must continue to

be implemented and enforced and are

not affected by this action.

The above determinations are

contingent upon continued monitoring

and continued attainment and

maintenance of the 1-hour ozone

NAAQS in the Louisville area. If a

violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS is

monitored in any of the five counties,

EPA will initiate rulemaking action to

reinstate these requirements in the

Federal Register. A violation in any of

the five counties would mean that the

entire area would thereafter have to

address the above-cited requirements,

since the basis for the determination

that they do not apply would no longer

exist.

E. What Is the Background for this

Action?

Subpart 2 of part D of Title I of the

CAA contains various air quality

planning and SIP submission

requirements for 1-hour ozone

nonattainment areas. EPA interprets the

general provisions of subpart 1 of part

D of Title I (sections 171 and 172) and

the more specific attainment

demonstration and related provisions of

subpart 2 (section 182) to not require the

submission of SIP revisions concerning

RFP, attainment demonstrations, or

contingency measures for areas where

the monitoring data show that the area

is attaining the 1-hour ozone standard

(See Sierra Club vs EPA, 99 F.3d 1551

(10th Cir. 1996)). This rationale is

described in a memorandum from John

S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, entitled

‘‘Reasonable Further Progress,

Attainment Demonstration, and Related

Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment

Areas Meeting the Ozone National

Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’ dated

May 10, 1995. EPA has previously

applied this interpretation in a number

of areas, including Cincinnati (65 FR

37879 (June 19, 2000)), Grand Rapids

(61 FR 31831 (June 21, 1996)),

Cleveland (61 FR 20458 (May 7, 1996)),

and Salt Lake City (60 FR 36723 (July

18, 1995)).

First, with respect to RFP, section

171(1) states that, for purposes of part D

of Title I, RFP ‘‘means such annual

incremental reductions in the emissions

of the relevant air pollutant as are

required by this part or may be

reasonably required by the

Administrator for the purpose of

ensuring attainment of the applicable

national ambient air quality standard by

the applicable date.’’ Thus, whether

dealing with the general RFP

requirement of section 172(c)(2), or the

more specific RFP requirements of

subpart 2 for classified ozone

27486 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2001 / Proposed Rules

nonattainment areas (such as the 15%

plan requirement of section 182(b)(1)),

the stated purpose of RFP is to ensure

attainment by the applicable attainment

date. If an area has, in fact, attained the

standard without implementing RFP,

the stated purpose of the RFP

requirement will have already been

fulfilled, and EPA does not believe that

the area need submit SIP revisions

providing for the further emission

reductions described in the RFP

provisions of section 182(b)(1).

EPA notes that it took this view with

respect to the general RFP requirement

of section 172(c)(2) in the General

Preamble for the Interpretation of title I

of the Clean Air Act Amendments of

1990 (57 FR 13498, April 6, 1992), and

it is now extending that interpretation to

the specific provisions of subpart 2. In

the General Preamble, EPA stated, in the

context of a discussion of the

requirements applicable to the

evaluation of requests to redesignate

nonattainment areas to attainment, the

‘‘requirements for RFP will not apply in

evaluating a request for redesignation to

attainment since, at a minimum, the air

quality data for the area must show that

the area has already attained. Showing

that the state will make RFP towards

attainment will, therefore, have no

meaning at that point.’’ (57 FR 13564).

Second, with respect to attainment

demonstration requirements, an

analogous rationale can be applied.

Section 182(b)(1) requires that the plan

provide for ‘‘such specific annual

reductions in emissions * * * as

necessary to attain the national primary

ambient air quality standard by the

attainment date applicable under the

CAA.’’ If an area has in fact monitored

attainment of the relevant NAAQS, EPA

believes there is no need for an area to

make a further submission containing

additional measures to achieve

attainment. This is also consistent with

the interpretation of certain section

172(c) requirements provided by EPA in

the General Preamble to Title I. As

stated in the Preamble, no other

measures to provide for attainment

would be needed by areas seeking

redesignation to attainment since

‘‘attainment will have been reached’’ (57

FR 13564). Upon attainment of the

NAAQS, the focus of state planning

efforts shifts to the maintenance of the

NAAQS and the development of a

maintenance plan under section 175A.

