[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 166 (Monday, August 29, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-21253]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: August 29, 1994]


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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52

[TX-45-1-6566; FRL-5060-2]

 

Conditional Approval and Promulgation of Section 182(f) Exemption 
to the Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Control Requirements for the Dallas-
Fort Worth and El Paso Ozone Nonattainment Areas; Texas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to conditionally approve two petitions from 
the State of Texas requesting that the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) and El 
Paso ozone nonattainment areas be exempt from NOx control 
requirements of section 182(f) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) as amended in 
1990. The State of Texas bases its request for DFW upon a demonstration 
that the DFW nonattainment area would attain the National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone by the CAA mandated deadline 
without the implementation of the additional NOx controls required 
under section 182(f). Similarly, the State bases its exemption request 
for El Paso on a demonstration that the El Paso nonattainment area 
would attain the ozone NAAQS by the CAA mandated deadline without 
implementing the additional NOx controls required under section 
182(f), but for emissions emanating from Mexico. These exemptions are 
being requested under authority similarly granted under section 182(f) 
of the CAA.
DATES: Comments on these proposed actions must be received in writing 
on or before September 28, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on these actions should be addressed to Mr. 
Thomas Diggs, Chief, Planning Section, at the EPA Regional Office 
listed below. Copies of the documents relevant to these proposed 
actions are available for public inspection during normal business 
hours at the following locations. The interested persons wanting to 
examine these documents should make an appointment with the appropriate 
office at least 24 hours before the visiting day.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Programs Branch 
(6T-A), 1445 Ross Avenue, suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
    Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, P. O. Box 13087, 
Austin, Texas 78711-3087.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Leila Yim Surratt or Mr. Matthew 
Witosky, Planning Section (6T-AP), Air Programs Branch, USEPA Region 6, 
1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-7214.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    NOx are precursors to ground level (tropospheric) ozone, or 
urban ``smog.'' When released into the atmosphere, NOx will react 
with volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the presence of sunlight to 
form ozone. Tropospheric ozone is an important factor in the Nation's 
urban air pollution problem.
    The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) made significant changes 
to the air quality planning requirements for areas that do not meet the 
ozone NAAQS. Subparts 1 and 2 of part D, title I of the CAA as amended 
in 1990 contain the air quality planning requirements for ozone 
nonattainment areas. Title I includes new requirements to control 
NOx emissions in certain ozone nonattainment areas and ozone 
transport regions. Section 182(f) requires States to apply the same 
requirements to major stationary sources of NOx as are applied to 
major stationary sources of VOC. The new NOx requirements are 
reasonably available control technology (RACT) and new source review 
(NSR). These provisions are explained more fully in the EPA's NOx 
Supplement to the General Preamble published in the Federal Register 
(FR) on November 25, 1992 (see 57 FR 55620). In addition, the general 
and transportation conformity rules (conformity) required by section 
176(c) contain new NOx requirements (see 58 FR 63214 and 58 FR 
62188).
    El Paso, Texas, was designated nonattainment for ozone and 
classified as serious pursuant to sections 107(d)(4) and 181(a) of the 
CAA. The El Paso nonattainment area consists of El Paso County and 
shares a common airshed with Juarez, Mexico. Under section 181(a), 
serious areas must attain the ozone NAAQS by 1999. DFW was classified 
as moderate with an attainment deadline of 1996. The DFW nonattainment 
area consists of Dallas, Tarrant, Denton, and Collin Counties. Please 
reference 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991, codified for Texas at title 40 
of the Code of Federal Regulations in Sec. 81.344).

Applicable EPA Guidance

    The CAA specifies in section 182(f) that if one of the conditions 
listed below is met, the new NOx requirements would not apply:

1. In any area, the net air quality benefits are greater without 
NOx reductions from the sources concerned;
2. In a nontransport region, additional NOx reductions would 
not contribute to ozone attainment in the nonattainment area; or
3. In a transport region, additional NOx reductions would not 
produce net ozone benefits in the transport region.

