4756 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[TX–126–1–7477; FRL–6933–8]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Texas; the

Dallas/Fort Worth Nonattainment Area;

Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to

approve the 1-hour ozone Attainment

Demonstration State Implementation

Plan (SIP), the Post 96 Rate-of-Progress

(ROP) plan SIP, and the 15% ROP plan

SIP for the Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW)

serious ozone nonattainment area. The

EPA is also proposing to extend the

attainment date for the DFW area to

November 15, 2007, from November 15,

1999, based on transport from the

Houston/Galveston/Brazoria (HGA)

ozone nonattainment area; approve the

Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

contained in the Attainment

Demonstration SIP and the Post 1996

ROP plan SIP; approve the State’s

enforceable commitment to perform a

mid-course review and submit a SIP

revision to the EPA by May 2004;

approve the State’s enforceable

commitment to revise the SIP Motor

Vehicle Emissions Budgets using the

MOBILE6 on-road emissions model;

approve revisions to the 1990 base year

inventory; and find that the DFW area

meets the Reasonably Available Control

Technology (RACT) requirements for

major sources of volatile organic

compounds (VOC) emissions. The EPA

is also proposing to convert the

conditional, interim approval of the

DFW 15% plan (63 FR 62943) to a full

approval because the requirements for

full approval appear to have been met.

This proposed action is based on the

requirements of the Federal Clean Air

Act (the Act) related to ozone

demonstrations.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before March 19, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to Mr.

Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Air Planning

Section (6PD–L), at the EPA Region 6

Office listed below. Copies of

documents relevant to this action,

including the Technical Support

Document (TSD) are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the following location.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 6, Air Planning Section (6PD–L),

1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–

2733.

Texas Natural Resource Conservation

Commission, Office of Air Quality,

12124 Park Circle, Austin, Texas 78753.

Anyone wanting to examine these

documents should make an

appointment with the appropriate office

at least two working days in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Herbert R. Sherrow, Jr., Air Planning

Section (6PD–L), 1445 Ross Avenue,

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. Telephone

Number (214) 665–7237, e-Mail

Address: sherrow.herb@epa.gov.

Table of Contents

I. Attainment Demonstration and Attainment

Date

A. Proposed Action

B. Attainment Demonstration Contents

C. Photochemical Modeling

D. Photochemical Modeling Results

E. Weight-Of-Evidence

F. Emission Control Strategy

G. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget

H. EPA’s Analysis

II. Post 1996 Rate of Progress Plan

A. Proposed Action

B. Calculation of Requirements

C. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget

III. 15% Rate of Progress Plan

Proposed Action

IV. Background

A. The Relevant Clean Air Act

Requirements

B. Dates of State’s SIP Submissions

C. General Requirements for an Attainment

Demonstration and its Motor Vehicle

Emissions Budgets

D. Ozone Transport Policy and Attainment

Date Extensions

V. Administrative Requirements

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’

‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refers to EPA.

I. Attainment Demonstration and

Attainment Date

A. Proposed Action

What Action Are we Taking?

We are proposing to approve the

transport demonstration and attainment

demonstration SIP developed for the

DFW ozone nonattainment area because

they meet the Clean Air Act. We believe

that the State has adequately followed

our 1998 Transport Guidance for

demonstrating transport, and that the

State’s transport demonstration analyses

indicate that there are impacts of ozone

and ozone precursor transports from the

upwind HGA area affecting the DFW

area. In addition, we believe that the

modeling, the provided weight-ofevidence analyses, and the analysis of

transport of ozone and ozone precursor

compounds from the HGA area,

demonstrate that the control strategy

chosen by the State will provide for

attainment of the ozone standard. It is

our technical position that the control

strategy will provide for attainment of

the ozone standard by November 15,

2007.

We are proposing to approve the DFW

1-hour ozone nonattainment area

attainment demonstration SIP; the

State’s request for an extension of the

attainment date to November 15, 2007,

while retaining the area’s current

classification as serious; the Motor

Vehicle Emissions Budgets; the State’s

enforceable commitment to conduct a

mid-course review (including

evaluation of all modeling, inventory

data, and other tools and assumptions

used to develop this attainment

demonstration) and to submit a midcourse review SIP revision, with

recommended mid-course corrective

actions, to us by May 1, 2004; the Speed

Limit Reductions in nine counties

(including the DFW 4-county area;

Dallas, Tarrant, Collin, and Denton

Counties); a Voluntary Mobile

Emissions Program in nine counties

(including the DFW 4-county area);

Transportation Control Measures in the

DFW area; the 15% ROP Plan, the Post1996 ROP Plan; revisions to the 1990

base year inventory; and the State’s

enforceable commitment to performing

new mobile source modeling for the

DFW area, using MOBILE6, our on-road

mobile emissions factor computer

model, within 24 months of the model’s

release; and, if transportation

conformity analysis is to be performed

between 12 months and 24 months after

the MOBILE6 release, transportation

conformity will not be determined until

Texas submits a motor vehicle

emissions budget which is developed

using MOBILE6 and which we find

adequate. We are also proposing to find

that the DFW area meets all remaining

outstanding VOC RACT requirements

for major sources.

If the subsequent analyses conducted

by the State as part of the mid-course

review indicate additional reductions

are needed for the DFW area to attain

the ozone standard, we will require the

State to implement additional controls

as soon as possible which demonstrate

attainment through photochemical grid

modeling. We cannot finalize the

proposed action upon the Attainment

Demonstration SIP, the State’s request

for an extension of the attainment date,

and the MVEB contained in the

Attainment Demonstration SIP unless

and until we have fully approved all of

the control measures relied upon in the

State’s Attainment Demonstration SIP

for the DFW area and the control

measures required by the Act for a

serious area such as the DFW area. See

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules 4757

section F., Action needed on Control

Measures for a complete list of the

rulemaking actions which must be

completed before we can finalize action

on the DFW Attainment Demonstration

SIP, the attainment date extension, and

the Attainment Demonstration SIP’s

MVEB. Furthermore, we cannot finalize

action on these three items unless and

until the Governor submits the finally

adopted enforceable commitment

regarding MOBILE6. The State has

begun its public comment process on an

enforceable commitment and has

committed to performing new mobile

source modeling for the DFW area,

using MOBILE6, within 24 months of

the model’s release. The public hearing

is scheduled for January 4, 2001.

Was the Submittal Addressed in Public

Hearings and Adopted by the State?

Four Public hearings were held in the

DFW area on January 26 and 27, 2000.

The State formally adopted the

submittal on April 19, 2000. In addition,

the State held six other public hearings

in other cities on the submittal. The

Governor of Texas submitted the

Attainment Demonstration SIP, a

request for extension of the attainment

date for the DFW ozone nonattainment

area, adopted rules, orders and

initiatives, and the mid-course

commitment on April 25, 2000. The

State has gone forward with its public

participation requirements on a

commitment to performing new mobile

source modeling for the DFW area,

using MOBILE6. The public hearing on

this commitment is scheduled for

January 4, 2001. We anticipate that the

Governor of Texas will submit this

adopted enforceable commitment in the

Spring of 2001. The Governor also

submitted after public notice and

hearing, the Post 1996 ROP Plan and

revisions to the 1990 base year

inventory on October 25, 1999.

B. Attainment Demonstration Contents

What Are the Contents of the

Attainment Demonstration Submittal?

The April 25, 2000 submittal,

concerning the ozone attainment

demonstration and an extension of the

attainment date for the DFW ozone

nonattainment area, contains:

1. A photochemical modeling

demonstration and additional weight-ofevidence analyses supporting the

photochemical modeling demonstration,

2. An accompanying control strategy,

comprised of:

a. Regulations and initiatives in the

DFW area (and their documentation);

b. Regulations and initiatives in

certain counties surrounding the DFW

area (and their documentation); and

c. Additional regional rules and

orders (and their documentation), relied

upon for demonstrating attainment in

the DFW area.

3. A 2007 Motor Vehicle Emissions

Budget (MVEB) for transportation

conformity;

4. A demonstration of transport from

the HGA area supporting an attainment

date extension to 2007;

5. Emissions growth estimates, and a

2007 forecast emissions inventory; and,

6. A commitment to perform a midcourse review with submittal to us by

May 1, 2004.

The attainment control strategy; i.e.,

regulations, initiatives, and orders, are

primarily designed to control Nitrogen

Oxides (NOX) emissions from various

sources, since the modeling shows

ozone reduction is more sensitive to

NOX controls.

For purposes of this action, we are

reviewing the modeling, weight-ofevidence support, the transport analysis,

the MVEB, forecasted emissions

inventory, the mid-course enforceable

commitment, and the Transportation

Control Measures, the Speed limit

reductions and the Voluntary Mobile

Emissions Program local initiatives. We

are also reviewing the enforceable

commitment to perform new mobile

source modeling for the DFW area,

using MOBILE6, within 24 months of

the model’s release, including a

provision stating that if transportation

conformity analysis is to be performed

between 12 months and 24 months after

the MOBILE6 release, transportation

conformity will not be determined until

Texas submits a motor vehicle

emissions budget which is developed

using MOBILE6 and which we find

adequate.

C. Photochemical Modeling

What Model Approach Was Used for the

Analysis?

