[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 15 (Monday, January 24, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-1129]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: January 24, 1994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52

[IL83-1-6155; FRL-4826-3]

 

Federal Highway Funding Assistance Limitations and Emissions 
Offset Requirements; Illinois

AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is proposing 
this action to impose sanctions on Illinois under the discretionary 
authority provided to the Agency under the Clean Air Act, as amended in 
1990, (CAA or Act) for failure by the State to meet its commitment to 
adopt a basic and enhanced motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/
M) program as required by the Act for certain ozone nonattainment 
areas. On November 11, 1992, the Illinois Environmental Protection 
Agency (IEPA), acting as the governor's designee, submitted a 
commitment to adopt (Committal SIP) an I/M program to meet the 
requirements of the Act and the I/M rule by November 15, 1993. The 
committal SIP provides for the adoption and implementation of a basic 
and enhanced I/M program meeting all requirements of US EPA's I/M 
regulations and includes an implementation schedule. On December 2, 
1993, US EPA proposed to disapprove this SIP revision based on the 
failure by the State to meet milestones contained in the committal 
SIP's implementation schedule pertaining to the enactment of necessary 
legislative authority. A full SIP revision including State legislative 
authority to implement the program was required by November 15, 1993. 
The Illinois General Assembly adjourned on November 4, 1993, for the 
second time this year without taking necessary action to provide for 
implementation of the basic and enhanced I/M programs.
    On December 30, 1993, EPA Region 5 issued a letter finding that the 
State had failed to submit the SIP revision required under sections 110 
and 182 of the Act. Due to the failure of the State to submit a 
complete SIP revision fulfilling either the requirements of the Act and 
its commitment to adopt and implement the required I/M programs as 
promised in its committal SIP, USEPA proposes to exercise its 
discretionary authority under the Act to apply a statewide highway 
funding limitation sanction and a 2 for 1 growth offset sanction in all 
areas required to have a permit program under the new source review 
provision of the Act.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action are to be submitted by March 
15, 1994. The USEPA will hold two public hearings on March 2 and 4, 
1994.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed rule should be addressed to: J. 
Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Regulation Development Section, Regulation 
Development Branch (5AR-18J), United States Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    The hearings will be held in Illinois as follows: March 2, 1994 in 
Chicago, at the Harold Washington Library on 400 S. State Street in the 
multipurpose room at 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.; and March 4, 1994 in 
Collinsville, at the Holiday Inn on 1000 Eastport Plaza Drive at 10 
a.m. to 4 p.m.
    Copies of Illinois' I/M Committal SIP submittal, USEPA's proposals 
and rulemakings, and other documents pertinent to this proposed rule 
are available at the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, Regulation Development 
Branch, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francisco J. Acevedo, Environmental 
Engineer, Regulation Development Section, Regulation Development Branch 
(5AR-18J), United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6061. Anyone 
wishing to come to Region 5 offices should first contact Francisco J. 
Acevedo.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. I/M Program requirements