    In addition, section 182(f)(2) states that the application of the 
new NOx requirements may be limited to the extent that any portion 
of those reductions are demonstrated to result in ``excess reductions'' 
of NOx. The NOx provisions of the conformity requirements 
would also not apply in an area that is granted a section 182(f) 
exemption (see 58 FR 63214 and 58 FR 62188).
    The EPA's Guideline for Determining the Applicability of Nitrogen 
Oxides Requirements under Section 182(f) (December 1993) describes how 
the EPA will interpret the NOx exemption provisions of section 
182(f). In addition, a memorandum signed by John S. Seitz, Director of 
the EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, dated May 27, 
1994, describes certain revisions to the process the EPA currently 
intends to follow for granting exemptions from NOx control 
requirements.
    As described more fully in the Seitz memorandum, petitions 
submitted under section 182(f)(3) are not required to be submitted as 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions. Consequently, the State is 
not required under the CAA to hold a public hearing in order to 
petition for an areawide NOx exemption determination. Similarly, 
it is not necessary to have the Governor submit the petition.

International Border Area

    Section 818 of the 1990 CAAA incorporates a new section 179B into 
the CAA which contains special provisions for nonattainment areas that 
are affected by emissions emanating from outside the United States. The 
section 818 provisions are hereinafter referred to as section 179B. 
Because the El Paso nonattainment area shares a common airshed with 
Juarez, Mexico, the section 179B provisions apply to El Paso.
    Under section 179B, the EPA will approve a SIP if the area meets 
all other CAA requirements and establishes that implementation of the 
plan would achieve attainment of the ozone standard by the CAA 
statutory deadline ``but for emissions emanating from outside the 
United States.'' Customarily, an area must demonstrate, using EPA 
guideline models, that it would attain the relevant NAAQS. Since El 
Paso and Juarez, Mexico, share an airshed and data are not available 
for a Juarez emission inventory, modeling of the entire airshed is not 
possible at this time. Current EPA policy allows an area subject to 
section 179B, such as El Paso, to perform modeling using only U.S. air 
emission data. Such modeling may form an acceptable basis for 
demonstrating attainment for analysis purposes required under section 
179B. As applied under EPA guidance, for areas that demonstrate 
attainment, ``but for emissions emanating from a foreign country,'' the 
provisions of section 179B will keep an area on an international border 
from being subject to the ``bump up'' provisions of section 181(b)(2) 
requiring reclassification to the next higher ozone nonattainment 
classification if the area fails to attain the relevant NAAQS by the 
applicable attainment date. See 57 FR 13498, 57 FR 13569-13570 (April 
16, 1992).
    The State of Texas performed Urban Airshed Modeling (UAM) using 
only El Paso emissions data, which demonstrates that El Paso would 
attain the ozone standard by 1996 ``but for emissions emanating from 
Mexico.'' The El Paso UAM ozone modeling analysis will be referred to 
in this document as the ``attainment demonstration'' for El Paso.
    Although the EPA allows an area such as El Paso to demonstrate 
attainment on a basis of U.S.-only modeling, it is understood that 
ultimately basin-wide modeling must occur in order to develop a control 
strategy in El Paso that will achieve the NAAQS. The United States 
entered into the Agreement for Environmental Cooperation along the 
U.S.-Mexico Border, referred to as the La Paz Agreement, with Mexico in 
1983 to address environmental concerns along the border between the two 
countries. Annex V of the Agreement, negotiated in 1989, calls for 
basin-wide modeling to be accomplished for the El Paso/Juarez airshed. 
The EPA has been working with Mexico and with the Texas Natural 
Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) to accomplish the basin-wide 
modeling. Since the statutory attainment date for serious ozone 
nonattainment areas such as El Paso is 1999, concerned agencies intend 
to complete such modeling by 1999.