The state used the Comprehensive Air

Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx)

version 2.01 photochemical grid model

to conduct both the SIP attainment

demonstration modeling and the

downwind transport modeling for the

DFW ozone nonattainment area. The

State demonstrated that CAMx

performed better than UAM version IV,

the regulatory model, in the HGA

nonattainment area and petitioned us to

approve its use in the DFW

nonattainment area. We approved the

use of CAMx for the DFW ozone

nonattainment area based upon the

model’s better performance in the HGA

nonattainment area. This was

considered to be valid for the DFW area.

The State’s modeling activities were

performed as outlined in a series of the

modeling protocols, according to our

‘‘Guideline for Regulatory Application

of the Urban Airshed Model’’ (July,

1991) (Guideline). The final modeling

protocol developed by the State was

submitted in August 1999. This protocol

was reviewed and approved by us. The

State used a relatively large modeling

domain with nested grids to capture the

influence of regional and long-range

transport. The modeling domain covers

the DFW ozone nonattainment area

which is comprised of Dallas, Tarrant,

Collin, and Denton Counties. The

modeling domain also covers most

counties in central and east Texas,

including the ozone nonattainment

counties of Harris, Jefferson, Orange,

Chambers, Hardin, Liberty,

Montgomery, Waller, Brazoria,

Galveston, and Fort Bend counties. It

also covers a number of other States;

e.g., Louisiana and Mississippi in the

southeastern portion of the country.

How Were Exceedance Days Evaluated

and What Days Were Modeled?

Our 1991 Guideline sets forth a

recommended procedure for selecting

ozone exceedance days appropriate for

conducting a modeling demonstration.

This procedure, in part, considers wind

rose analyses based upon the four

morning hours of 0700 to 1000 local

standard time. These wind rose analyses

are used to define the meteorological

patterns for source-receptor

relationships associated with high

ozone events. The State used this

method for defining meteorological

patterns. The number of ozone

exceedance days for the period, 1990–

1996, associated with each

meteorological pattern was identified.

The most prominent meteorological

pattern for ozone exceedance days (i.e.,

70%) was calm winds; i.e., wind speeds

< 3mph. The meteorological pattern

with southerly winds was the second

most prominent pattern with 25% of the

ozone exceedance days.

A total of eleven ozone exceedance

days were identified as candidates for

modeling. From these, the State chose

the candidate episodes in 1995 (calm

winds) and 1996 (southerly winds), in

part, since they are more applicable to

the most currently available emissions

inventory (the 1996 Periodic) and since

more ambient data is generally available

for these episodes.

The State selected June 21 and 22,

1995, which form a multi-day episode,

as two of the three primary episode days

to model from the calm meteorological

regime. These two days also had 1-hour

exceedances fairly close to the current

ozone design value (i.e., 139 ppb). For

4758 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules

the third primary episode day, the State

selected July 3, 1996. Although the

meteorological pattern on July 3rd had

neither calm nor southerly winds, since

the two days prior exhibited southerly

winds, the rationale for this selection is

that July 3rd is associated with

southerly winds. It also occurred during

the period of enhanced aerometric

monitoring. The high ozone episode

days the State selected and modeled

meet with the requisite three primary

episode days and cover the two

predominate types of meteorological

patterns associated with high ozone in

the DFW area. A more complete

description of the episode selections

and technical rationales can be found in

the TSD.

How Was Potential Transport From the

HGA Area Addressed?

The State demonstrated the potential

transport of ozone and ozone precursors

from the upwind HGA nonattainment

area upon the DFW area for both the

1995 and the 1996 episodes. This

demonstration was primarily based

upon two modeling analyses. The first

used the same set of air quality and

meteorological inputs as used in the

base case simulation, but with an

emissions data set in which

anthropogenic (man-made) emissions

from the 8-county HGA area were

eliminated. The second was an ozone

source apportionment analysis. The

CAMx model has an optional feature

which tracks the sources of precursors

that contribute to the ozone formed at a

given location. This feature was used to

assess the culpability of sources in the

8-county HGA nonattainment area to the

DFW four-county nonattainment area.

These analyses show that for July 3,

1996, 2–4 ppb of ozone in portions of

the DFW area comes from HGA sources.

The State also submitted a back

trajectory analysis of ozone exceedance

days in the DFW area for the six year

period, 1993 to 1998. During this period

there were 160 exceedance days in the

DFW area and approximately ten

percent had trajectories going back to

the HGA area.

Thus, emissions from the HGA area

have the potential to influence DFW’s

ability to attain the 1-hour ozone

standard. It is EPA’s proposed technical

position that for some ozone exceedance

days, the DFW area is affected by

transport from the HGA area. On other

exceedance days, the DFW area is

affected only by ozone precursor

emissions generated within the DFW

area itself.

Based on this transport

demonstration, we propose to grant the

State’s request for an extension of the

attainment date to November 15, 2007.

A detailed discussion of the

acceptability of the demonstration is in

the section on EPA’s Analysis in this

notice. A discussion of the Transport

Policy is in the BACKGROUND section

of this notice.

D. Photochemical Modeling Results

What Were the Modeling Results for the

Primary Episode Days and for the

Future Attainment Date?

The model simulated ozone

concentrations on selected primary

episode days for the 1995 and 1996

episodes using emissions specific for

those days, and emissions forecast to a

2007 future year. The resulting DFW

area summary of the performance

statistics and ozone peaks for 1995,

1996, and 2007 are shown in Table 1.

The normalized bias and gross error

performance statistics shown in Table 1

are well below our recommended

maximum levels. This indicates that the

model adequately replicated the spacial

and temporal ozone formation that

occurred on these ozone exceedance

days. This provides an assurance that

the model is useful in testing future

control measures. These modeled ozone

peaks reflect the results of the 2007

forecast emissions and control strategy

for the 1995 and 1996 episode days.

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE STATISTICS AND PEAK OBSERVED AND MODELED OZONE CONCENTRATIONS (PPB)

IN THE DFW OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA

Period Episode days

Primary Episode Day ............................................................................................................................... 6/21/95 6/22/95 7/3/96

Peak Observed ........................................................................................................................................ 144 135 144

Peak Modeled Base Case ....................................................................................................................... 132.8 137.6 159.2

Peak Modeled 2007 Future Case ........................................................................................................... 121.1 126.1 144.2

Peak Modeled 2007 Post-Control Case .................................................................................................. 110.3 113.1 131.5

Normalized Bias Greater Than 60 ppb ................................................................................................... ¥10.1% ¥8.8% ¥3.4%

Normalized Gross Error Greater Than 60 ppb ........................................................................................ 12.2% 12.5% 15.0%

Do the Modeling Results Demonstrate

Attainment of the Ozone Standard?

The Guidance on Use of Modeled

Results to Demonstrate Attainment of

the Ozone NAAQS, (June, 1996)

recommends the use of either a

statistical or deterministic approach to

demonstrate attainment. Both of these

approaches allow for the use of Weightof-Evidence (WOE) to supplement the

modeling results. The State elected to

use the deterministic approach with

WOE. As noted in Table 1, the 1-hour

maximum predicted ozone

concentration for the 2007 post-control

modeling in the DFW area on the

controlling day (July 3, 1996) (131.5

ppb) is above the standard; whereas, the

other two episode days modeled are

well below the standard.

The 2007 post-control modeling by

itself does not conclusively demonstrate

attainment of the standard; (i.e., the

deterministic test), but its results are so

close to attainment to warrant the

consideration of WOE analyses that

support the demonstration of

attainment. The State conducted several

WOE analyses (see next section for

further details) to provide additional

confirmation that the demonstration

shows that DFW will attain the standard

by 2007 with the planned emission

controls.

E. Weight-Of-Evidence

What WOE Analyses and

Determinations Are Used To Support

the Modeled Attainment

Demonstration?

As presented in section D, our 1996

guidance document provides for the use

of WOE to complement the control

strategy modeling in demonstrating

attainment. The key concept behind our

June 1996 guidance is that

determination of attainment, based on

monitored ozone concentrations, allows

for some exceedances of the 1-hour

standard. Thus, even though the model

may show some areas with peak

concentrations slightly above the

NAAQS, such modeled exceedances do

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules 4759

not necessarily imply that monitored

attainment will not be achieved.

Since the 2007 post-control modeling

for the July 3, 1996, episode day is the

only day exceeding the standard, most

of the WOE analyses address this day.

The State submitted the following WOE

analyses:

1. Notable higher peak modeled than

monitored ozone concentrations: The

monitored peak in the DFW area on July

3, 1996, was 144 ppb versus a modeled

peak of 159 ppb. Thus, there is some

uncertainty regarding the modeled peak,

even though the episode satisfied all of

our criteria for model performance.

2. Meteorology: As previously

indicated, the specific meteorology on

July 3, 1996, was not of the types most

associated with ozone exceedances in

the DFW area. In addition, although the

model performance for July 3, 1996, was

acceptable, there was an indication that

the meteorological features were not

fully replicated for this day. There were

scattered rain showers in the area which

may have presented some

meteorological effects which could not

be modeled.

3. Additional ozone reduction

metrics: The State presented additional

metrics, aside from the modeled peak.