    Pursuant to the 1977 amendments to the Act, vehicle I/M programs 
were mandated for certain areas with long standing air quality 
problems. The 1990 amendments to the Act expanded the role of I/M 
programs as an attainment strategy and required USEPA to develop 
different performance standards for ``basic'' and ``enhanced'' I/M 
programs. The performance standard is the minimum amount of emission 
reductions a program must achieve, based on a model or benchmark 
program design. In addition, the amended Act directed USEPA to address 
requirements for specific design elements and program implementation 
issues for both basic and enhanced I/M programs. The amended Act 
requires states containing nonattainment areas to make changes to 
improve existing I/M programs or implement new ones. Section 
182(a)(2)(B) of the Act directed USEPA to publish updated guidance for 
state I/M programs, taking into consideration findings of the 
Administrator's audits and investigations of these programs. The Act 
further requires each area required by the Act to have an I/M program 
to incorporate this guidance into the SIP. Based on these requirements, 
USEPA promulgated an I/M regulation on November 5, 1992. (57 FR 52950)
    Under section 182(c)(3) of the Act, areas designated as serious or 
worse ozone nonattainment areas with 1980 populations of 200,000 or 
more, in addition to metropolitan statistical areas with populations of 
100,000 or more in the northeast ozone transport region, are required 
to meet USEPA requirements for ``enhanced'' I/M programs. These areas 
were required to submit a SIP revision to incorporate an I/M program by 
November 15, 1992. In Illinois, the State must implement I/M programs 
in the urbanized areas of the Chicago and East St. Louis ozone 
nonattainment areas.
    The I/M regulation establishes minimum performance standards for 
basic and enhanced I/M programs as well as requirements for the 
following: Network type and program evaluation; adequate tools and 
resources; test frequency and convenience; vehicle coverage; test 
procedures and standards; test equipment; quality control; waivers and 
compliance via diagnostic inspection; motorist compliance enforcement; 
motorist compliance enforcement program oversight; quality assurance; 
enforcement against contractors, stations and inspectors; data 
collection; data analysis and reporting; inspector training and 
licensing or certification; public information and consumer protection; 
improving repair effectiveness; compliance with recall notices; on-road 
testing; SIP revisions; and implementation deadlines.
    For enhanced I/M programs, all requirements must be implemented by 
January 1, 1995 except that areas switching from an existing test-and-
repair network to a test-only network may phase in that change between 
January 1995 and January 1996.
     Each state required to implement an I/M program was required to 
submit by November 15, 1992, a SIP revision (here and after referred to 
as the ``I/M committal SIP'') including two elements: (1) A commitment 
from the Governor or his/her designee to the timely adoption and 
implementation of an I/M program meeting all the requirements of the I/
M regulation; and (2) a schedule for adoption of the program, with 
interim milestones including passage of enabling statutory or other 
legal authority and adoption of final regulations. Acceptance of I/M 
committal SIPs in lieu of full SIPs was justified by the fact that 
states could not have been expected to begin development of an I/M 
program meeting the requirements of the Act and the I/M regulation 
until the I/M regulation was adopted as a final rule, which did not 
occur until November 5, 1992. A complete SIP revision which contained 
all of the elements identified in the adoption schedule, including the 
authorizing legislation and implementing regulations, was to be 
submitted no later than November 15, 1993.
    On November 11, 1992, the State of Illinois submitted a committal 
SIP to USEPA. A public hearing on this submittal was held by the State 
on October 27, 1992, in Springfield, Illinois. The submittal included a 
schedule of implementation and a commitment to the timely adoption and 
