Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / Proposed Rules 34391

reassessments of the size of boilers at

LTV and the University of Illinois.

USEPA proposes to approve Illinois’

budget demonstration, demonstrating

that Illinois’ cement kiln and industrial

boiler rules, in conjunction with the

state’s rules for electricity generating

units, are adequate to achieve the NOX

emissions level that USEPA has

budgeted for the state. Therefore,

USEPA proposes to conclude more

generally that Illinois has satisfied the

requirements of USEPA’s NOX SIP Call,

again provided the governor signs

legislation setting a fixed compliance

deadline.

USEPA is not proposing action today

on subpart X, entitled ‘‘Voluntary NOX

Emissions Reduction Program.’’ USEPA

is continuing to review this portion of

Illinois’ submittal and plans to propose

rulemaking on these rules in the near

future.

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

proposes to approve 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). This proposed

rule also does not have a substantial

direct effect on one or more Indian

tribes, on the relationship between the

Federal Government and Indian tribes,

or on the distribution of power and

responsibilities between the Federal

Government and Indian tribes, as

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65

FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will

it have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999), because it merely

proposes to approve 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,

USEPA’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),

USEPA has no authority to disapprove

a SIP submission for failure to use VCS.

It would thus be inconsistent with

applicable law for USEPA, when it

reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in

place of a SIP submission that otherwise

satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air

Act. Thus, the requirements of section

12(d) of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As

required by section 3 of Executive Order

12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996),

in issuing this proposed rule, USEPA

has taken the necessary steps to

eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity,

minimize potential litigation, and

provide a clear legal standard for

affected conduct. USEPA 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, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compounds.

Dated: June 20, 2001.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

[FR Doc. 01–16292 Filed 6–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IN138–1; FRL–7003–7]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to

approve a State Implementation Plan

(SIP) revision submitted by the Indiana

Department of Environmental

Management (IDEM) on June 8, 2000.

The revised SIP pertains to the Indiana

motor vehicle inspection and

maintenance (I/M) program. The

purpose of this action is to approve

certain amendments to the Indiana

program, which EPA originally

approved on March 19, 1996 (61 FR

11142).

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before July 30, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be sent to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,

Regulation Development Section, Air

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604.

Copies of this SIP revision request are

available for public inspection during

normal business hours at the following

address: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation

Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604. (It is

recommended that you telephone

Francisco J. Acevedo at (312) 886–6061

before visiting the Region 5 Office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Francisco J. Acevedo, Regulation

Development Section, Air Programs

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois

60604, Telephone: (312) 886–6061, EMail: acevedo.francisco@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, the terms

‘‘you’’ and ‘‘me’’ refer to the reader of

this proposed rulemaking and to sources

subject to the State rule addressed by

this proposed rulemaking, and the terms

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background

A. What is a State Implementation Plan

(SIP)?

B. What is the federal approval process for

a SIP?

C. What does federal approval of a state

rule mean to me?

D. What is the purpose of the Indiana I/M

rule?

E. What public review opportunities did

Indiana provide for this rule?

II. Evaluation of the Rule

A. What are the changes to the States I/M

rule?

B. Is this rule approvable?

III. Proposed Action

What action is EPA proposing today?

IV. Administrative Requirements

34392 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / Proposed Rules

I. Background

A. What Is a State Implementation Plan

(SIP)?

Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (Act

or CAA) requires states to develop air

pollution control regulations and

strategies to ensure that state air quality

meets the national ambient air quality

standards established by the EPA. Each

state must submit the regulations and

emission control strategies to the EPA

for approval and promulgation into the

federally enforceable SIP.

Each federally approved SIP protects

air quality primarily by addressing air

pollution at its points of origin. The

SIPs can be and generally are extensive,

containing many state regulations or

other enforceable documents and

supporting information, such as

emission inventories, monitoring

documentation, and modeling

(attainment) demonstrations.

B. What Is the Federal Approval Process

for a SIP?

In order for state regulations to be

incorporated into the federally

enforceable SIP, states must formally

adopt the reuglations and emisison

control strategies consistent with State

and federal requirements. This process

generally includes public notice, public

hearings, public comment periods, and

formal adoption by state-authorized

rulemaking bodies.

Once a state has adopted a rule,

regulation, or emissions control strategy

it submits it to us for inclusion into the

SIP. We must provide public notice and

seek additional public comment

regarding the proposed federal action on

the state submission. If we receive

adverse comments we address them

prior to any final federal action (we

generally address them in a final

rulemaking action).

The EPA incorporates into the

federally approved SIP all state

regulations and supporting information

it has approved under section 110 of the

Act. Records of such SIP actions are

maintained in the Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) at Title 40, Part 52,

titled ‘‘Aprpoval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans.’’ The actual state

regulations the EPA has approved are

not reproduced in their entirety in the

CFR, but are ‘‘incorporated by

reference,’’ which means that EPA has

approved a given state regulation (or

rule) with a specific effective date.