The metrics presented are Area of

exceedance, Area-hours of exceedance,

and a measure of potential exposure.

These metrics measure the geographic

extent and temporal duration and

duration of the ozone exceedance for

various control strategies. The results

show that the modeled control strategy

produces a significant reduction in each

of these additional metrics. This

indicates that the selected control

strategy should reduce the geographical

and temporal aspects of the ozone

exceedance, as well as the peak

concentration.

4. Estimated future design value: The

estimated future design value, as

recommended in our draft guidance for

assessing attainment of the 8-hour

standard, is determined by

proportioning the change in the

modeled ozone results to a change in

the design value.

To estimate the future design value,

the State developed a ratio of the 2007

post-control modeling results to that of

the original Base modeling results.

Since episodes chosen for the DFW

attainment demonstration occurred

during 1995 and 1996, the State used

monitoring data collected from 1995 to

1997 in the DFW area to establish the

base design values. Then the ratio of the

modeling results is multiplied by the

1995–1997 base design value to obtain

an estimated future design value. Using

this procedure the estimated future

design value for July 3rd is 115.3 ppb,

which is less than the standard. This

result suggests that it is likely that the

area will attain the standard by 2007.

5. Design value trends: The State

analyzed historic monitored air quality

data in the DFW area for the period of

1981 to 1999. The measure of air quality

which determines the nonattainment

classification is the design value. The

design value is the highest of the fourthhighest daily peak ozone concentration

over a three year period at any

monitoring site in the area. There had

been a general downtrend in the design

value; however, it has remained

constant in recent years. The constant

trend has occurred despite dramatic

increases in the level of construction

and economic activity and substantial

growth in the mobile fleet. Existing

regulations appear to be adequate to

keep the design value constant and new

regulations included in the SIP should

provide a significant decline in the

design value.

6. New technologies: The State plans

to continue reviewing and

implementing new technologies as

appropriate for the DFW area. The area

will also benefit from our requirements

for cleaner vehicles and fuels in the

future.

In summary, the State’s WOE analyses

provide adequate support for the State’s

attainment demonstration. Maintaining

air quality through recent periods is

demonstrated and future progress in air

quality improvement is shown to be

likely. Our decision on the adequacy of

the WOE is based on the composite of

the analyses, and not on any single

element. The WOE complements the

modeled control strategy and indicates

attainment should be reached by

November 15, 2007.

The 1996 guidance recognizes a need

to perform a mid-course review as a

means for addressing uncertainty in the

modeling results. Because of the

uncertainty in long term projections, we

believe that a viable attainment

demonstration that relies on weight of

evidence should contain provisions for

periodic review of monitoring,

emissions, and modeling data to assess

the extent to which refinements to

emission control measures are needed.

The State submitted an enforceable

commitment to perform such a midcourse review and to submit a SIP

revision by May 2004.

F. Emission Control Strategy

What Emission Control Strategies Were

Included in the Attainment

Demonstration?

The DFW attainment demonstration

SIP is directed at reductions of NOX

since the modeling shows reductions of

NOX will be most effective in bringing

the area into attainment of the Standard.

The attainment demonstration SIP

relies on a combination of Federal

measures, State measures, CAA

statutory requirements, local initiatives

applied to different groups of counties

in, and adjacent to, the DFW area, and

projections of the level of control in the

HGA area based on enforceable

commitments in the November 1999 SIP

for the HGA area. The attainment

demonstration SIP also relies on

Regional measures applied in east and

central Texas. Please refer to the TSD for

more details regarding these measures,

initiatives, growth rates and emission

reductions.

Federal Measures: The State included

the following Federal Measures in the

Future Year Base Case.

1. On-road mobile sources:

—Tier 2 vehicle emission standards and

federal low sulfur gasoline in DFW

and HGA.

—National Low Emitting Vehicles

standards.

—Heavy-duty diesel standards.

We believe that the projected growth

rates and emissions reductions from the

sources subject to the above federal

measures were calculated correctly by

the State.

2. Off-road mobile sources:

—Lawn and garden equipment

standards.

—Tier III heavy-duty diesel standards.

—Locomotive standards.

—Compression ignition standards for

vehicles and equipment.

—Spark ignition standards for vehicles

and equipment.

—Recreational marine standards.

We believe that the State correctly

projected the growth rates and

emissions reductions subject to these

federal measures.

CAA Statutory Requirements: The

State included the following CAA

Statutory Requirements in the Future

Year Base Case.

—Phase II reformulated gasoline (RFG)

in the DFW four-county

nonattainment area and HGA eightcounty nonattainment area.

—Texas motorists’ choice inspection

and maintenance (I/M) program in

Harris, Dallas and Tarrant Counties.

We believe that the State correctly

projected the growth rates and

4760 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules

emissions reductions from sources

subject to these CAA Statutory

Requirements.

State Measures: The State included

the following State Measures as local

(DFW) area controls in the Future Year

Base Case.

—Electric generating and industrial

point sources—four county area.

—An expanded vehicle Inspection/

Maintenance program—nine county

area.

—Low emission diesel fuel—nine

county area.

—Heavy-duty diesel operating

restrictions—four county area.

—Accelerated purchase of Tier 2/3 nonroad compression ignition

equipment—four county area.

—Airport ground support equipment

electrification—airports of a certain

size in the four county area.

—Gasoline heavy equipment engines—

nine county area.

—Gas-fired water heaters, small boilers,

and process heaters—State-wide.

We have already published actions on

some of the above control measures in

the Federal Register as discussed below.

We believe that the State correctly

projected the growth rates for and the

emissions reductions from these

affected sources.

Local Measures:

1. Speed limit reductions—nine

county area.

2. Voluntary Mobile Emissions

Program—nine county area.

3. Transportation Control Measures—

four county area.

Our proposed action on these three

local measures is discussed in more

detail later in this section.

Regional Measures:

1. Agreed orders with Alcoa, Inc.

(formerly Aluminum Company of

America) for their Milam Facility, and

the Eastman Chemical Company, Texas

operations, for their facility near

Longview, Texas.

2. Electric generating facilities and

cement plants in central and eastern

Texas.

3. Low Reid Vapor Pressure Gasoline

in eastern and central Texas.

4. Stage I gasoline vapor recovery at

gas stations in central and eastern

Texas.

We have already published actions on

the above control measures in the

Federal Register, as discussed below.

Action Needed on Control Measures

We cannot finalize an action upon the

Attainment Demonstration SIP, its

MVEB, and the State’s Request for an

Extension of the Attainment Date until

we have finalized action on the

following:

1. The revised emission specifications

in the DFW area for Electric Utility

Boilers, Industrial, Commercial or

Institutional Boilers and certain Process

Heaters (30 TAC sections 117.104,

117.106, 117.108, 117.116, 117.206 as

they relate to the DFW area, and the

repeal of sections 117.109 and 117.601

as they relate to the DFW area):

Proposed approval October 31, 2000.

See 65 FR 64914.

2. Vehicle Inspection/Maintenance

program (30 TAC 114.2, 114.50—

114.53).

3. Low emission diesel fuel (30 TAC

114.6, 114.312–114.317, 114.319).

4. Non-Road Large Spark-Ignition

(LSI) Engines (30 TAC 114.420, 114.421,

114.422, 114.427, and 114.429).

Accelerated Purchase of Tier2/Tier3

Non-Road Compression-Ignition

Equipment (30 TAC 114.410, 114.412,

114.416, 114.417, and 114.419). NonRoad Construction Equipment

Restriction (30 TAC 114.432, 114.436,

114.437, and 114.439). Electrification of

Airport Ground Support Equipment

(GSE) (30 TAC 114.400, 114.402,

114.406, and 114.409.

5. The State-wide NOX rules for Water

Heaters, Small Boilers, and Process

Heaters (30 TAC sections 117.460,

117.461, 117.463, 117.465, 117.467,

117.469): Direct final approval effective

December 25, 2000. See 65 FR 64148.

6. The agreed orders with Alcoa, Inc.

(formerly Aluminum Company of

America) for their Milam Facility, and

the Eastman Chemical Company, Texas

operations, for their facility near

Longview, Texas: Direct final approval

effective December 25, 2000. See 65 FR

64148.

7. The NOX rules for Electric

Generating Facilities and cement plants

in East and Central Texas (30 TAC

sections 117.131, 117.133, 117.134,

117.135, 117.138, 117.141, 117.143,

117.145, 117.147, 117.149, 117.512,

117.260, 117.261, 117.265, 117.273,

117.279, 117.283, 117.524): Proposed

approval October 31, 2000. See 65 FR

64914.

8. Lower Reid Vapor Pressure

Gasoline in eastern and central Texas

(30 TAC sections 114.1, 114.301,

114.304–114.307, and 114.309).

Proposed approval November 20, 2000.

See 65 FR 69720.

9. Stage I vapor recovery in eastern

and central Texas (30 TAC sections

115.222–114.229): Proposed approval

December 20, 2000. See 65 FR 79745.

10. VOC rules as RACT for batch

processing (30 TAC sections 115.160–

115.169) and wastewater (30 TAC

sections 115.140–115.149): Proposed

approval December 20, 2000. See 65 FR

79745.