Finally, similar reasoning applies to

the contingency measure requirements

of section 172(c)(9) of the CAA. EPA has

previously interpreted the contingency

measure requirement of section

172(c)(9) as no longer being applicable

once an area has attained the standard

since those ‘‘contingency measures are

directed at ensuring RFP and attainment

by the applicable date’’ (57 FR 13564).

EPA has excercised this policy most

recently in approvals for the Cincinnati,

Ohio, and Muskegon, Michigan, areas

(65 FR 37879 and 65 FR 52651).

EPA emphasizes that the lack of a

requirement to submit the SIP revisions

discussed above exists for only so long

as an area designated nonattainment

continues to attain the standard. If EPA

subsequently determines that such an

area has violated the NAAQS, the basis

for the determination that the area need

not make the pertinent SIP revisions

would no longer exist. EPA would

notify the state of that determination

and would also provide notice to the

public in the Federal Register. Such a

determination would mean that the area

would have to address the pertinent SIP

requirements within a reasonable

amount of time, which EPA would

establish taking into account the

individual circumstances surrounding

the particular SIP submissions at issue.

Thus, a determination that an area need

not submit one of the above-mentioned

SIP submittals amounts to no more than

a determination that new submittals are

no longer required for the Louisville

area for so long as the area continues to

attain the standard.

The state must continue to operate an

appropriate air quality monitoring

network, in accordance with 40 CFR

part 58, to verify the attainment status

of the area. The air quality data relied

upon to determine that the area is

attaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS must

be consistent with 40 CFR part 58

requirements and other relevant EPA

guidance and recorded in AIRS.

The determination that is being made

with this Federal Register document is

not equivalent to redesignation of this

area to attainment. Attainment of the

ozone NAAQS is only one of the criteria

set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) that

must be satisfied for an area to be

redesignated to attainment. To be

redesignated, the state must submit and

receive full approval of a redesignation

request for the area that satisfies all of

the criteria of that section, including the

requirement of a demonstration that the

improvement in the area’s air quality is

due to permanent and enforceable

reductions and the requirement that the

area have a fully approved SIP meeting

all of the applicable requirements under

section 110 and part D and a fully

approved maintenance plan.

The determinations made in this

document do not shield an area from

future EPA action to require emissions

reductions from sources in the area

where there is evidence, such as

photochemical grid modeling, showing

that emissions from sources in the area

contribute significantly to

nonattainment in, or interfere with

maintenance by, any other states with

respect to the NAAQS (see section

110(a)(2)(D)). The EPA has authority

under sections 110(a)(2)(A) and

110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA to require such

emission reductions if necessary and

appropriate to deal with transport

situations.

F. Where Is the Public Record and

Where Do I Send Comments?

The official record for this proposed

rule is located at the addresses in the

ADDRESSES section at the beginning of

this document. The addresses for

sending comments are also provided in

the ADDRESSES section at the beginning

of this document. Public comments are

solicited on EPA’s proposed rulemaking

action. Public comments received by

June 18, 2001 will be considered in the

development of EPA’s final rulemaking

action.

II. What Administrative Requirements

did EPA Consider?

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

proposed action merely proposes to

determine that air quality meets federal

requirements and imposes no additional

requirements. 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

determine that air quality meets federal

requirements and does not impose any

additional enforceable duty, 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,

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2001 / Proposed Rules 27487

August 10, 1999), because it determines

that air quality meets federal

requirements, 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.

This rule does not involve technical

standards, but air quality considerations

governed by federal regulations. Thus,

the requirements of section 12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.

272 note) do not apply. As required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing

this proposed rule, EPA has taken the

necessary steps to eliminate drafting

errors and ambiguity, minimize

potential litigation, and provide a clear

legal standard for affected conduct. EPA

has complied with Executive Order

12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by

examining the takings implications of

the rule in accordance with the

‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk

and Avoidance of Unanticipated

Takings’ issued under the executive

order. This 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, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

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

Dated: April 20, 2001.

Dated: May 8, 2001.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

Norman Neidergang,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

[FR Doc. 01–12439 Filed 5–16–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P