implementation of an I/M program in the Chicago and East St. Louis 
ozone nonattainment areas meeting all the requirements of the I/M 
regulation and the amended Act by November 15, 1993.
    On July 13, 1993, the Illinois General Assembly adjourned without 
taking the necessary action to enable Illinois to adopt and implement 
the I/M provisions mandated by the amended Act and the final I/M rule 
in Chicago and East St. Louis ozone nonattainment areas. Failure to 
provide such authority prevented the State from submitting a complete 
SIP revision containing all the required elements of the program by 
November 15, 1993. On September 28, 1993, USEPA sent a letter to 
Illinois Governor Edgar advising him that USEPA had decided to exercise 
its discretionary authority under section 110(m) of the Act to impose 
sanctions at any time once a finding of SIP deficiency is made if 
necessary legislation was not adopted during the October 1993 veto 
session of the Illinois General Assembly. The Illinois General Assembly 
reconvened on October 12, 1993, for the fall veto session. During this 
session which adjourned November 4, 1993, the legislature failed for 
the second time to enact the legislation needed to implement the 
required I/M program meeting the requirements of the Act in the State 
of Illinois. After review of the committal SIP, USEPA proposed to 
disapprove the commitment on December 2, 1993 (58 FR 63547), based on 
the failure by the State to meet interim and final milestones in the 
schedule contained in the SIP submittal pertaining to the enactment of 
necessary authority to implement I/M requirements during the 1993 
Illinois General Legislative session. On November 15, 1993, the State 
of Illinois failed to meet its commitment to USEPA by failing to submit 
a full SIP revision for I/M program implementation.
    Beyond being a specific mandate of the Act, I/M programs play an 
important role in the ability of the Chicago and East St. Louis ozone 
nonattainment areas to comply with the requirements of the Act for 
achieving the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, 
as well as the Act's requirements for reasonable further progress (RFP) 
reductions for ozone. The Act provides that each state in which all or 
part of certain classifications for ozone nonattainment areas are 
located is required to provide an attainment demonstration showing that 
its SIP, as revised, will provide for attainment of the ozone NAAQS by 
the applicable attainment date(s). The Act further requires that each 
state in which all or part of a serious, severe, or extreme ozone 
nonattainment area is located shall submit SIP revisions that will 
reduce VOC emissions by November 15, 1996 by at least 15% of the 1990 
baseline emissions. If the reductions identified in the SIP revisions 
are less than 15% of baseline emissions, the State may obtain a waiver 
under section 182(b)(1)(A)(ii); this requires the State to make several 
demonstrations, including one that the plan reflecting the lesser 
amount includes all measures that can feasibly be implemented in the 
area in light of technological achievability. The Chicago and East St. 
Louis ozone nonattainment areas in Illinois will have difficulty 
meeting the applicable RFP requirements because credit for certain pre-
1990 CAA programs, such as the federal motor vehicle control program 
and basic I/M is not allowed. The additional benefits resulting from 
implementing an I/M program that meets the requirements of the final 
November 5, 1992, I/M regulation, however, are fully creditable towards 
meeting the RFP requirement. An I/M program is one of the most powerful 
tools available to areas in terms of providing expeditious reductions 
in both VOC and NOx, both of which are precursors of ozone.
    Finally, a federally approvable basic and enhanced I/M program 
represents one of the most cost-effective air quality control 
strategies available. Without an effective I/M program, attainment of 
the ozone air quality standard is virtually impossible, and without 
appropriate enabling legislation, an I/M program meeting final USEPA I/
M regulations cannot be implemented.