11. The administrative revisions to

the existing Texas NOX SIP (30 TAC

sections 117.101—117.121, 117.201–

117.223, 117.510, 117.520, and

117.570): Proposed approval October 31,

2000. See 65 FR 64914.

12. Texas Clean Fleet Program (30

TAC 114.1, 114.3, 114.150, 114.151,

114.153–114.157, 114.201, 114.202,

114.152).

13. The 15% ROP Plan.

14. The Post 1996 ROP Plan.

15. The revisions to the 1990 base

year inventory.

16. The speed limit reductions, the

VMEP and the TCMs.

17. The finding that major sources of

VOCs in the DFW area are meeting

RACT.

It should be noted that several of

these measures are the subject of

ongoing litigation. Should the State lose,

and as a result imperil any reductions

needed for attainment, and there are no

measures which make up the lost

reductions, we may have to disapprove

the attainment demonstration SIP.

What Are the Local Initiatives and Are

They Approvable?

The State submitted three local

initiatives: Speed limit reductions in the

nine county area (Dallas, Tarrant,

Collin, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Parker,

Rockwall, and Kaufman Counties), a

Voluntary Mobile Emissions Program in

the nine county area, and

Transportation Control Measures in the

four county area.

Speed Limit Reductions

The Texas Department of

Transportation (TxDOT) revised

regulations relating to speed limits to

allow TNRCC to submit a request to

change speed limits for environmental

reasons when justified. Please see

adopted rules, 25 TexReg 5686, June 9,

2000; and proposed rules, 25 TexReg

2018, March 10, 2000). TxDOT, using

this authority, will lower all 70 mile per

hour (mph) speed limits to 65 mph, and

all 65 mph speed limits to 60 mph in

the four county area. These slower

speeds are anticipated to reduce the

emissions of NOX and improve air

quality. We propose approval of the

speed limit reductions control measure.

Voluntary Mobile Emissions Program

(VMEP) Reductions

What Is EPA’s VMEP?

Voluntary mobile source strategies

that attempt to complement existing

regulatory programs through voluntary,

non-regulatory changes in local

transportation activities or changes in

in-use vehicle and engine composition

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules 4761

constitute the VMEP. The Clean Air Act

allows SIP credit for new approaches to

reducing mobile source emissions. This

flexible approach is set forth in section

110. Economic incentive provisions are

in sections 182 and 108 of the Act.

Credits generated through VMEP can be

counted toward attainment and

maintenance of the NAAQS. Up to 3%

of the total future year emissions

reductions required to attain the

appropriate NAAQS may be claimed

under the VMEP policy.

What Qualifies for SIP Credit?

The basic framework for ensuring SIP

credit for VMEPs is spelled out in

guidance that came out under a

memorandum from Richard D. Wilson,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air

and Radiation, dated October 24, 1997,

entitled ‘‘Guidance on Incorporating

Voluntary Mobile Source Emission

Reduction Programs in State

Implementation Plans (SIPs).’’

Generally, to obtain credit for a VMEP,

a State submits a SIP that:

(1) Identifies and describes a VMEP;

(2) Contains projections of emission

reductions attributable to the program,

along with any relevant technical

support documentation;

(3) Commits to evaluation and

reporting on program implementation

and results; and

(4) Commits to the timely remedy of

any credit shortfall should the VMEP

not achieve the anticipated emission

reductions.

More specifically, the guidance

suggests the following key points be

considered for approval of credits. The

credits should be quantifiable, surplus,

enforceable, permanent, and adequately

supported.

In addition, VMEPs must be

consistent with attainment of the

standard and with the Rate of Progress

requirements and not interfere with

other Clean Air Act requirements.

What Did the State Submit?

The State submitted program

descriptions that projected emission

reductions attributable to each specific

program as part of the DFW attainment

demonstration submitted April 25,

2000. The State commits to evaluating

each program to validate estimated

credits. Table 2 lists the programs and

projected credits. Programs submitted

with no credit assigned are listed in

Table 3.

TABLE 2.—VOLUNTARY MOBILE EMISSION REDUCTION PROGRAMS AND CREDITS CLAIMED

Program type VOC benefits

(tons per day)

NOX benefits

(tons per day)

Alternative Fuel Program ................................................................................................................................... 0.18 .................. 0.18

Employee Trip Reduction .................................................................................................................................. 0.29 .................. 0.53

Public Education Campaign/Ozone Season Fare Reduction ........................................................................... 0.08 .................. 0.15

Tier II Locomotive Engines ................................................................................................................................ 0 to 0.6 ............. 0 to 3.0

Vehicle Retirement Program/Vehicle Maintenance* ......................................................................................... 0.56 .................. 0.77

Total Benefits (tpd) ............................................................................................................................................ 1.11 to 1.71 ...... 1.63 to 4.63

* Emission benefits quantified for the Vehicle Retirement Program only. Emission benefits for Vehicle Maintenance are credited in the Vehicle

Inspection and Maintenance Program.

TABLE 3.—VOLUNTARY EMISSION REDUCTION PROGRAMS WITH NO

CREDIT ASSIGNED

Sustainable Development

Non-Road Ozone Season Reductions

Off-Road Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Retrofits

The State’s goal is 5.0 tons per day of

NOX benefit from the VMEP program.

This is within the 3% criteria in our

guidance. The State has committed to

evaluating and reporting on the program

implementation and results and to

timely remedy of any credit shortfall.

The State also committed to

additional Transportation Control

Measures that can be substituted for any

shortfall in credit from the estimated

credits for VMEP. These include Signal

Improvements and Freeway Corridor

Management.

Do the VMEPs Meet the Requirements

for Approval?

A detailed analysis of all the VMEP

measures can be found in the TSD for

this document. For each creditable

VMEP, the measure was found to be

quantifiable. The reductions are surplus

by not being substitutes for mandatory,

required emission reductions. The

measures will be enforced by the State.

The reductions will continue at least for

as long as the time period in which they

are used by this SIP demonstration, so

they are considered permanent. Each

measure is adequately supported by

personnel and program resources for

implementation.

What Action is EPA Taking on the

VMEP?

The DFW Attainment SIP VMEP

meets the criteria for credit in the SIP.

The State has shown that the credits are

quantifiable, surplus, enforceable,

permanent, adequately supported, and

consistent with the SIP and the Act. We

propose to approve the VMEP portion of

the Texas SIP.

Transportation Control Measures

(TCMs)

The State has included a variety of

TCMs in the SIP as a control strategy for

attainment of the ozone NAAQS. The

specific TCMs have been described in

detail in Appendix G of the SIP and will

be incorporated by reference in the Code

of Federal Regulations in the final

approval action. Detailed information is

necessary for those TCMs used as

emissions reduction measures in the SIP

to ensure that they are specific and

enforceable as required by the Act and

reflected in our policy. The TCMs’

description in the SIP includes

identification of each project, location,

length of each project (if applicable), a

brief project description,

implementation date, and emissions

reductions for both VOC and NOX.

The TCMs identified through this

process and included in the SIP are

contained and funded in the

metropolitan transportation plan (MTP)

and transportation improvement

program (TIP) to ensure funding for

implementation. We propose approval

of the transportation control measures.

What Are the Projected NOX reductions

From the Federal and State Control

Measures and Local Initiatives?

Table 4 provides the projected NOX

reductions for the 2007 attainment year

resulting from the Federal and State

rules, and the local initiatives.

TABLE 4.—NOX REDUCTION

ESTIMATES

(tons per day)

Federal Measures ..................... Reduction

On-road mobile .................. 93.00

Off-road mobile .................. 48.00

Total Federal Measures ......................... 141.00

State Measures ........................ ....................

Major point sources ........... 129.00

Inspection/Maintenance ..... 54.45

4762 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 4.—NOX REDUCTION

ESTIMATES—Continued

(tons per day)

Low emission diesel fuel ... 3.48

HD diesel oper. restrictn

(est) ................................ 2.50

Acc purchase Tier II/III

spark .............................. 13.80

Airport GSE ....................... 9.54

Heavy equipment gas engines .............................. 1.80

Gas-fired water heaters,

etc .................................. 0.50

Total State measures 215.07

Local Initiatives

Speed limit reduction ......... 5.42

VMEP (2.4 tpd—5.4 tpd) ... 5.00

TCMs ................................. 4.73

Total Local Initiatives 15.15

TOTAL NOX REDUCTIONS ..... 371.22

G. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget

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 maximum

level of on-road emissions that can be

produced in 2007, when considered

with emissions from all other sources,

which demonstrate attainment of the

NAAQS. 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.

What Are the MVEBs Established by

This Plan and Proposed for Approval by

This Action?

The MVEBs established by this plan

and that the EPA is proposing to

approve are contained in Table 5.

TABLE 5.—2007 ATTAINMENT YEAR

MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS

(tons per day)

Pollutant 2007

VOC .......................................... 107.60

NOX .......................................... 164.30

What Is the State’s Commitment to

Revise the Motor Vehicle Emissions

Budgets With MOBILE6?