C. What Does Federal Approval of a

State Rule Mean to Me?

Enforcement of a state rule before and

after it is incorporated into a federally

approved SIP is primarily a state

responsibility. After the rule is federally

approved, however, the CAA authorizes

the EPA to take enforcement actions

against violators. The CAA also offers

citizens legal recourse to address

violations, as provided in section 304 of

the Act.

D. What Is the Purpose of the Indiana

I/M Rule?

Indiana’s I/M requirements contained

in 326 IAC 13–1.1 provide for emission

standards and testing criteria for motor

vehicles in Lake, Porter, Clark, and

Floyd Counties. These counties are

designated as ‘‘nonattainment’’ for

ozone. Owners and operators of motor

vehicles subject to Indiana’s I/M

program are required to maintain their

motor vehicles and related air pollution

related equipment in good working

order and to have their vehicles’

emissions checked every two years. The

emissions testing program is a

requirement of the Clean Air Act, and

has been in place in these Indiana

counties since 1984. On March 19, 1996

(61 FR 11142), EPA approved an

upgrade to the Indiana I/M program as

required by the Act. On June 8, 2000,

Indiana submitted amendments to the I/

M rule as a revision to the SIP for the

purpose of updating program

requirements gained from experience

gained in the implementation of the

Indiana program.

E. What Public Review Opportunities

Did Indiana Provide for this Rule?

Indiana held a public hearing on the

I/M rule on November 4, 1998, in

Indianapolis, Indiana. The Indiana Air

Pollution Control Board adopted final

rules on December 2, 1998. The rule

revisions became effective January 22,

1999, and were formally submitted to

EPA on June 8, 2000, as a revision to the

Indiana SIP for ozone.

II. Evaluation of the Rule

A. What Are the Changes to the State’s

I/M Rule?

1. Exemption of the Current Calendar

Year Model Vehicle Plus the Three (3)

Previous Model Year Vehicles From

Emission Testing

The first change, at 326 IAC 13–1.1–

2 (Applicability), specifically exempts

the current calendar year’s model plus

the three (3) previous model year

vehicles from emissions testing

requirements, instead of only the most

recent model year, as required in the

original rule approved by EPA on March

19, 1996.

Test records for the Indiana program

indicate that motor vehicles four (4)

years old or newer have a failure rate of

five tenths (0.5) percent compared to an

average failure rate of thirteen and ninetenths (13.9) percent for remaining

vehicles tested. Indiana has determined

that making this change will make the

testing more efficient because newer

cars, which have an extremely low

failure rate, will not be unnecessarily

tested. Further, cars which are required

to be tested will have a reduced waiting

time and increased accessability to test

sites. This exemption of model years

from emission testing is permissible, as

long as the state can demonstrate that

the program meets the performance

standard for I/M programs as contained

in 40 CFR 51.351 and 51.352. We have

evaluated this change to the program

using EPA’s mobile source emission

factor model (Mobile5b) and have

determined that the program still meets

the performance standard required for

the Indiana program.

2. A Shortened Vehicle Emission Test

The second change provides for the

use of a shortened vehicle emission test

for gasoline powered, light and medium

duty motor vehicles of model year 1981

through the current calendar year

model. The original rule EPA approved

on March 19, 1996 (61 FR 11142)

specified the use of the 240-second

transient vehicle emission test known as

the ‘‘IM240 test.’’ The new shorter test

uses the first 93-second test cycle of the

IM240 test and is known as the ‘‘IM93

test.’’ Indiana includes the authority for

both test types in 326 IAC 13–1.1–7.

Both tests types are consistent with the

requirements of the federal I/M

requirements at 40 CFR 51.357.

IDEM has recently conducted a formal

correlation study to compare the IM240

and the IM93 vehicle emissions tests in

order to demonstrate that the shortened

duration test is as effective in

identifying vehicles with excessive

emissions and quantifying the

associated emission reductions. This

will be determined once the state

completes the correlation study and

formally submits the results to EPA.

3. Testing of Vehicles Equipped With

Second Generation On-board

Diagnostics Systems (OBDII)

The third change adds provisions for

the testing of vehicles equipped with

second generation on-board diagnostics

systems (OBDII) at 326 IAC 13–1.1–7

(Testing Parameter). OBDII computers

monitor and actively perform

diagnostics tests, looking at engine

parameters such as air to fuel ratio and

engine temperature. In vehicles

equipped with OBDII systems, a

malfunction indicator light illuminates

if a system or component either fails or

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / Proposed Rules 34393

deteriorates to the point where vehicle

emissions could rise above one and onehalf time the federal emission standards.