II. Sanctions Under the Clean Air Act

    This sanction action is being proposed under USEPA's discretionary 
authority contained in section 110(m) of the Act. The predicate 
findings and types of sanctions are in section 179. The two sanctions 
available to USEPA for application under section 110(m), as provided in 
section 179(b), are: (1) A prohibition on the funding of certain 
highway projects; and (2) an increase in the emission offset 
requirement for new and modified major stationary sources. The highway 
funding sanction prohibits the approval by the Secretary of 
Transportation of any projects or the awarding by the Secretary of any 
grants, under Title 23 of the U.S. Code, other than projects or grants 
for safety and certain other categories of projects listed in section 
179(b)(1). The offset sanction requires that, when states apply the 
emission offset requirement of section 173 to new or modified sources, 
the ratio of emission reductions to increased emissions must be at 
least 2 to 1.
    Section 179(a) of the Act sets forth the findings1 which 
provide USEPA with discretion under section 110(m) to impose one or 
both of the sanctions specified under section 179(b). The four findings 
are: (1) A state has failed, for a nonattainment area, to submit a SIP 
or an element of the SIP, or that the SIP or SIP element submitted 
fails to meet the completeness criteria of section 110(k); (2) USEPA 
disapproves a SIP submission for a nonattainment area based on the 
submission's failure to meet one or more plan elements required by the 
Act; (3) a state has not made any other submission required by the Act 
or has made a submission that does not meet the completeness criteria 
or has made a required submission that is disapproved by USEPA for not 
meeting the Act's requirements; or (4) a requirement of an approved 
plan is not being implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\Section 179(a) refers to Agency findings, disapprovals, and 
determinations. These will all be referred to by the one term 
``findings.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under section 179(a), unless the state corrects the deficiency, one 
of the two sanctions listed in section 179(b) must be imposed 18 months 
after a finding is made, and the second must be imposed 6 months after 
the first sanction is imposed, if the deficiency remains 
uncorrected.2 In addition, USEPA may apply both sanctions after 18 
months if the Administrator finds a lack of good faith on the part of 
the state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\On October 1, 1993, U.S. EPA proposed a rule governing the 
order in which the sanctions shall apply under section 179 of the 
Act. 58 FR 51270. The rule proposes that the offset sanction apply 
first and the highway funding sanction apply second. According to 
the proposed rule, U.S. EPA may change this sequence of sanctions 
through individual notice-and-comment rulemaking. This proposed 
sequencing applies only to mandatory sanctions that apply under 
section 179(a) and does not govern sanctions imposed under section 
110(m).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although section 179(a) establishes mandatory deadlines for the 
application of sanctions at certain points after a finding of 
deficiency, section 110(m) provides USEPA with the discretion to impose 
section 179(b) sanctions at any time (or at any time after) a section 
179(a) finding. Likewise, although mandatory sanctions under section 
179 are limited to the area with the deficiency, section 110(m) 
authorizes USEPA to apply discretionary sanctions to any portion of the 
state that USEPA deems reasonable and appropriate to ensure that the 
requirements of the Act are met. See 57 FR 44534, 44536-44537. However, 
the Act requires USEPA to establish by rule criteria to ensure that 
such sanctions are not applied on a statewide basis where one or more 
political subdivisions covered by the applicable implementation plan 
are principally responsible for the deficiency.
    On September 28, 1992, USEPA proposed criteria under section 110(m) 
that it would use when proposing statewide sanctions to determine if 
one or more political subdivisions is principally responsible for a SIP 
deficiency. 57 FR 44534. These proposed criteria are discussed later in 
this notice. With regard to Illinois, USEPA is using its discretionary 
authority under section 110(m) to propose early sanctions3 based 
on Illinois' failure to submit a complete I/M program. USEPA is taking 
this action for two reasons: (1) Congress required timely submittal of 
I/M programs as a measure central to allowing the State's metropolitan 
areas to meet CAA deadlines and any legislative delay threatens the 
State's ability to meet those deadlines, and (2) enhanced I/M is the 
single most effective air pollution control measure available. Delayed 
legislative approval of an acceptable I/M program places a 
disproportionate burden for cleaning the air on the State's major 
industrial sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\U.S. EPA issued a letter on December 30, 1993, finding that 
the state's failed to submit a SIP revision as required by the Act. 
Mandatory sanctions under section 179(a) were triggered by issuance 
of the letter notifying the state of the finding of the deficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed Sanctions

A. Finding Under Section 179(a)

    As stated previously, on December 30, 1993, USEPA Region 5 issued a 
letter notifying the State of its failure to submit a complete SIP 
revision on November 15, 1993, as required by the Act. USEPA's letter 
constitutes a finding under section 179(a) that triggers EPA's 
discretionary authority to impose the sanctions proposed in this notice 
under section 110(m). Further, on December 2, 1993, USEPA proposed to 
disapprove the I/M committal SIP containing Illinois' commitment to 
adopt and submit both basic and enhanced I/M programs meeting the 
requirements of the Act and USEPA's I/M regulation by November 15, 
1993. Illinois has now failed to adopt and submit such programs.
    If sufficient progress has not been made by Illinois toward the 
implementation of an approvable I/M program to be operational on or 
before January 1, 1995, EPA hereby announces its intention to impose 
sanctions on May 15, 1994.