All States whose attainment

demonstration includes the effects of

the Tier 2/sulfur program have

committed to revise and resubmit their

motor vehicle emissions budgets after

we release MOBILE6. The State has

begun its public comment process on an

enforceable commitment and has

committed to performing new mobile

source modeling for the DFW area,

using MOBILE6, within 24 months of

the model’s release. The public hearing

is scheduled for January 4, 2001. In

addition, the enforceable commitment

includes a provision stating that if a

transportation conformity analysis is to

be performed between 12 months and

24 months after the release of MOBILE6,

transportation conformity will not be

determined until the State submits an

MVEB which is developed using

MOBILE6 and which we find adequate.

The North Central Texas Council of

Governments and the Department of

Transportation have been informed of

the commitment.

After adoption by the Commissioners,

the Governor of Texas must submit the

enforceable commitment to us. If the

State fails to meet its commitment to

submit revised budgets using MOBILE6,

we could make a finding of failure to

implement the SIP, which would start a

sanctions clock under section 179 of the

Act.

What Is the Applicable Budget To Use

for Conformity Analysis?

The proposed approval of the MVEB

in Table 5 would be effective for

conformity purposes only until revised

motor vehicle emissions budgets are

submitted and we have found them

adequate. In other words, the budgets

that are part of this attainment

demonstration will apply for conformity

purposes only until there are new,

adequate budgets consistent with the

State’s commitments to revise the

budgets. The revised budgets will apply

for conformity purposes as soon as we

find them adequate.

We are proposing to limit the duration

of our approval in this manner because

we are only proposing to approve the

attainment demonstrations and their

budgets because the States have

committed to revise them after we

release MOBILE6 and after the State

conducts its mid-course review.

Therefore, once we have confirmed that

the revised budgets are adequate, they

will be more appropriate than the

budgets we are proposing to approve for

conformity purposes now.

If the budgets we propose to approve

raise issues about the sufficiency of the

attainment demonstration, we will work

with the State. If the revised budgets

show that motor vehicle emissions are

lower than the budgets we approve, a

reassessment of the attainment

demonstration’s analysis will be

necessary.

This action does not propose any

change to the existing transportation

conformity rule or to the way it is

normally implemented with respect to

other submitted and approved SIPs,

which do not contain commitments to

revise the budget.

H. EPA’s Analysis

Did the State Adequately Document the

Techniques and Data Used To Derive

the Modeling Input Data and Modeling

Results?

Yes, the submittal from the State

thoroughly documented the techniques

and data used to derive the modeling

input data. The submittal adequately

summarized the modeling outputs and

the conclusions drawn from these

model outputs. The submittal

adequately documented the State’s

weight-of-evidence determinations and

the bases for concluding that these

determinations support the attainment

demonstration.

Did the Modeling Procedures and Input

Data Used Comply With the

Environmental Protection Agency

Guidelines and Clean Air Act

Requirements?

Yes, the modeling procedures and

input data (including the emissions

inventory inputs and procedures) meet

the requirements of the Act and are

consistent with our July 1991 and June

1996 ozone modeling guidelines.

Does the Emission Control Strategy

Meet the Requirements of the Clean Air

Act?

Yes, the selected emission control

strategy, based upon modeling and the

WOE techniques, plus additional

information regarding the effect of HGA

upon DFW, demonstrates attainment of

the 1-hour ozone standard in DFW.

Does the Weight-of-Evidence Support

the Attainment Demonstration?

Yes, the submittal adequately

documented the State’s WOE

determinations and the bases for

concluding that these determinations

adequately complement the attainment

demonstration.

The WOE, when viewed in aggregate

with the modeling, shows attainment of

the standard and thus we are proposing

approval.

Has the State Adopted the Selected

Emission Control Strategy and Has the

State Adopted the Emission Control

Regulations Needed to Implement the

Emission Control Strategies?

Yes, the State has adopted and

submitted the emission control

strategies and all associated emission

control regulations, orders, and the

TCMS, Speed Limit Reductions, and the

VMEP initiatives.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules 4763

Has the State Adopted all Local

Measures Required by the Clean Air Act

for the Area’s Current Ozone

Classification?

Yes, the State has adopted all VOC

and NOX emission control requirements

required under the Clean Air Act (Act)

for a serious ozone nonattainment area.

Please see the TSD for a listing of

requirements and the dates they were

satisfied.

It is our position that the State of

Texas has met the 1998 Transport

Policy’s criteria for adoption and

submittal to EPA for approval of all

measures required under the Act for an

area classified as serious.

Has the State Implemented all

Reasonably Available Control Measures?

Yes. Section 172(c)(1) of the Act

requires SIPs to provide for the

implementation of all reasonably

available control measures (RACM) as

expeditiously as practicable and for

attainment of the standard. We have

previously provided guidance

interpreting the RACM requirements of

172(c)(1) in the General Preamble. See

57 FR 13498, 13560 (April 16, 1992). In

the General Preamble, we indicated our

interpretation of section 172(c)(1), under

the 1990 amendments, as imposing a

duty on States to consider all available

control measures and to adopt and

implement such measures as are

reasonably available for implementation

in the particular nonattainment area. We

also retained our pre-1990 interpretation

of the RACM provisions that where

measures that might in fact be available

for implementation in the

nonattainment area could not be

implemented on a schedule that would

advance the date for attainment in the

area, we would not consider it

reasonable to require implementation of

such measures. We indicated that States

could reject certain RACM measures as

not reasonably available for various

reasons related to local conditions. A

State could include area-specific

reasons for rejecting a measure as

RACM, such as the rejected measure

would not advance the attainment date,

or technological and economic

feasibility in the area.

We also issued a recent memorandum

reaffirming our position on this topic,

‘‘Guidance on the Reasonably Available

Control Measures (RACM) Requirement

and Attainment Demonstration

Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment

Areas.’’ John S. Seitz, Director, Office of

Air Quality Planning and Standards,

dated November 30, 1999. A copy can

be obtained from www.epa.gov/ttn/

oarpg/t1pgm.html. In this

memorandum, we state that in order to

determine whether a state has adopted

all RACM necessary for attainment and

as expeditiously as practicable, the state

will need to provide a justification as to

why measures within the arena of

potential reasonable measures have not

been adopted. The justification would

need to support that a measure was not

reasonably available for that area and

could be based on technological or

economic grounds.

We reviewed additional potential

available measures, as documented in

the RACM analysis in the TSD

(Appendix C) for this proposed

rulemaking. Our analysis showed that

the State is already controlling the

significant major point sources and area

sources to RACM levels and the SIP

contains the transportation control

measures reviewed nationally, as well

as a motor vehicle Inspection and

Maintenance program. Based on this

analysis, we propose to conclude that

any remaining evaluated measures are

not reasonably available for the specific

DFW area, because (a) some would

require an intensive and costly effort for

numerous small area sources or

transportation control measures, and (b)

since the DFW area relies in part on

reductions from the upwind HGA area

which are substantial, and the

reductions projected to be achieved by

the evaluated additional set of measures

are relatively small, they would not

produce emission reductions sufficient

to advance the attainment date in the

DFW area and, therefore, should not be

considered RACM.

Although we encourage areas to

implement available RACM measures as

potentially cost effective methods to

achieve emissions reductions in the

short term, we do not believe that

section 172(c)(1) requires

implementation of potential RACM

measures that either require costly

implementation efforts or produce

relatively small emissions reductions

that will not be sufficient to allow the

DFW area to achieve attainment in

advance of full implementation of all

other required measures.

Has the State Established an Acceptable

MVEB?

The MVEB budget submitted by the

State for the DFW area is adequate and

is consistent with all pertinent SIP

requirements, and the MVEB is

proposed for approval.

Does the DFW Area Meet the RACT

Requirements for Major Source VOC

Emissions?

On March 7, 1995, as part of our

action approving VOC requirements, we

found that the State had implemented

RACT on all major sources in the DFW

area except those that were to be

covered by post-enactment Control

Technique Guidelines (CTG’s) (44 FR

12438). Since that time many expected

CTGs were issued as Alternative Control

Technique documents—ACTs. Of the

expected CTGs and ACT’s, DFW had

major sources in the following

categories; batch processing, reactors

and distillation, wood furniture and

aerospace coating. We have approved

measures for all of these categories as

meeting RACT. (See the TSD for this

action for dates.)

With regard to Aerospace coatings, we

have approved Alternate RACT

determinations for the major sources in

the DFW area: Lockheed-Martin, Bell

Helicopter Textron, and Raytheon Texas

Instruments Systems, Inc. January 20,

1994 (See 59 FR 02532), May 30,1997

(See 62 FR 29297), and February 9, 1998

(See 63 FR 6491), respectively. With

these Alternative RACT determinations,

we concluded that RACT was in place

for these Aerospace coating sources. On

March 27, 1998, we published the

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)

final rule and the Control Technique

Guideline for Aerospace Manufacturing

and Rework facilities. (See 63 FR

15006). The State submitted revisions to

its coating rules on July 13, 2000 to

ensure the control requirements for

Aerospace companies remained

consistent with the NESHAP rule. At

the same time, the State requested that

these replace the Alternative-RACT

plans as a part of the Texas SIP. The

revised 2000 aerospace rules provide

provisions that are more consistent with

the new MACT standards and we

anticipate that we will propose approval

of these provisions. In the mean time,

we believe the previously approved

alternative RACT plans continue to

meet the RACT requirements for these

three sources.