State Submittal

    On June 17, 1994, the TNRCC submitted to the EPA two petitions 
pursuant to section 182(f) which request that the DFW and El Paso 
nonattainment areas be exempted by the EPA from the NOx control 
requirements of section 182(f) of the CAA.
    The State bases its petitions on a demonstration that NOx 
reductions would not contribute to attainment in either area, as 
allowed for under the test (2) listed above, because such NOx 
reductions would be in excess of the reductions necessary for 
attainment. Consistent with the EPA's December 1993 section 182(f) 
guidance, the State's excess emissions reductions demonstration is tied 
to the attainment demonstration SIP required under section 182(c)(2)(A) 
of the CAA.
    The State's submission for each petition includes: (1) A letter 
from Anthony C. Grigsby, Executive Director of the TNRCC, to Jane N. 
Saginaw, Regional Administrator of the EPA Region 6, transmitting the 
NOx exemption petition; (2) the petition from the TNRCC 
summarizing the State's UAM attainment demonstration results; and (3) 
technical reports documenting the State's base case UAM inputs. The 
State has also previously submitted to the EPA the 15 percent 
Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) SIPs for the DFW and El Paso areas, 
as required by section 182(b)(1) of the CAA. The 15 percent RFP SIPs 
contain regulations that are estimated to reduce VOC emissions in each 
area by 15 percent from 1990 levels, net of any growth that may occur. 
The State of Texas supplemented its petitions by submitting to the EPA 
in July 1994, two additional technical reports on the UAM for each 
area, which contained the following: base case performance evaluation, 
attainment year emissions report, and attainment year modeling report. 
These additional technical reports provided supplemental detail and 
documentation on the modeling information already provided to the EPA 
in the State's petitions. Finally, in the petitions, the State commits 
to taking its attainment demonstration SIPs through public hearing, 
adopting them, and submitting them to the EPA by November 15, 1994, as 
required by section 182(c)(2)(A) of the CAA.

Analysis of State Submission

    The following items are the basis for the EPA's action proposing to 
conditionally approve the State of Texas section 182(f) NOx 
exemption petitions for the DFW and El Paso ozone nonattainment areas. 
Please refer to the EPA's Technical Support Document and the State's 
submittal for more detailed information.

A. Consistency with EPA Section 182(f) Guidance

    Chapter 6 of the EPA's December 1993 section 182(f) guidance 
requires that the excess reductions demonstration for the ``contribute 
to attainment'' test, i.e., test (2) listed above, must be tied to the 
area's attainment demonstration SIP. This test must show that the 
excess reductions are reductions in excess of those specified in the 
attainment demonstration required by section 182, and either contained 
in the approved SIP or as adopted by the State to meet the section 182 
attainment demonstration requirement, and submitted to the EPA for 
approval. The EPA believes that the more precise modeling analysis 
contained in the State's attainment demonstration SIP is required for 
the excess reduction test because the demonstration must show that a 
specific portion of the total areawide NOx emissions is not 
beneficial under one of the three tests listed above. The tie to the 
attainment demonstration assures that an excess reductions petition 
would not arbitrarily be based on small emissions and would not 
undermine the State's control strategy.
    The State has completed its modeling demonstrating attainment in 
both areas and has committed to taking the attainment demonstrations 
through public hearing, adopting them and submitting them to the EPA by 
November 15, 1994. Because the attainment demonstrations rely on VOC 
regulations contained in the 15 percent RFP SIPs which have been 
adopted by the State and submitted to the EPA, the EPA does not 
anticipate that the content of the final attainment demonstration SIPs 
will differ from what has already been submitted to the EPA by the 
TNRCC in the section 182(f) exemption petitions.
    Chapter 7 of the EPA section 182(f) guidance requires that 
photochemical grid modeling be used to demonstrate that NOx 
reductions would be excess reductions for attainment. The guidance also 
specifies that application of UAM should be consistent with the 
techniques specified in the EPA ``Guideline on Air quality Models 
(Revised),'' and ``Guideline for Regulatory Application of the UAM,'' 
(July 1991). As discussed in the next section, the State has met these 
requirements by using the UAM consistent with the EPA's guidance.