B. Rationale and Approach for Section 110(m) Sanctions

    Section 110(m) of the Act allows USEPA to apply the Federal highway 
funding assistance limitations and the 2:1 emission offset sanction at 
any time (or at any time after) it makes a finding under section 
179(a). Based on its finding dated December 30, 1993, USEPA is 
proposing to impose both the Federal highway funding assistance 
limitations and 2:1 emission offset sanctions. USEPA believes that the 
imposition of both sanctions is appropriate because of Illinois' 
failure to submit a complete SIP revision to enhance its existing 
vehicle I/M program. In the absence of improved vehicle I/M, the 
ability of the State's metropolitan areas to meet the CAA deadlines for 
attaining healthy air quality is severely compromised. As previously 
noted, I/M programs are the single most effective air pollution control 
measures available and delayed legislative approval of an acceptable 
program further burdens major industrial sources of air pollution with 
responsibility for cleaning the air.
    Under section 110(m), USEPA may apply sanctions to any portion of 
the state it determines is reasonable and appropriate. During the 24 
months following the finding, USEPA may not impose the sanctions 
statewide if one or more political subdivisions within the state is 
principally responsible for the deficiency that is the basis for 
sanctions. USEPA has proposed criteria for determining when a political 
subdivision is principally responsible (57 FR 44534, September 28, 
1992). The criteria provide that a political subdivision is principally 
responsible if: (1) It has the legal authority to perform the required 
activity; (2) it has traditionally performed, or has been delegated the 
responsibility to perform, the required activity; (3) it has received, 
where appropriate, adequate funding, or authority to obtain funding, 
from the state to perform the required activity; (4) it has agreed to 
perform (and has not revoked the agreement), or is required by state 
law to accept responsibility for performing, the required activity; and 
(5) it has failed to perform the required activity. A ``political 
subdivision'' is defined as the representative body that is responsible 
for adopting and/or implementing air pollution controls for any 
combination of political subdivisions created by, or pursuant to, 
Federal or State law. If no political subdivision meets all 5 criteria, 
USEPA may use its discretion to determine whether it is reasonable and 
appropriate to apply sanctions on a statewide basis.
    In this notice, USEPA is proposing to use the above proposed 
criteria to determine if it may impose sanctions statewide for Illinois 
because of the failure to comply with the I/M committal SIP revision 
adopting an I/M program. USEPA believes that the first criterion has 
not been met by any political subdivision. Only the Illinois General 
Assembly, composed of representatives from all portions of the State of 
Illinois, has the authority to revise the state statute to provide for 
a basic and enhanced I/M program meeting the CAA and USEPA 
requirements. Once the legislature has acted, only state government 
agencies can adopt any implementing regulations. While individual air 
pollution control districts or air quality management districts may 
request implementation of the state I/M program within their districts 
once that program is adopted, this authority is meaningless unless the 
State has first established an appropriate program through legislation 
and regulations. Since the State legislature has not enacted the 
legislation required to provide the legal authority for an I/M program 
meeting the CAA and USEPA requirements an I/M program meeting such 
requirements is not available to areas within the State that require 
the program.
    Since no political subdivision within the State has met the first 
criterion, USEPA believes that no political subdivision is principally 
responsible for the failure to have an I/M program that meets final 
USEPA regulations. Therefore, USEPA is not prohibited from imposing 
sanctions statewide. As noted above, the State legislature bears the 
ultimate responsibility to adopt the requisite legislative authority 
and IEPA, not the individual air quality districts, must subsequently 
adopt adequate regulations. Since the State does bear the ultimate 
responsibility, USEPA believes that it is reasonable and appropriate 
for USEPA to impose the highway sanction on the entire State.
    The 2:1 offset sanction requirements apply only to new or modified 
major stationary sources located in or to be located in areas that are 
required to have a permit program pursuant to section 173. Thus, USEPA 
is proposing to impose the 2:1 emission offset sanction only in those 
areas in which it will have an effect, i.e., the following ozone 
nonattainment counties: Cook, Lake, Kane, DuPage, Will, McHenry, 
Madison, Monroe, St. Clair, Grundy (Aux Sable and Gooselake Townships 
only), and Kendall (Oswego Township only). The 2:1 emission offset 
would apply to all new or modified major stationary sources of VOC and 
NOx that are locating to or located in each of these areas. USEPA 
proposes to impose the offset sanctions in the manner described in the 
proposed action on the sequencing of sanctions (58 FR 51270, 51275-
51277 (October 1, 1993)).