Also, with the reclassification of the

DFW area to serious, the major source

size was decreased to 50 tons per year.

This necessitated that the State revise its

rules for bakeries and adopt rules for the

large offset lithographers category. We

have approved the rule revisions for

bakeries and the new rules for offset

lithographers as meeting the RACT

requirements. (See TSD for dates and

cites).

Thus, it is our position that RACT is

in place for all major sources of VOCs

in the DFW area.

4764 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Was the Demonstration of Transport

From the HGA Area Acceptable To

Support the Request for Extension of the

Attainment Date?

The policy for the extension of an

ozone attainment date is discussed in

the BACKGROUND section of this notice.

The State’s compliance with these

requirements is discussed here.

a. Identification of the area as a

downwind area affected by ozone

transport.

We have reviewed the photochemical

modeling demonstrations, and are

proposing to agree with the State that

the July 3, 1996, episode adequately

demonstrates transport of pollutants

from the HGA area. We are proposing

that this transported pollution affects

DFW’s ability to attain by the current

attainment date. Thus, the DFW and

HGA areas are inextricably linked.

Without controls in the HGA area, the

DFW area’s ability to attain is

jeopardized. We, therefore, propose to

find that the State’s demonstration of

ozone transport meets the criteria in our

attainment date extension policy.

b. Submittal of an approvable

attainment demonstration.

EPA’s review of the attainment

demonstration SIP shows that it should

be approved. The State has modeled and

adopted an acceptable control strategy

that demonstrates attainment. We are

proposing to approve the attainment

demonstration SIP, and to agree that it

meets the criteria in the July 1998

transport policy and all other EPA

guidance and the regulatory and

statutory requirements.

c. Adoption of all applicable local

measures required under the area’s

current ozone classification.

Texas has adopted all VOC and NOX

related emission control requirements

required by the Act for a serious ozone

nonattainment area. A listing of

applicable CAA serious classificationrelated VOC and NOX related

regulations and their state-adopted dates

for the DFW area, is provided in the

TSD to this rulemaking.

It is our position that the State of

Texas has met the 1998 Transport

Policy’s criteria for adoption and

submittal of all measures required under

the Act for an area classified as serious.

We must finalize approval actions upon

the remaining serious area

requirements—the 15% ROP Plan, the

Post-96 ROP Plan, the I/M SIP, and the

Clean-fuel Vehicle SIP, before we can

make a final finding that the DFW area

is meeting all of its classification’s

statutory requirements, however.

d. Implementation of all adopted

measures by the time upwind controls

are expected.

All of the NOX and VOC rules will be

implemented as expeditiously as

practicable, but no later than 2005, two

years before the HGA attainment date of

November 15, 2007.

We are proposing to find that this

transport policy criteria has been met by

the State. We are of the opinion that the

phase-in compliance dates are as

expeditious as practicable compared

with the compliance dates of similar

sources in serious ozone nonattainment

areas of the country.

II. Post 1996 Rate of Progress Plan

A. Proposed Action

What Action Are We Taking?

We are proposing approval of the Post

1996 Rate of Progress (ROP) plan (9%

plan), submitted by the Governor on

October 25, 1999, which is designed to

reduce ozone forming emissions from

the baseline emissions by 9% in the

DFW nonattainment area for the years

1997–1999. This plan meets the

Reasonable Further Progress

requirements of the Act (section

182(c)(2)). In addition, we are proposing

to approve the MVEBs associated with

the 9% plan. We are also proposing to

approve the changes to the 1990 base

year emissions inventory for the DFW

area. The SIP was submitted October 25,

1999, and found complete January 6,

2000.

B. Calculation of Requirements

How Do we Calculate the Needed VOC

Emissions Reductions?

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 Final Base Year Inventory

includes all area, point, non-road

mobile, and on-road mobile source

emissions in the four county DFW

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 (63 FR 62943). The state revised

the 1990 base year VOC inventory again

with the October 25, 1999, SIP revision.

The October 25, 1999, SIP revision also

contained the State’s first revisions to

the 1990 base year NOX emissions

inventory. The changes resulted from

data gathered for the 1993 and 1996

periodic inventories. Analysis of the

changes in the periodic inventories was

backcast to the 1990 inventory for

consistency since the 1990 inventory

remains the ROP beginning point. We

have reviewed the inventory revisions

and they have been developed in

accordance with our guidance on

emission inventory preparation. Thus,

we are proposing approval of the

October 25, 1999, revisions to the 1990

base year inventory. The revised 1990

base year inventory is summarized in

Table 6. For more detail on how

emissions inventories were estimated,

see Appendix H in the TSD for this

action.

TABLE 6.—1990 RATE-OF-PROGRESS

BASE YEAR EMISSIONS INVENTORY

(tons per day)

Base year inventory

Source type VOC NOX

Point ...................... 63.98 71.76

Area ...................... 174.02 19.99

On-road Mobile ..... 306.60 293.03

Non-road Mobile ... 105.19 166.05

Total ........... 649.79 550.83

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 (FMVCP) 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.

Growth Estimates: 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, the State followed our

standard guidelines in estimating the

growth in emissions. For the projection

of NOX emissions from industrial

sources, the State 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 determine

if changes were actual changes in

emissions to the atmosphere, or just

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules 4765

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 Appendix H in the TSD

for this action.

Calculation of Target Level: Table 7

shows how the emissions inventory,

adjusted inventories and growth

estimates are used to calculate the target

levels of emissions and needed emission

reductions.

TABLE 7.—CALCULATION OF REQUIRED

VOC REDUCTIONS

(tons per day)

1990 Emission Inventory ................ 649.79

1990 Adjusted Relative to 1996 ..... 547.54

1990 Adjusted Relative to 1999 ..... 535.78

RVP and Fleet Turnover ................ 11.76

9% of 1990 Adjusted Relative to

1999 ............................................ 48.22

1996 Target level ............................ 465.52

1999 Target level ............................ 405.54

1999 Projection ............................... 575.28

Total Reductions required by 1999 169.74

Reductions required by 15% .......... 139.98

Additional Reductions Required ..... 29.76

How Are Those Emission Reductions

Achieved?

Table 8 documents how the VOC

emission reductions for this 9% plan are

to be achieved. The following control

measures are used: Aircraft Engines,

Transportation Control Measures

(TCMs), Windshield washer fluid,

Utility Engines 1997—1999,

Underground Storage Tank

Remediation, vehicle Tier 1, vehicle

Inspection/Maintenance, and RFG.

The State also revised its estimates of

on-road motor vehicle emissions based

on vehicle registration data updated to

1998. We are proposing to find them

acceptable.

The State included a variety of TCMs

in the SIP as a control strategy for

attainment of the ozone NAAQS. The

specific TCMs are described in detail in

Appendix G of the SIP and will be

incorporated by reference in Code of

Federal Regulations in the final

approval action. Please refer to the

detailed discussion of TCM

requirements under Transportation

Control Measures in the Emission

Control Strategy sub-section (subsection I.E) of this action.

The TCMs identified through this

process and included in the SIP are

contained and funded in the

metropolitan transportation plan (MTP)

and transportation improvement

program (TIP) to ensure funding for

implementation.

Please refer to the TSD for details of

our analysis of the control measures and

our basis for proposing to find the

projected emission reductions from

these measures acceptable.

TABLE 8.—SUMMARY OF VOC

EMISSION REDUCTIONS

(tons per day)

Required Reduction .......................... 29.76

Creditable Reductions ......................

Aircraft Engines ......................... 1.52

TCMs ......................................... 3.74

Windshield washer fluid ............ 0.29

1998 vehicle registration ........... 3.57

Utility Engine 1997–1999 .......... 2.37

UST remediation ....................... 1.81

Tier 1, I/M, RFG ........................ 16.82

Total ................................... 30.12

Does the Plan Achieve the Goal of a 9%

Reduction in VOCs From the Baseline

for 1997 to 1999?

Yes. Since the required reductions are

29.76 tons per day and the creditable

reductions are 30.12 tons per day, the

plan has excess reductions of 0.36 tons

per day and achieves the goal; therefore,

we are proposing approval of the Post

1996 ROP Plan.

Did the State Submit Additional

Reductions?

Yes. The State also submitted NOX

reductions. The State’s basic NOX RACT

rules were approved September 1, 2000.

See 65 FR 53172. We are accepting the

State’s NOX reductions as creditable

reductions.

TABLE 9.—SUMMARY OF NOX

EMISSION REDUCTIONS

(tons per day)

Required Reduction .......................... 0.00

Creditable Reductions ......................

NOX RACT ................................ 10.45

RFG, I/M, FMVCP Tier I ........... 56.25

Off-road heavy duty diesel ........ 11.98

Total ................................... 78.68

C. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget

What Are the MVEBs Established by

This Plan and Approved by This

Action?

The MVEBs established by this plan

and that we are proposing to approve

are contained in Table 10. The MVEBs

have been found to meet the adequacy

criteria and upon further review of the

SIP for approvability continue to be

consistent with ROP.