 B. UAM Modeling Analysis

    The TNRCC used UAM version IV, an EPA-approved photochemical grid 
model, to develop the attainment demonstration for the DFW and El Paso 
areas. The State's modeling activities were performed as outlined in 
the UAM modeling protocols, according to the EPA's ``Guideline for 
Regulatory Application of the Urban Airshed Model.'' A specific 
modeling protocol was developed by the State for its modeling 
activities. The State's modeling protocol was reviewed and approved by 
the EPA. The discussion below summarizes the EPA's analysis on how the 
State's modeling demonstrations complied with the EPA's guidance. 
Please refer to the EPA's Technical Support Document for more detailed 
information.
1. Episode Selection
    The State used the EPA ``Guideline For Regulatory Application of 
The Urban Airshed Model'' to select episodes for use in the DFW and El 
Paso UAM modeling exercises. Data from 1987 through 1991 were examined 
for episodes which cover at least 48 consecutive hours and the worst-
case meteorological conditions. Four episodes were selected for the UAM 
analysis for each area.
2. Model Domain and Meteorological Input
    The TNRCC used sufficiently large modeling domains for DFW and El 
Paso to ensure that the model captures the movement of ozone episodes 
as a result of the VOC and NOx emissions emitted from the surface 
sources. Meteorological data were collected from numerous monitoring 
stations in both areas. The TNRCC followed the methods described in the 
UAM User's Guides to develop model inputs for wind field data, mixing 
heights, temperature, and meteorological scalars for both areas.
3. Emissions Inventory
    The DFW and El Paso modeling exercises were conducted using VOC and 
NOx emission inventories compiled by survey and direct measurement 
by the TNRCC. The modeling emissions inventories are composed of point 
source, area, on-road mobile, off-road mobile, and biogenic emissions. 
Where applicable, emissions were adjusted for pertinent conditions 
related to the episode day to be modeled, thus producing day-specific 
emissions. The EPA procedures for developing episode-specific emission 
inventories were followed.
    For El Paso, as discussed above, the modeling exercise was 
conducted based on an emission inventory consisting of the U.S. sources 
only. Using this limited data set, the TNRCC was able to demonstrate 
attainment for the El Paso side of the airshed using the 1996 emissions 
inventory. Therefore, the State plans to submit an attainment 
demonstration SIP that reflects an attainment year of 1996, three years 
earlier than the CAA mandated deadline of 1999. Although a basin-wide 
emissions inventory that includes Juarez, Mexico, emissions is 
necessary to conduct reliable basin-wide modeling, such an inventory is 
not presently available due to the lack of data on Juarez sources. 
Therefore, the modeling for El Paso is based on a limited set of 
emissions data. As discussed above, however, pursuant to Annex V of the 
La Paz Agreement, basin-wide modeling will be performed once a complete 
emissions inventory is available and the question of whether more 
permanent improvements in air quality are achievable in El Paso will be 
revisited at that time.
    For both DFW and El Paso, the 1996 attainment year modeling 
inventory was developed from the 1990 base year emission inventory and 
adjusted to reflect the projected conditions for the attainment year. 
Demographic and econometric forecasting methods were employed to 
project activities levels to 1996, which in turn were used to develop a 
projected emissions inventory for 1996. The State then applied the VOC 
emission reductions that are projected to be realized from the control 
regulations contained in the 15 percent RFP SIPs for each area. The 
1996 inventories did not incorporate any NOx emission reductions 
that would have been achieved through implementation of the NOx 
RACT, NSR, or conformity provisions.
4. Model Performance
    For DFW, both graphical and statistical performance measures were 
used to evaluate the model. Using these analyses, the predicted results 
from the model were compared to the observed results for each episode. 
These analyses demonstrated that the model performed satisfactorily for 
three of the episodes that were used for the attainment demonstration.
    For El Paso, neither graphical nor statistical performance measures 
could be used for the performance evaluation, because it is impossible 
to estimate ozone formation in the atmosphere without complete 
emissions data for the airshed. As described more fully in the EPA's 
Technical Support Document, the State developed several alternative 
diagnostic tests to evaluate the model's performance. Based on these 
tests, the model exhibited satisfactory performance on two of the 
episodes that were used for the attainment demonstration.
5. Demonstration of Attainment Without NOx Reductions
    For the DFW attainment demonstration, all three episodes that 
provided adequate performance with the base case inventory were used 
with the DFW 1996 modeling inventory to model attainment of the ozone 
NAAQS. The DFW 1996 modeling inventory incorporates approximately 75 
percent of the emission reductions that are projected to be achieved 
from the State's 15 percent RPF SIP. In each case, the predicted 
domain-wide maximum ozone concentration was less than the NAAQS of 120 
parts per billion (ppb). Sensitivity studies performed during the model 
performance evaluation demonstrated that when all the reductions from 
the 15 percent RFP SIP are included, the modeling demonstration results 
in even lower predicted ozone concentrations.
    For the El Paso attainment demonstration, TNRCC repeated UAM using 
the El Paso 1996 modeling inventory, which incorporated the 15 percent 
RFP SIP reductions, for the two 1987 summer episodes that exhibited 
satisfactory performance as described above. In each case, the 
predicted domain-wide maximum ozone concentration for 1996 was 
significantly below the NAAQS of 120 ppb.

