[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 43 (Monday, March 6, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12180-12184]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5402]



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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52

[IL99-01-6621, IN46-01-6622, MI33-01-6626, WI47-01-6627; FRL-5165-1]


Approval of a Section 182(f) Exemption; Illinois, Indiana, 
Michigan, and Wisconsin

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On July 13, 1994, the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, 
and Wisconsin (the States) submitted to the EPA a petition (the 
petition) for an exemption from the requirements of section 182(f) of 
the Clean Air Act (Act). The States, acting through the Lake Michigan 
Air Directors Consortium (LADCo), are petitioning for an exemption from 
the Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) and New Source 
Review (NSR) requirements for major stationary sources of oxides of 
nitrogen (NOx). In the Lake Michigan Ozone Study (LMOS) modeling 
domain, the RACT requirements apply to major stationary sources of 
NOx located in areas currently classified as moderate and above 
nonattainment for ozone. The NSR requirements apply to major stationary 
sources of NOx located in areas currently classified as marginal 
and above nonattainment for ozone. The petition also seeks an exemption 
from the transportation and general conformity requirements for 
NOx in all ozone nonattainment areas in the modeling domain. 
Although the petition does not specifically request an exemption from 
the Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) program requirements, the approval of 
the petition will impact the I/M NOx [[Page 12181]] requirements 
for ozone nonattainment areas in the modeling domain. In this 
rulemaking, EPA is proposing to approve the petition based upon its 
demonstration that additional NOx reductions would not contribute 
to attainment of the National ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for 
ozone in any nonattainment area within the LMOS modeling domain. The 
EPA is reserving the right, however, to reverse this approval if 
subsequent modeling, such as may be available through the final 
attainment demonstration, or any other subsequent modeling data 
demonstrate an ozone attainment benefit from NOx emission 
controls.
DATES: Comments on the petition and on the proposed EPA action must be 
received by April 5, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments shall be sent to: Carlton T. Nash, Chief, 
Regulation Development Section, Air Toxics and Radiation Branch (AT-
18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois, 60604.
    Copies of the petition are available for inspection at the 
following address: (It is recommended that you telephone Daniel Meyer 
at (312) 886-9401, before visiting the Region 5 office.) U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois, 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Meyer, Regulation Development 
Section, Air Toxics and Radiation Branch (AT-18J), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois, 60604. 
(312) 886-9401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Part D of the Act establishes the State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
requirements for nonattainment areas. Subpart 2, part D of the Act 
establishes additional provisions for ozone nonattainment areas. At 
section 182(b)(2) of this subpart, the Act requires the application of 
RACT regulations for major stationary volatile organic compound (VOC) 
sources located in moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas as well 
as in ozone transport regions. States are required to submit RACT 
regulations by November 15, 1992 and sources are required to achieve 
compliance with these RACT regulations by May 31, 1995. At section 
182(a)(2)(C), the Act requires the application of NSR regulations for 
major new or modified VOC sources located in marginal and above ozone 
nonattainment areas as well as in ozone transport regions. States are 
required to adopt revised NSR regulations by November 15, 1992. At 
section 182(f), the Act requires States to apply the same requirements 
to major stationary sources of NOx as are applied to major 
stationary sources of VOC. Therefore, the RACT and NSR requirements 
also apply to major stationary sources of NOx.
    The EPA ``State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to 
the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air 
Act Amendments of 1990'' (57 FR 55628), November 25, 1992 (NOx 
Supplement), discusses in detail the section 182(f) requirements. For 
sources outside of an ozone transport region, these requirements do not 
apply to NOx sources if: (1) The EPA determines that net air 
quality benefits are greater in the absence of NOx emissions 
reductions; or (2) the EPA determines that additional reductions of 
NOx emissions would not contribute to attainment of the NAAQS for 
ozone in the area. Where any one of the tests is met (even if the other 
test is failed), the NOx RACT and NSR requirements of section 
182(f) would not apply.
    In addition to determining the applicability of NOx reductions 
under RACT and NSR, the section 182(f) exemption process may also 
determine the applicability of NOx reductions under the Act's 
conformity requirements, which assure conformity with approved SIPs. 
The general and transportation conformity requirements are found at 
section 176(c) of the Act. The conformity requirements apply on an 
areawide basis in all nonattainment areas, including the 
nonclassifiable ozone nonattainment areas. The EPA's transportation 
conformity final rule1 and general conformity final rule2 
reference the section 182(f) exemption process as a means for exempting 
an affected area from NOx conformity requirements. The approval of 
an areawide section 182(f) petition will exempt marginal and above 
ozone nonattainment areas from the NOx conformity requirements of 
the Act. See the May 27, 1994, memorandum entitled, ``Section 182(f) 
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Exemptions--Revised Process and Criteria,'' 
from John Seitz, Director of the Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards.