TABLE 10.—1999 9% ROP SIP

MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS

(tons per day)

Pollutant 1999

VOC .................................................. 147.22

NOX .................................................. 284.14

III. 15% Rate of Progress Plan

Proposed Action

What Action Are We Taking?

We are proposing full approval of the

15% plan submitted on August 8, 1996,

contingent upon us finalizing approval

of the State’s I/M program for the DFW

area. The 15% plan was given

conditional, interim approval on

November 10, 1998, pending corrections

to the DFW I/M program. It was given

conditional, interim approval because it

relied on emissions reductions from the

I/M program that received conditional,

interim approval. For further

information on the I/M conditional,

interim approval, see 62 FR 37138,

published on July 11, 1997. We found

that the State had met the conditions of

the conditional approval. On April 23,

1999, we removed the conditions and

granted Texas a final interim approval.

See 64 FR 19910. The interim approval

expired on February 11, 1999. Texas has

submitted significant revisions to the I/

M program for the DFW area. The

revisions expand the program from the

2 core nonattainment counties to the 4

counties in the nonattainment area plus

5 additional counties. We are taking a

separate action on these I/M revisions.

Because the revisions appear to have

eliminated the last impediment to full

approval of the I/M program for the

DFW area, we are proposing full

approval of the DFW 15% plan. This

proposed full approval of the DFW 15%

plan will not be finalized until action on

the I/M program is complete. If the I/M

program is disapproved, a different

action on the 15% plan will have to be

taken. See 63 FR 62943 and the 15%

plan TSD for additional information on

the DFW 15% plan.

How Did the Inspection/Maintenance

Program Submitted With the Attainment

Demonstration Purport To Cure the

Previous Deficiencies?

As stated previously, an interim

conditional approval for the Motorist

Choice Program was proposed on

October 3, 1996 (61 FR 51651). An

interim final conditional approval was

published on July 11, 1997 (62 FR

37138). The conditions were removed

from the interim approval on April 23,

1999 (64 FR 19910). The interim

4766 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules

approval status of this program lapsed

on February 11, 1999.

The State submitted an approvable

18-month demonstration on February 8,

1999, as required by the National

Highway System Designation Act of

1995, Public Law 104–59, section

348(c)(1). The program was not fully

approved at that time because one

provision of the interim approval

remained: that the State provide

evidence that the remote sensing

program was effective in identifying the

shortfall in number of vehicles needed

to make up for the lack of a tailpipe

testing program in all the nonattainment

counties. This evidence has yet to be

submitted.

Modeling has since shown that NOX

reductions are essential to reaching

attainment in the DFW area. As a result,

the Texas Motorist Choice I/M program

has been revised to include

measurement for NOX emissions and to

provide additional NOX emission

reductions by expanding coverage of the

program to all four counties within the

DFW nonattainment area (Dallas,

Tarrant, Collin and Denton) and

selected attainment counties in the DFW

consolidated metropolitan statistical

area (Ellis, Johnson, Parker, Rockwall,

and Kaufman). By revising the program

to expand area coverage for NOX SIP

credits, the deficiency that prohibited

full approval in DFW appears to be

cured. All DFW nonattainment counties

will be participating in the full program.

As indicated above, we have not taken

a final action on the I/M submittal. We

will be seeking comment on the I/M

program in a separate action.

IV. Background

A. The Relevant Clean Air Act

Requirements

The Act requires us to establish

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) for certain widespread

pollutants that cause or contribute to air

pollution that is reasonably anticipated

to endanger public health or welfare

(Clean Air Act sections 108 and 109). In

1979, we promulgated the 1-hour

ground-level ozone standard of 0.12

parts per million (ppm) (120 parts per

billion (ppb)). 44 FR 8202 (February 8,

1979).

Ground-level ozone is not emitted

directly by sources. Rather, Volatile

Organic Compounds (VOC) and

Nitrogen Oxides (NOX), emitted by a

wide variety of sources, react in the

presence of sunlight to form groundlevel ozone. NOX and VOC are referred

to as precursors of ozone.

Ozone formation is accelerated or

enhanced under certain meteorological

conditions, such as high temperatures

and low wind speeds. Higher ozone

concentrations occur downwind of areas

with relatively high VOC and NOX

concentrations or in areas subject to

relatively high background ozone and

ozone precursor concentrations (ozone

and ozone precursors entering an area as

the result of transport from upwind

source areas).

VOC emissions are produced by a

wide variety of sources, including

stationary and mobile sources.

Significant stationary sources of VOC

include industrial solvent usage, various

coating operations, industrial and utility

combustion units, petroleum and oil

storage and marketing operations,

chemical manufacturing operations,

personal solvent usage, etc. Significant

mobile sources of VOC include on-road

vehicle usage and off-road vehicle and

engine usage, such as farm machinery,

aircraft, locomotives, and motorized

lawn care and garden implements.

NOX emissions are produced

primarily through combustion

processes, including industrial and

utility boiler use, process heaters and

furnaces, and on-road and off-road

mobile sources.

An area exceeds the 1-hour ozone

standard each time an ambient air

quality monitor records a 1-hour average

ozone concentration above 124 ppb in

any given day (only the highest 1-hour

ozone concentration at the monitor

during any 24 hour day is considered

when determining the number of

exceedance days at the monitor). An

area violates the ozone standard if, over

a consecutive 3-year period, more than

3 days of exceedances are expected to

occur at any monitor in the area. 40 CFR

Part 50, App. H.

The highest of the fourth-highest daily

peak ozone concentrations over the 3

year period at any monitoring site in the

area is called the ozone design value for

the area. The Act, as amended in 1990,

required EPA to designate as

nonattainment any area that was

violating the 1-hour ozone standard,

generally based on air quality

monitoring data from the 1987 through

1989 period. Clean Air Act section

107(d)(4); 56 FR 56694 (November 6,

1991). The Act further classified these

areas, based on the areas’ ozone design

values, as marginal, moderate, serious,

severe, or extreme.

The control requirements and date by

which attainment is to be achieved vary

with an area’s classification. Marginal

areas were subject to the fewest

mandated control requirements and had

the earliest attainment date, November

15, 1993. Severe and extreme areas are

subject to more stringent planning

requirements but are provided more

time to attain the standard. Moderate

areas were required to attain the 1-hour

standard by November 15, 1996. Serious

areas were required to attain by

November 15, 1999, and severe areas are

required to attain by November 15, 2005

or November 15, 2007, depending on

the areas’ ozone design values for 1987

through 1989. The DFW ozone

nonattainment area was initially

classified as ‘‘moderate’’ (56 FR 56694)

with an attainment date of November

15, 1996. Since the area did not attain

the standard by November 15, 1996, we

reclassified the area to ‘‘serious’’ on

March 20, 1998 (63 FR 8128). The

statutory attainment date for a serious

area is November 15, 1999. The DFW

ozone nonattainment area contains

Dallas, Tarrant, Collin, and Denton

Counties (40 CFR 81.314 and 81.326).

The specific requirements of the Act

for serious ozone nonattainment areas

are found in part D, section 182(c) of the

Act. Section 172 in part D 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. Section 172(c)(1)

requires the implementation of all

reasonably available control measures as

expeditiously as practicable and

requires the SIP to provide for

attainment of the NAAQS. Section

182(b)(1)(A) requires the SIP to provide

for a 15% Rate of Progress Plan and also

provide for specific annual reductions

in emissions of VOC and NOX ‘‘as

necessary to attain’’ the ozone NAAQS

by the applicable attainment date. Our

‘‘General Preamble for the

Implementation of Title I of the Clean

Air Act Amendments of 1990’’ (57 FR

13498 dated April 16, 1992) provides

the interpretive basis for EPA’s

rulemakings under the nonattainment

plan provisions of the Act (General

Preamble). Section 182(c)(2)(A) requires

that a serious area use photochemical

grid modeling or any other methods

judged by us to be at least as effective,

to demonstrate attainment of the ozone

NAAQS by the applicable attainment

date. In the General Preamble, we

provide that this requirement for

demonstrating attainment may be met

by the use of EPA-approved modeling

techniques.

Section 182(c)(2)(B) of the Act

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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules 4767

achieve an actual volatile organic

compound (VOC) (and NOX if required)

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. The plan providing for

the reduction between November 1996

and November 1999 is referred to as the

9% Plan, the Post-1996 ROP Plan. As

part of today’s proposal, we are

proposing action on the 15% ROP Plan,

the 9% ROP Plan, and the attainment

demonstration SIP revision submitted

by the State of Texas for the DFW

serious ozone nonattainment area.

B. Dates of State’s SIP Submissions

As a result of the reclassification to

serious, the State was required to submit

both an attainment demonstration SIP

with an attainment date of November

15, 1999; and a Rate of Progress SIP

covering the years from November 15,

1996 to November 15, 1999. The State

submitted those SIPs on March 19,

1999. The State had previously

submitted the moderate area 15% ROP

plan on August 8, 1996, before the area

was reclassified to serious. The 15%

plan was given conditional, interim

approval.

Our review showed that the

attainment demonstration SIP submitted

in 1999 did not contain a control

strategy or adopted measures to

implement the strategy and the 1999

Post-1996 ROP SIP did not achieve the

required 9% reduction in emissions for

the time period. Therefore, we found

both SIPs incomplete and started

sanctions and Federal Implementation

plan (FIP) clocks effective May 13, 1999.