Proposed Rulemaking Action

    In this action, the EPA proposes to conditionally approve1 the 
182(f) NOx exemption petitions submitted by the State of Texas for 
the DFW and El Paso ozone nonattainment areas. The EPA will not take 
final action to conditionally approve the petitions for each area 
unless and until the State submits the attainment demonstration SIPs to 
the EPA in accordance with section 182(c)(2)(A) of the CAA. If the 
attainment SIPs are not submitted in accordance with section 
182(c)(2)(A), the EPA will issue a final disapproval of the State's 
exemption petitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\This conditional approval is distinct from the conditional 
approval authority granted under section 110(k)(4), which pertains 
to SIP actions. As discussed in the previously cited John S. Seitz 
memorandum dated May 27, 1994, concerning the EPA's processing of 
section 182(f) petitions, these NOx exemptions petitions are 
not revisions to the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the State submits the attainment demonstration SIPs for DFW and 
El Paso in accordance with section 182(c)(2)(A) of the CAA, the EPA 
will issue a final conditional approval of the section 182(f) NOx 
exemption petitions for each area, conditioned upon the EPA approving 
the modeling portion of the attainment demonstration SIPs. If the EPA 
proposes to disapprove the modeling portion of the SIPs, the EPA will 
also propose disapproval of the section 182(f) NOx exemption 
petitions, based on the fact that the technical basis for the exemption 
is no longer valid. Upon final disapproval of the modeling portion of 
the attainment SIPs, the EPA will issue a final disapproval of the 
section 182(f) NOx exemption petitions as well.
    There are several consequences if the EPA disapproves the section 
182(f) NOx exemption petitions based on the conclusion that either 
the attainment SIPs were not submitted by the State of Texas or they 
were submitted but not approved by the EPA. The State would be required 
to submit NOx RACT and NSR rules and implement the NOx 
conformity requirements for the DFW and El Paso areas. The EPA would 
issue a finding of nonsubmittal of the NOx RACT and NSR rules. As 
provided under section 179(a) of the CAA, if the State did not make a 
complete submittal within 18 months after the finding of failure to 
submit, the EPA would be required to impose the requirement to provide 
two-to-one NSR offsets. If the State had not corrected its deficiency 
within six months after imposing the offset sanction, the EPA would 
impose a second sanction, on highway funding. Any sanction the EPA 
imposes must remain in place until the EPA determines that the State 
has corrected the deficiency. In addition, the finding of failure to 
submit would trigger the 24-month clock for the EPA to impose a Federal 
Implementation Plan as provided under section 110(c)(1) of the CAA.
    The EPA believes that all section 182(f) exemptions that are 
approved, should be approved only on a contingent basis. As described 
in the EPA's NOx Supplement to the General Preamble (57 FR 55628, 
November 25, 1992), the EPA would rescind a NOx exemption in cases 
where NOx reductions were later found to be beneficial in the 
area's attainment plan. That is, a modeling based exemption would last 
for only as long as the area's modeling continued to demonstrate 
attainment without the additional NOx reductions required by 
section 182(f).
    If the EPA later determines that NOx reductions are beneficial 
based on new photochemical grid modeling in an area initially exempted, 
the area would be removed from exempt status and would be required to 
adopt the NOx RACT and NSR rules, except to the extent that 
modeling shows NOx reductions to be ``excess reductions.'' In the 
rulemaking action which removes the exempt status, the EPA would 
specify a schedule for States to adopt the NOx RACT and NSR rules 
and for sources to comply with the NOx RACT emission limits.
    The subsequent modeling analyses mentioned above need not be 
limited to the purpose of demonstrating attainment in the 1994 SIP 
revisions without the need for NOx RACT and NSR. For example, 
future modeling might also be initiated to resolve issues related to 
transport of ozone and ozone precursors into downwind nonattainment 
areas. An area might want to consider a strategy that phases-in 
NOx reductions only after certain VOC reductions are implemented. 
As improved emission inventories and ambient data become available, 
areas may choose to remodel. In addition, alternative control strategy 
scenarios might be considered in subsequent modeling analyses in order 
to improve the cost-effectiveness of the attainment plan.
    In summary, the EPA proposes to approve exemptions for the DFW and 
El Paso areas conditioned upon EPA approval of the modeling portion of 
the attainment demonstrations for these areas. These exemptions will 
remain effective for only as long as modeling in each nonattainment 
area continues to show that NOx control activities would not be 
beneficial in the DFW or El Paso nonattainment areas.
    In addition, the State of Texas and EPA have committed to data-
gathering and modeling throughout the El Paso-Juarez air basin in 
accordance with Annex V of the La Paz Agreement for Environmental 
Cooperation on the U.S.-Mexico Border. Once the data are collected and 
basin-wide modeling is concluded, the EPA, the State of Texas, and the 
Republic of Mexico can develop a binational control strategy that will 
result in improved air quality throughout the airshed. If EPA review of 
modeling and air quality data confirms that NOx control 
requirements on local U.S. sources would not be beneficial, the 
exemption would be sustained. In contrast, if the EPA determines that 
NOx control requirements would be beneficial, the exemption would 
be rescinded.