    \1\''Criteria and Procedures for Determining Conformity to State 
or Federal Implementation Plans of Transportation Plans, Programs, 
and Projects Funded or Approved under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal 
Transit Act'' November 24, 1993 (58 FR 62188).
    \2\''Determining Conformity of General Federal Actions to State 
or Federal Implementation Plans; Final Rule'' November 30, 1993 (58 
FR 63214).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the I/M program final rule (57 FR 52950), November 5, 1992, 
the section 182(f) petition is also referenced to determine 
applicability of NOx reductions. The I/M program requirement for 
moderate ozone nonattainment areas is found at section 182(b)(4), and 
the I/M program requirement for serious and above ozone nonattainment 
areas is found at section 182(c)(3). Basic I/M testing programs must be 
designed such that no increase in NOx occurs as a result of the 
program. If a petition is granted to an area required to implement a 
basic I/M program, the basic I/M NOx requirement may be omitted. 
Enhanced I/M testing programs must be designed to reduce NOx 
emissions consistent with the enhanced I/M performance standard. If a 
petition is granted to an area required to implement an enhanced I/M 
program, the NOx emission reductions are not required, but the 
program must be designed to offset NOx emission increases 
resulting from the repair of vehicles due to hydrocarbon and carbon 
monoxide failures.
    The EPA believes that all approvable petitions should be approved 
only on a contingent basis. As described in the NOx Supplement, 
the EPA would rescind a NOx petition in cases where NOx 
reductions were later found to be beneficial in the area's attainment 
demonstration. Therefore, a modeling- based exemption would last only 
as long as the area's modeling continued to demonstrate attainment 
without the additional NOx reductions required by section 182(f). 
The EPA would also rescind the exemption if other data, including new 
photochemical grid modeling, demonstrates an ozone attainment benefit 
from NOx emission controls. If EPA later determines that NOx 
reductions are beneficial 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 the new modeling 
shows NOx reductions to be ``excess reductions.'' In addition, the 
area would no longer be exempt from the NOx reduction requirements 
under the Act's I/M and conformity programs. In the rulemaking action 
rescinding the exempt status, the EPA would specify a schedule for a 
State to adopt the NOx RACT and NSR rules and for sources to 
comply with the NOx RACT emission limits. In addition, the 
rulemaking action would also describe how a State must comply with the 
I/M and conformity program requirements. For conformity, the effect of 
a recision is that subsequent Federal actions will [[Page 12182]] have 
to demonstrate that they conform, although projects that had begun 
because of the exemption would be allowed to go forward. See 
``Conformity; General Preamble for Exemption from Nitrogen Oxides 
Provisions,'' 59 FR 31238 (June 17, 1994).
    If EPA grants a petition for an exemption from the section 182(f) 
NOx requirements, a State may impose NOx restrictions for 
other reasons. If, however, the EPA grants the petition based upon a 
finding that NOx reductions are counterproductive, the State must 
justify how the SIP continues to be adequate for achieving ozone 
attainment given its NOx reductions. Although a section 182(f) 
petition may determine the applicability of SIP requirements pertaining 
to NOx emission reductions and controls, the petition is not a 
SIP, nor is it a revision to a SIP. Therefore, a petition is not 
required to undergo a public hearing, nor must a petition be submitted 
by a Governor of a State or his designee. See ``Conformity; General 
Preamble for Exemption from Nitrogen Oxides Provisions,'' 59 FR 31238 
(June 17, 1994).