C. Removal of Discretionary Sanctions

    USEPA is proposing to temporarily lift (i.e., toll)4 the 
highway and offset sanctions imposed under section 110(m) upon the 
passage by the Illinois General Assembly and signature by the Governor 
of legislation which USEPA preliminary determines provides legal 
authority for a basic and enhanced I/M program meeting the requirements 
of the CAA and the I/M regulations. USEPA proposes to notify the State 
of this tolling by a letter to the Governor and the public by a notice 
published in the notice section of the Federal Register. The section 
110(m) sanctions would not be completely lifted until the State submits 
a complete enhanced I/M program. USEPA will take action to completely 
lift section 110(m) sanctions upon a determination that the State has 
submitted a complete enhanced I/M program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As a general rule, an Agency must go through rulemaking to 
remove or alter a requirement imposed through rulemaking. While 
USEPA intends to issue a notice tolling the 110(m) sanctions upon 
the occurrence of the events described, USEPA will use the good 
cause exception to the otherwise applicable requirement for proposed 
rulemaking. EPA believes there is good cause to toll the sanctions 
once the state takes the action which cures the deficiency that 
resulted in imposition of sanctions. See 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(b)(B). 
Therefore, no proposed action for removal will be issued. Consistent 
with USEPA's intent to impose discretionary sanctions only on those 
areas that lack legislative authority, USEPA believes that it is in 
the public interest to remove, at least temporarily, these 
discretionary sanctions as expeditiously as possible once the State 
of Illinois has enacted legislative authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an alternative, if EPA takes final action disapproving 
Illinois's committal SIP prior to taking final action imposing 
sanctions, EPA proposes that such disapproval be the basis for imposing 
the discretionary sanctions. In such case, the sanctions would be 
tolled in the same manner; however, if the disapproval is the final 
basis for imposing the sanctions such sanctions would not be completely 
lifted until EPA formally approves an enhanced I/M program for the 
State of Illinois. In such a case, EPA would take action to lift the 
sanctions at the same time as EPA took final action approving the 
State's I/M program.
    USEPA's action imposing or tolling the section 110(m) sanctions 
will in no manner affect USEPA's obligation to impose mandatory 
sanctions under section 179(a) where one mandatory sanction shall apply 
18 months after USEPA's finding of failure to submit a complete SIP and 
the second mandatory sanction shall apply 6 months later. Sanctions 
under section 179(a) apply to the areas for which the deficiency 
exists. If the State does not adopt and submit to USEPA a complete 
submittal providing for an I/M program within the 18-month and 
additional 6-month periods, the sanctions will automatically apply on 
those areas of the State that were required to have but do not have 
such a complete I/M program under the amended Act. See 58 FR 51270 
(October 1, 1993). Moreover, if EPA takes final action disapproving 
Illinois's I/M committal SIP, a second sanctions clock will be 
triggered and Illinois must not only submit an I/M program, but EPA 
must also approve that program within the relevant time frames to stop 
the mandatory sanctions clock and avoid sanctions based on the final 
disapproval.