Request for Public Comments

    The EPA requests comments on all aspects of this proposal. As 
indicated at the outset of this action, the EPA will consider any 
comments received by September 28, 1994.

Regulatory Process

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., the EPA 
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of 
any proposed or final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). 
Alternatively, the EPA may certify that the rule will not have a 
significant economic 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.
    Approvals of NOx exemption petitions under section 182(f) of 
the CAA do not create any new requirements. Therefore, because the 
Federal approval of the petition does not impose any new requirements, 
the EPA certifies that it does not have a significant impact on 
affected small entities. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-
State relationship under the CAA, preparation of a regulatory 
flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic 
reasonableness of State action. The CAA forbids the EPA to base its 
actions concerning SIPs on such grounds (Union Electric Co. v. U.S. 
E.P.A. , 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S. Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410 (a)(2)).
    If the conditional approval is converted to a disapproval based on 
the State's failure to meet the condition upon which the approval is 
granted, it will not affect any existing State requirements applicable 
to small entities. Federal disapproval of the State submittal does not 
affect its State-enforceability. Moreover, the EPA's disapproval of the 
submittal does not impose a new Federal requirement. Therefore, the EPA 
certifies that this disapproval action would not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities because such 
disapproval would not remove existing State requirements, nor does it 
substitute a new Federal requirement.

Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the 
EPA 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. It has been determined 
that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the 
terms of Executive Order 12866, and is therefore not subject to OMB 
review.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic 
compounds.

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

    Dated: August 22, 1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-21253 Filed 8-26-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F