II. Summary of Submittal

    The LMOS is a regional modeling project that was initiated by the 
States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin, with assistance 
from the EPA, to deal with the ozone problem in the Lake Michigan air 
basin as a whole. A major goal of the study is to develop a 
comprehensive modeling system that the four States would use to support 
a regional control strategy that would be implemented through revisions 
to their ozone attainment SIPs. The Lake Michigan air basin, which 
constitutes the LMOS modeling domain, contains a number of generally 
contiguous nonattainment areas including several major urban 
nonattainment areas, including Chicago, Milwaukee, and Grand Rapids, 
and many smaller, less-dense nonattainment areas generally downwind of 
the large urban centers. The entire domain is affected by ozone 
concentrations that are transported into the area. These ozone 
concentrations are estimated to be as high as 80-100 parts per billion 
(ppb). Additionally, within the domain itself, ozone precursor 
emissions generated in the urban centers upwind travel downwind, 
resulting in significant downwind ozone levels. It is because of these 
meteorological characteristics that the ozone problem in the Lake 
Michigan area is considered to be a very broad regional phenomenon 
requiring a regional solution. Consequently, the preliminary control 
strategy simulations pursued in the ozone study consisted of an 
approach that assumed across-the-board reductions in VOC and NOx 
emissions throughout the region as a whole in order to provide 
information on the most effective control path to pursue toward 
attainment.
    The petition, which is part of a July 13, 1994 submittal from LADCo 
to the EPA, seeks to exempt major stationary sources of NOx within 
ozone nonattainment areas classified as marginal and above in the LMOS 
modeling domain from the RACT requirements of section 182(b)(2) and the 
NSR requirements under section 182(a)(2)(C). The petition for an 
exemption from NOx RACT and NSR applies to the following counties: 
(1) Within Illinois, the Counties of Cook, DuPage, Grundy (Aux Sable 
and Gooselake Townships), Kane, Kendall (Oswego Township), Lake, 
McHenry, and Will; (2) within Indiana, the Counties of Elkhart, Lake, 
Porter, and St. Joseph; (3) within Michigan, the Counties of Kent, 
Muskegon, and Ottawa; and (4) within Wisconsin, the Counties of Door, 
Kenosha, Kewaunee, Manitowoc, Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, Sheboygan, 
Walworth, Washington, and Waukesha.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR part 93, subpart A; 40 CFR part 51, subpart T; 
40 CFR part 93, subpart B; and 40 CFR part 51, subpart W, the petition 
seeks an exemption from the transportation and general conformity 
requirements for NOx in all ozone nonattainment areas within the 
LMOS modeling domain. The areas include the above Counties as well as 
the following Michigan Counties: Allegan, Barry, Bay, Berrien, Branch, 
Calhoun, Cass, Clinton, Eaton, Gratiot, Genesee, Hillside, Ingham, 
Ionia, Jackson, Kalamazoo, Lenawee, Midland, Montcalm, St. Joseph, 
Saginaw, Shiawasse, and Van Buren.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR part 51, subpart S, an approved petition allows 
for an exemption from the NOx requirements of the basic I/M 
requirements for moderate ozone nonattainment areas. These Counties 
include: (1) Within Indiana, the Counties of Elkhart, and St. Joseph; 
(2) within Michigan, the Counties of Kent, Muskegon, and Ottawa; and 
(3) within Wisconsin, the Counties of Door, Kewaunee, Manitowoc, 
Sheboygan, Walworth, Washington, and Waukesha. Also pursuant to subpart 
S, an approved petition allows for an exemption from the NOx 
requirements of the enhanced I/M requirements for serious and above 
ozone nonattainment areas. These Counties include: (1) Within Illinois, 
the Counties of Cook, DuPage, Grundy (Aux Sable and Gooselake 
Townships), Kane, Kendall (Oswego Township), Lake, McHenry, and Will; 
(2) within Indiana, the Counties of Lake and Porter; and (3) within 
Wisconsin, the Counties of Kenosha, Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, 
Washington, and Waukesha.
    The December 1993 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 
guidance document, ``Guideline for Determining the Applicability of 
Nitrogen Oxide Requirements under Section 182(f),'' (Guideline), 
recommends the use of photochemical grid modeling for testing the 
contribution of NOx emission reductions to attainment of the ozone 
standard. This approach simulates conditions over the modeling domain 
that may be expected at the attainment deadline for three emission 
reduction scenarios: (1) Substantial VOC reductions; (2) substantial 
NOx reductions; and (3) both VOC and NOx reductions. If the 
areawide predicted maximum one-hour ozone concentration for each day 
modeled under scenario (1) is less than or equal to those from 
scenarios (2) and (3) for the corresponding days, the section 182(f) 
NOx emissions reduction requirements may not apply.
    As noted above, section 182(f)(1) of the Act provides that the new 
NOx requirements of subpart 2 of part D of the Act shall not apply 
for the ozone nonattainment areas within the LMOS modeling domain if, 
among other tests, EPA determines that additional NOx emission 
reductions would not contribute to attainment of the ozone standard in 
the ozone nonattainment areas covered by the petition. The States' have 
utilized the Urban Airshed Model (UAM-V), a photochemical grid model 
approved by EPA for LADCo's section 182(f) and attainment 
demonstrations, to demonstrate that NOx emission reductions would 
not contribute to attainment. To conduct the modeling analysis, LADCo 
followed these steps: (a) Emissions were projected to the year 1996 
(the attainment deadline for the moderate nonattainment areas) and to 
the year 2007 (the attainment deadline for the severe nonattainment 
areas) from the 1990 base year; (b) a 40 percent VOC emission reduction 
beyond that achieved as a result of emission controls mandated by the 
Act was assumed to be necessary to attain the ozone standard in the 
LMOS modeling domain; (c) a 40 percent NOx emission reduction 
beyond the projected emission levels was assumed for all anthropogenic 
NOx emissions; (d) a 40 percent VOC emission reduction and a 40 
percent NOx reduction beyond projected emission levels were 
assumed for all anthropogenic VOC and NOx emissions; 
[[Page 12183]] and (e) the ozone modeling results for (b), (c), and (d) 
were compared considering the domain-wide peak ozone concentrations and 
temporal and spatial extent of ozone concentrations above 120 ppb. In 
addition, ozone impacts resulting from increasing new source growth 
NOx emissions were analyzed.
    For all modeled days using 1996 and 2007 conditions, domain-wide 
peak ozone concentrations for ``VOC-only'' controls were found to be 
lower than or equal to those for ``NOx-only'' controls or those 
for ``VOC plus NOx'' controls. The ``VOC-only'' control scenario 
leads to the smallest areas with predicted peak ozone concentrations 
exceeding 120 ppb. In addition, the NOT2x point source growth is 
not expected to exacerbate the nonattainement problem.