IV. Regulatory Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the 
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review 
and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines 
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a 
rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely effect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been 
determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action.'' 
Nevertheless, after reviewing information regarding this action, OMB 
has waived review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA 
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of 
any proposed or final rule on small entities. Alternatively, USEPA may 
certify that the rule will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and government entities 
with jurisdiction over populations of less than 50,000.
    The USEPA cannot reliably predict the impact of these restrictions 
because of the exemptions authorized for certain highway projects 
related to mass transit, public safety, and those that have beneficial 
air quality impacts. Careful review and evaluation of each project is 
necessary to determine whether or not a project is exempt.
    If USEPA takes final action on this proposal, the 2:1 emission 
offset requirement will apply to major new sources and major 
modifications to existing sources of VOC and NOx, in the Illinois 
ozone areas subject to the section 173 offset requirement.
    Major stationary sources of VOC and NOx with emissions are 
generally not small entities. Also, the 2:1 emission offset requirement 
does not prevent growth and modification but sets a higher offset 
standard than the current offset required. It is not expected that a 
large number of small entities will be affected by the emission offset 
requirement. In the past, when USEPA has made efforts to quantify the 
impact of the Act's rules on the construction and modification of 
sources, USEPA has been unable to do so due, in part, to the need to 
obtain information on future plans for business growth. This 
information is difficult to obtain, as businesses are understandably 
reluctant to make their plans public.
    The USEPA is also proposing to impose Federal highway funding 
assistance limitations statewide. This limitation could affect a number 
of government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than 
50,000 since government entities often apply for and receive federal 
funding under Title 23, United States Code, for road improvement 
projects. Although a great many projects are exempted under section 
179(b)(1)(B), a number of projects are expected to be affected if the 
USEPA takes final action. For the reasons stated above, USEPA cannot 
further analyze the economic impacts of this action on small entities. 
The statements in this package constitute USEPA's full regulatory 
Flexibility analysis.

C. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

    This rule does not contain any information collection requirements 
which require OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq.). Should the highway sanctions become effective, the 
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) is required 
to determine which projects or grants should not be affected by the 
sanction and which, therefore, are exempt. This determination will be 
based on information readily available in existing documentation 
gathered for the purpose of evaluating the environmental, social, and 
economic impacts of different alternatives for transportation projects. 
These analyses are already required for the preparation of 
environmental assessments and impact statements under the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Historically, exemption determinations 
by USDOT for sanctions have been based on such NEPA documentation and 
have not necessitated additional information gathering and analysis by 
the states. In addition, since under NEPA, final environmental 
documents must be approved by USDOT, in most cases the NEPA 
documentation will already be in USDOT's possession. Therefore, USEPA 
does not believe that the highway sanctions, when applied, will impose 
an additional information collection burden on the states.
    When the offset sanction applies, sources subject to it will not 
incur an additional information collection burden because sources are 
already required under section 173 offset requirements to obtain an 
emission offset from between 1 to 1 and 1.5 to 1 (depending on the 
classification of the nonattainment area in which they are located). 
Should the offset sanction apply, it would not impose an additional 
information collection burden because sources will not have to provide 
additional information in the application beyond that which they would 
already have to provide in the absence of the sanction. (For the 
information collection burden of new requirements of the amended Act 
for nonattainment new source review and prevention of significant 
deterioration, an information collection request is being prepared to 
support rulemaking changes to parts 51 and 52.)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Motor vehicle pollution, Nitrogen oxide, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: January 7, 1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
    40 CFR part 52 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

    1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart A--[Amended]

    2. Section 52.32, as proposed to be added in a document published 
elsewhere in this Federal Register, is amended by adding entries for 
the State of Illinois in the tables in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (c)(2) 
to read as follows:


Sec. 52.32  Discretionary sanction under section 110(m) of the Clean 
Air Act.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) * * * 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Date                 
                Affected area                    sanction   Pollutant(s)
                                                 applies     affected   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
                                  *****                                 
State of Illinois:                                                      
  Cook........................................  .........  VOC, NOX     
  DuPage......................................  .........  VOC, NOX     
  Grundy                                                                
    --Aux Sable Township......................  .........  VOC, NOX     
    --Gooselake Township......................  .........  VOC, NOX     
  Kane........................................  .........  VOC, NOX     
  Kendal                                                                
    --Oswego Township.........................  .........  VOC, NOX     
  Lake........................................  .........  VOC, NOX     
  Madison.....................................  .........  VOC, NOX     
  McHenry.....................................  .........  VOC, NOX     
  Monroe......................................  .........  VOC, NOX     
  St. Clair...................................  .........  VOC, NOX     
  Will........................................  .........  VOC, NOX     
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (2) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Affected area                    Date sanction applies     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
* * *                                                                   
                                                                        
State of Illinois                                                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         ...............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 94-1129 Filed 1-21-94; 10:00 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P