OBDII systems are to be inspected as

part of both IM240 and IM93 emission

tests. Also at 326 IAC 13–1.1–8 (Testing

Procedures and Standards), Indiana

added OBDII equipment as one of

several pieces of equipment that must

be inspected and in working order

before an emissions inspection will be

performed. Furthermore, Indiana added

a new section to provide for the testing

of OBDII systems per EPA requirements.

The new section at 326 IAC 13–1.1–17.1

(On-board diagnostics check),

incorporates by reference federal

requirements at 40 CFR part 51, subpart

S, ‘‘Requirements for Preparation,

Adoption, and Submittal of

Implementation Plans’’ and 40 CFR part

85, subpart W, Control of Air Pollution

From Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle

Engines. The key elements of the

Indiana OBDII system check

requirements are a check of the self

diagnostic system to determine that it is

functioning properly and has not been

tampered with, a specification of the

test sequence for the inspection of onboard diagnostic systems, and a

specification of the test result provided

with the on-board diagnostic test.

4. Elimination of the Off-cycle Test

Currently Required When There Is a

Change in Possession of Motor Vehicle

Titles

The fourth change eliminates the offcycle emission test originally required

when there was a change in possession

of motor vehicle titles. Indiana’s

program currently provides for vehicle

emissions testing every two years. By

requiring that motorists present a

certificate of compliance for emission

testing only during the year that testing

is required based on their vehicle’s

model year in order to obtain

registration, motorists can avoid having

to unnecessarily test their vehicle

multiple times during a single test cycle.

This section meets the federal I/M

requirements for test frequency and

convenience found in 40 CFR 51.355.

5. Certified Inspection and Maintenance

Emissions Repair Technician

The fifth change at 326 IAC 13–1.1–

1 (Definitions) and 326 IAC 13–1.1–10

(Waivers and Compliance through

Diagnostic Inspection) clarifies what is

required of a repair shop and technician

to become I/M certified, and makes clear

that IDEM can rescind certification of a

repair technician if he or she does not

maintain the training or equipment

requirements. The existing rule requires

that repairs be performed by a certified

repair technician in order to be

considered in a waiver request. This

section meets the requirements for

inspector training and licences or

certification found in 40 CFR 51.367

6. Vehicle Retest Limit

The sixth change in 326 IAC 13–1.1–

10 (Waivers and Compliance through

Diagnostic Inspection) sets a limit of

four additional times that a vehicle may

be tested after initial failure. A vehicle

cannot be tested a fifth time until the

type of repairs or modifications

necessary has been evaluated by IDEM

and the I/M contractor. This is intended

to address those instances where

motorists bring a failed vehicle in for

multiple retests, even if minimal repairs

have been made. This section meets the

Federal I/M requirements for vehicle

retesting found in 40 CFR 51.357.

7. Changes in the ‘‘Definitions’’ Section

Indiana has made some additional

changes in 326 IAC 13–1.1–1

(Definitions), including amendments to

the definitions of ‘‘light duty motor

vehicle;’’ ‘‘medium duty motor vehicle;’’

and ‘‘heavy duty motor vehicle.’’ These

changes do not affect the vehicle

coverage requirements found in 40 CFR

51.356 which requires that light duty

vehicles and light duty trucks rated up

to 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight

rating be included in the program. In

addition to the changes mentioned

above, Indiana has added several

definitions to address changes made in

the other sections of the rule.

The rest of the changes to the rule are

administrative in nature and are

intended to enhance the clarity of the I/

M rule, or improve the operation of the

I/M program.

B. Is This Rule Approvable?

Our review of the material submitted

indicates that the changes made to the

Indiana I/M program addresses the

Federal I/M program requirements.

These rule revisions are, therefore,

approvable.

III. Proposed Action

What Action Is EPA Proposing Today?

The EPA is proposing to approve

Indiana’s I/M SIP revision submitted by

Indiana on June 8, 2000. The SIP

revision amends certain program

elements of Indiana’s motor vehicle

inspection and maintenance

requirements.

IV. 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

proposes to approve 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). This proposed

rule also does not have a substantial

direct effect on one or more Indian

tribes, on the relationship between the

Federal Government and Indian tribes,

or on the distribution of power and

responsibilities between the Federal

Government and Indian tribes, as

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65

FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will

it have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999), because it merely

proposes to approve 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. As required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing

this proposed rule, EPA has taken the

34394 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / Proposed Rules

1The reader may refer to the Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, December 5, 1991 (56 FR 63774), and

the preamble to the final rule promulgated

September 4, 1992 (57 FR 40792) for further

background and information on the OCS

regulations.

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 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, Volatile organic

compounds, Ozone.