III. Analysis of Submittal

    As stated earlier in this document, for purposes of their NOx 
exemption submission, the LMOS States elected to rely on the statutory 
test provided in section 182(f)(1)(A), which requires a demonstration 
that NOx reductions would not contribute to attainment of the 
ozone NAAQS ``in the area''. Under the EPA Guideline, this would 
ordinarily mean that the demonstration should show that in a single 
nonattainment area NOx emissions reductions from sources in the 
same nonattainment area would not contribute to attainment. However, 
the EPA Guideline goes on to encourage petitioners relying on modeling 
under the contribute to attainment test to include consideration of the 
entire modeling domain for two key reasons. First, because the test 
focuses on the effects of NOx reductions on attainment, to fully 
realize those effects, the attainment control strategy often needs to 
extend beyond the geographic bounds of the designated nonattainment 
area. This is especially warranted for the nonattainment areas in the 
Lake Michigan air basin given the meteorological indications noted 
previously. Second, when photochemical grid modeling is utilized for 
this demonstration, it is generally advisable, as a technical matter, 
to use a modeling domain larger than the designated nonattainment area 
in order to consider multi-day episodes, to establish realistic 
boundary conditions, and to accommodate the geometry of the model grid 
cells. Again, as noted previously, the location of the nonattainment 
areas and the meteorology characteristic of the Lake Michigan area made 
it reasonable for the LMOS study to analyze domain-wide precursor 
effects rather than attempting to identify such effects in each 
individual nonattainment area. Because of this, the modeling protocol 
lacks the type of precision that would make it capable, for example, of 
analyzing particularized, individual local area effects. However, a 
region-wide modeling assessment may--and, in the case of the LMOS 
modeling, clearly did--include consideration of general, directional 
effects in specific areas.
    Review of the modeling results by EPA show a very definite 
directional signal that general, across-the-board NOx emission 
reduction controls in the ozone nonattainment areas throughout the LMOS 
modeling domain would not contribute to attainment, but, in fact, would 
exacerbate peak ozone concentrations. Specifically, the LMOS modeling 
runs demonstrate that reductions in NOx emissions result in 
increases in the domain-wide peak ozone concentrations, in the areal 
coverage of hours greater than 120 ppb (the current ozone standard), 
and in the number of hours greater than 120 ppb. Nitrogen oxide 
reductions also increased hourly ozone concentrations within and 
immediately downwind of the major urban areas of Chicago, Milwaukee, 
Gary, and Grand Rapids. Additional model sensitivity tests involving 
alternative VOC:NOx emissions ratios and alternative photolysis 
rates produced similar results. In addition, independent analyses of 
the LMOS field data also conclude that NOx controls would increase 
ozone concentrations in and downwind of Chicago. In light of all this 
evidence in support of the conclusion that application of NOx 
controls in the nonattainment areas throughout the LMOS domain would be 
counterproductive, EPA believes the LADCo States have made an 
acceptable case for approval of their NOx exemption petition.
    However, data provided to the EPA to date by LADCo indicate that 
some adjustments in the modeling results may be expected when certain 
aspects of the modeling are subject to more detailed inputs. 
Specifically, the LMOS analysis projected emissions for conditions 
expected in the attainment years of 1996 (for Moderate areas) and 2007 
(for Severe areas with a design value between 0.190 and 0.280 ppm). 
However, the analysis did not rely on source category-specific emission 
projection factors, but instead used simple, region-wide adjustment 
factors for point, area, and mobile (motor vehicular) sources to 
account for both known controls (i.e., 15 percent reasonable further 