A new Post-1996 ROP SIP was

submitted October 25, 1999, and was

found complete on December 16, 1999,

since the new plan contained additional

VOC reductions to meet the 9%

requirement. The new attainment

demonstration SIP was submitted April

25, 2000, and was found complete on

June 23, 2000, because it contained a

modeled control strategy and adopted

regulations to implement the strategy.

These two completeness findings

stopped the sanctions clocks. The FIP

clock continues to run unless and until

we approve the 9% ROP Plan and the

Attainment Demonstration SIP. Section

110(c)(1)(A) requires EPA to promulgate

a FIP for the DFW nonattainment area

by May 14, 2001 if we have not

approved the SIPs by that time.

C. General Requirements for an

Attainment Demonstration and its

Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

In general, an attainment

demonstration SIP includes a modeling

analysis showing how an area will

achieve the standard by its attainment

date and the emission control measures

necessary to achieve attainment. The

attainment demonstration SIP must

include MVEBs for transportation

conformity purposes. Transportation

conformity is a process required by

Section 176(c) of the Act for ensuring

that the effects of emissions from all onroad sources are consistent with

attainment of the standard. Ozone

attainment demonstrations must include

the estimates of motor vehicle VOC and

NOX emissions that are consistent with

attainment, which then act as a budget

or ceiling for the purposes of

determining whether transportation

plans, programs, and projects conform

to the attainment SIP.

D. Ozone Transport Policy and

Attainment Date Extensions

The DFW area is classified as serious

and, therefore, was required to attain the

1-hour ozone standard by November 15,

1999. The State of Texas, in submitting

the April 2000 attainment

demonstration SIP, requests an

extension of the attainment date to

November 15, 2007, based on our July

1998 transport policy.

In developing the attainment

demonstration for DFW, the State makes

the case that the 1998 Transport Policy

is particularly relevant to DFW, which

is downwind of the HGA area, and that

the DFW area is affected by transport

from HGA. If we approve of such a

determination for DFW, the area would

have until no later than November 15,

2007, the attainment date for HGA, to

attain the 1-hour ozone standard.

In the DFW ozone attainment

demonstration SIP reviewed here, the

State also relies, in part, on regional and

statewide NOX emission reductions in

Texas, including the upwind HGA area

and eastern and central Texas. The SIP

also relies on NOX reductions from the

NOX SIP Call States where appropriate.

Attainment Demonstration SIPs were

originally due November 1994.

However, through a series of policy

memoranda, we recognized that States

had not submitted these attainment

demonstrations and were constrained to

do so until ozone transport had been

further analyzed. One of the policy

memoranda addressing the issue of

ozone transport is the transport policy

issued by us July 16, 1998, entitled

‘‘Extension of Attainment Dates for

Downwind Transport Areas’’. That

memorandum included our

interpretation of the Act regarding the

extension of attainment dates for ozone

nonattainment areas that have been

classified as moderate or serious for the

1-hour ozone standard and which are

downwind of areas that have interfered

with their ability to demonstrate

attainment of the ozone standard by

dates prescribed in the Act. That

memorandum stated that we will

consider extending the attainment date

for an area or a State that:

(1) Has been identified as a

downwind area affected by transport

from either an upwind area in the same

State with a later attainment date or an

upwind area in another State that

significantly contributes to downwind

ozone nonattainment;

(2) Has submitted an approvable

attainment demonstration with any

necessary, adopted local measures and

with an attainment date that shows it

will attain the 1-hour standard no later

than the date that the emission

reductions are expected from upwind

areas under the final NOX SIP call and/

or the statutory attainment date for

upwind nonattainment areas, i.e.,

assuming the boundary conditions

reflecting those upwind emission

reductions;

(3) Has adopted all applicable local

measures required under the area’s

current ozone classification and any

additional emission control measures

demonstrated to be necessary to achieve

attainment, assuming the emission

reductions occur as required in the

upwind areas; and

(4) Has provided that it will

implement all adopted measures as

expeditiously as practicable, but no later

than the date by which the upwind

reductions needed for attainment will

be achieved.

Once an area receives an extension of

its attainment date based on ozone/

precursor transport impacts, the area

would no longer be subject to

reclassification to a higher ozone

nonattainment classification based on

its original attainment date. If the DFW

area is granted an attainment date

extension, it would no longer be subject

to a reclassification to severe

nonattainment for ozone and no longer

subject to the additional emission

control requirements that would result

from the reclassification to severe

nonattainment based on a failure to

attain by its original attainment date.

Texas has requested an extension of

the attainment date for the DFW

nonattainment area in conjunction with

the ozone attainment demonstration

submittals. The ozone attainment

4768 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2001 / Proposed Rules

demonstration SIP uses November 15,

2007 as the ozone attainment date. The

chosen 2007 attainment date reflects the

statutory attainment date for the HGA

area, as the DFW area is downwind of

the HGA area and is affected by

transport from HGA.

V. Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ and therefore is not subject to

review by the Office of Management and

Budget. This proposed action merely

approves state law as meeting federal

requirements and imposes no additional

requirements beyond those imposed by

state law. Accordingly, the

Administrator certifies that this

proposed rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.). Because this rule proposes to

approve pre-existing requirements

under state law and does not impose

any additional enforceable duty beyond

that required by state law, it does not

contain any unfunded mandate or

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, as described in the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(Pub. L. 104–4). For the same reason,

this proposed rule also does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of tribal governments, as

specified by Executive Order 13084 (63

FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This proposed

rule will not have substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government, as

specified in Executive Order 13132 (64

FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it

merely approves a state rule

implementing a federal standard, and

does not alter the relationship or the

distribution of power and

responsibilities established in the Clean

Air Act. This proposed rule also is not

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR

19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not

economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s

role is to approve state choices,

provided that they meet the criteria of

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the

absence of a prior existing requirement

for the State to use voluntary consensus

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority

to disapprove a SIP submission for

failure to use VCS. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the

requirements of section 12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and

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

272 note) do not apply. The proposed

rule does not involve special

consideration of environmental justice

related issues as required by Executive

Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16,

1994). As required by section 3 of

Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729,

February 7, 1996), in issuing this

proposed rule, EPA has taken the

necessary steps to eliminate drafting

errors and ambiguity, minimize

potential litigation, and provide a clear

legal standard for affected conduct. The

EPA has complied with Executive Order

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

examining the takings implications of

the rule in accordance with the

‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk

and Avoidance of Unanticipated

Takings’’ issued under the executive

order. This proposed rule does not

impose an information collection

burden under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Attainment,

Hydrocarbons, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

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

Dated: January 4, 2001.

Gregg A. Cooke,

Regional Administrator, Region 6.

[FR Doc. 01–1346 Filed 1–17–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 123

[FRL–6933–3]

Water Pollution Control; Program

Modification Application by South

Dakota To Administer the Sludge

Management (Biosolids) Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; second notice of

application and public comment period.

SUMMARY: The State of South Dakota has

submitted an application to EPA to

revise the existing South Dakota

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(SDPDES) program to include

administration and enforcement of the

sludge management (biosolids) program.

According to the State’s proposal dated

March 23, 1998, this program would be

administered by the South Dakota

Department of Environment and Natural

Resources (SDDENR).

The application was described in a

Federal Register notice dated October 5,

2000 (65 FR 59385) and in notices

published in the Rapid City Journal and

the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader on October

20, 2000. Notices were mailed to

persons known to be interested in such

matters, including all persons on

appropriate State and EPA mailing lists

and all permit holders and applicants

within the State. There were no

comments received during the public

comment period. The Federal Register

notice provided for a 45–day comment

period but did not state that a public

hearing could be requested and would

be considered by EPA. Therefore, EPA

is extending the public comment period.

The application from South Dakota is

complete and is available for inspection

and copying. EPA has reviewed the

State’s request for delegation for

completeness and adequacy and has

found that the proposal meets Federal

equivalency regulations.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

received on or before March 5, 2001 will

be considered before issuing a final rule.

Comments postmarked after this date

may not be considered.

ADDRESSES: You can view and copy

South Dakota’s application for

modification from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00

p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding

holidays, at the South Dakota

Department of Environment and Natural

Resources; Joe Foss Building, Pierre,

South Dakota or at the EPA Regional

Office at 999 18th Street, Denver,

Colorado. Requests for copies should be

addressed to Kelli Buscher, South

Dakota Department of Environment and

Natural Resources at the above address

or at telephone number 605–773–3351.

(There will be a $15 charge for copies.)

Electronic comments are encouraged

and should be submitted to

brobst.bob@epa.gov or send written

comments to Robert Brobst, U.S. EPA/

8P–WP, 999 18th Street, Suite 300,

Denver, Colorado 80202–2466.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Brobst at the above address by

phone at (303) 312–6129, or by e-mail

at brobst.bob@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

405 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33

U.S.C. Section 1345, created the sludge

management program, allowing EPA to

issue permits for the disposal of sewage

sludge under conditions required by the

CWA. Section 405(c) of the CWA

provides that a state may submit an