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

Dated: June 19, 2001.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

[FR Doc. 01–16291 Filed 6–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 55

[FRL–7001–1]

Outer Continental Shelf Air

Regulations Consistency Update for

California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule—consistency

update.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to update a

portion of the Outer Continental Shelf

(‘‘OCS’’) Air Regulations. Requirements

applying to OCS sources located within

25 miles of states’ seaward boundaries

must be updated periodically to remain

consistent with the requirements of the

corresponding onshore area (‘‘COA’’), as

mandated by section 328(a)(1) of the

Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (‘‘the

Act’’). The portion of the OCS air

regulations that is being updated

pertains to the requirements for OCS

sources for which the Santa Barbara

County Air Pollution Control District

(Santa Barbara County APCD), South

Coast Air Quality Management District

(South Coast AQMD) and Ventura

County Air Pollution Control District

(Ventura County APCD) are the

designated COAs. The intended effect of

approving the OCS requirements for the

above Districts is to regulate emissions

from OCS sources in accordance with

the requirements onshore. The changes

to the existing requirements discussed

below are proposed to be incorporated

by reference into the Code of Federal

Regulations and are listed in the

appendix to the OCS air regulations.

DATES: Comments on the proposed

update must be received on or before

July 30, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be mailed

(in duplicate if possible) to: EPA Air

Docket (Air–4), Attn: Docket No. A–93–

16 Section XXIII, Environmental

Protection Agency, Air Division, Region

9, 75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA

94105.

Docket: Supporting information used

in developing the rule and copies of the

documents EPA is proposing to

incorporate by reference are contained

in Docket No. A–93–16 Section XXIII.

This docket is available for public

inspection and copying Monday–Friday

during regular business hours at the

following locations:

EPA Air Docket (Air–4), Attn: Docket

No. A–93–16 Section XXIII,

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

Division, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne St.,

San Francisco, CA 94105.

EPA Air Docket (LE–131), Attn: Air

Docket No. A–93–16 Section XXIII,

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

Docket (6102), Ariel Rios Building, 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,

Washington D.C. 20460.

A reasonable fee may be charged for

copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christine Vineyard, Air Division (Air–

4), U.S. EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415)

744–1197.

I. Background Information

A. Why Is EPA Taking This Action?

On September 4, 1992, EPA

promulgated 40 CFR part 55,1 which

established requirements to control air

pollution from OCS sources in order to

attain and maintain federal and state

ambient air quality standards and to

comply with the provisions of part C of

title I of the Act. Part 55 applies to all

OCS sources offshore of the States

except those located in the Gulf of

Mexico west of 87.5 degrees longitude.

Section 328 of the Act requires that for

such sources located within 25 miles of

a state’s seaward boundary, the

requirements shall be the same as would

be applicable if the sources were located

in the COA. Because the OCS

requirements are based on onshore

requirements, and onshore requirements

may change, section 328(a)(1) requires

that EPA update the OCS requirements

as necessary to maintain consistency

with onshore requirements.

Pursuant to § 55.12 of the OCS rule,

consistency reviews will occur (1) at

least annually; (2) upon receipt of a

Notice of Intent under § 55.4; or (3)

when a state or local agency submits a

rule to EPA to be considered for

incorporation by reference in part 55.

This proposed action is being taken in

response to the submittal of rules by

three local air pollution control

agencies. Public comments received in

writing within 30 days of publication of

this document will be considered by

EPA before publishing a final rule.

Section 328(a) of the Act requires that

EPA establish requirements to control

air pollution from OCS sources located

within 25 miles of states’ seaward

boundaries that are the same as onshore

requirements. To comply with this

statutory mandate, EPA must

incorporate applicable onshore rules

into part 55 as they exist onshore. This

limits EPA’s flexibility in deciding

which requirements will be

incorporated into part 55 and prevents

EPA from making substantive changes

to the requirements it incorporates. As

a result, EPA may be incorporating rules

into part 55 that do not conform to all

of EPA’s state implementation plan

(SIP) guidance or certain requirements

of the Act. Consistency updates may

result in the inclusion of state or local

rules or regulations into part 55, even

though the same rules may ultimately be

disapproved for inclusion as part of the

SIP. Inclusion in the OCS rule does not

imply that a rule meets the requirements

of the Act for SIP approval, nor does it

imply that the rule will be approved by

EPA for inclusion in the SIP.

II. EPA’s Evaluation

A. What Criteria Were Used To Evaluate

Rules Submitted To Update 40 CFR Part

55?

In updating 40 CFR part 55, EPA

reviewed the rules submitted for

inclusion in part 55 to ensure that they

are rationally related to the attainment

or maintenance of federal or state

ambient air quality standards or part C

of title I of the Act, that they are not

designed expressly to prevent

exploration and development of the

OCS and that they are applicable to OCS

sources. 40 CFR 55.1. EPA has also

evaluated the rules to ensure they are

not arbitrary or capricious. 40 CFR 55.12