progress and other mandatory Clean Air Act Amendment controls) and for 
growth. Therefore, some changes in the modeling results are to be 
expected if area-specific and source category-specific emission 
projection factors are used. And, in fact, these more detailed 
projection factors will be used in the final demonstration of 
attainment for the LMOS domain. It should be noted, however, that 
nothing in the data presented, and in the analysis of that data, leads 
EPA to believe either that these adjusted modeling results will reverse 
the directional signal provided by the modeling done to date, or alter 
the preliminary conclusion that NOx reductions in the 
nonattainment areas throughout the domain would not contribute to 
attainment of the ozone NAAQS.
    Finally, although this document earlier points out that the version 
of the photochemical grid model utilized in the LMOS study (UAM-V) was 
approved by EPA for LADCo's section 182(f) and attainment 
demonstrations, it is noted here by EPA that the Lake Michigan States 
and LADCo had not completed the appropriate validation process for the 
UAM-V modeling system utilized in the LMOS study at the time the 
NOx exemption petition was submitted. In this regard, the EPA 
Guideline states that an assessment of the model's performance and a 
copy of the modeling protocol should be included in States' NOx 
exemption analysis ``for informational purposes.'' On the basis of that 
guidance, the use of the UAM-V model by LADCo to support the section 
182(f) ``contribute to attainment'' test is acceptable. In any event, 
however, the validation process has now been completed, and a model 
validation report has been submitted to EPA by LADCo. With respect to 
the emission projection factors, it is also likely that some 
adjustments in the modeling results may be expected based on the 
completed validation process. However, as in the previous case, nothing 
in the existing modeling data, or in the analyses, leads EPA to believe 
that any subsequent adjustments would be sufficient to reverse the 
directional indication that NOx reductions in the nonattainment 
areas throughout the LMOS modeling domain would not contribute to 
attainment of the ozone NAAQS.
    In summary, then, the EPA believes that the modeling data contained 
in the LADCo NOx exemption petition demonstrates that, for the 
nonattainment areas throughout the LMOS domain in general, additional 
reductions of NOx would not contribute to attainment of the ozone 
standard. However, other data submitted to EPA [[Page 12184]] offer the 
possibility that subsequent adjustments to the modeling results due to 
the completed model validation process, as well as the inclusion of 
area-specific and source category-specific emissions projection 
factors, may result in changes that could alter the conclusions 
presently reached with respect to the effects of NOx reductions on 
nonattainment areas within the domain. Although this result seems 
highly unlikely, it does remain a possibility. In light of the above, 
EPA has concluded that the LADCo exemption demonstration is adequate to 
support the granting of a NOx waiver. Therefore, pursuant to 
section 182(f)(3) of the Act, and based on the results provided by the 
modeling data that is available at this time, and on the modeling 
analyses' conformance to the criteria contained in relevant EPA 
guidance, including the Guideline, the EPA proposes to approve the 
LADCo NOx exemption petition. The EPA reserves the right to 
reverse this approval to the extent necessary if subsequent modeling 
results, such as may be available through the final attainment 
demonstration submittal, or through any other subsequent modeling data, 
demonstrate that additional NOx emission reductions will 
contribute to attainment of the ozone NAAQS in all or part of any 
nonattainment areas within the LMOS modeling domain. For a more 
detailed analysis of the petition, please see the August 22, 1994 
technical support document entitled ``Technical Review of a Four State 
Request for a Section 182(f) Exemption from Oxides of Nitrogen 
(NOx) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) and New 
Source Review (NSR) Requirements.''

IV. Implication of Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve the LADCo petition. If granted, the 
approval will exempt ozone nonattainment areas in the LMOS modeling 
domain from any applicable NOx requirements set forth in the Act, 
such as those for NOx RACT, NSR, I/M, and conformity. Therefore, 
the sanctions clocks currently underway for the applicable ozone 
nonattainment areas in the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and 
Wisconsin for failing to submit a complete NOx RACT SIP will be 
stopped upon final approval of the exemption. The EPA reserves the 
right, however, to reverse the proposed approval if subsequent 
modeling, such as may be available through the final attainment 
demonstration, or any other subsequent modeling data, demonstrate an 
ozone attainment benefit from NOx emission controls within all or 
part of the ozone nonattainment areas within the LMOS modeling domain. 
In that case, the EPA would notify the States that the exemption no 
longer applies for the relevant nonattainment areas, and would also 
provide notice to the public in the Federal Register.
    There are also consequences if the EPA disapproves the petition. 
The requirement to submit NOx RACT rules and implement the NSR, 
conformity, and I/M NOx requirements for the LMOS modeling domain 
area remain in place. Therefore, the sanctions clocks currently 
underway for the applicable ozone nonattainment areas in the States of 
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin for failing to submit a 
complete NOx RACT SIP will not be stopped. As provided under 
section 179(a) of the Act, 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 requirements to provide two-to-one 
NSR offsets. If the State had not corrected its deficiency within 6 
months after imposing the offset sanction, the EPA would impose a 
second sanction related to Federal highway funding restrictions. 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 Act.

V. Request for Public Comments

    Interested parties are invited to submit comments on this petition 
and on EPA's proposed rulemaking action. Public comments received by 
the date indicated above will be considered in the development of the 
final rule.

VI. Regulatory Process

    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this rule from the 
requirements of section 6 of Executive Order 12866. Under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., 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, 
under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the EPA may certify that the rule will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. See 46 FR 8709. Small entities include small businesses, 
small not-for-profit enterprises, and government entities with 
jurisdiction over populations of less than 50,000.
    Because any type of approval of a section 182(f) petition does not 
impose any new requirements, I certify that it does not have a 
significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover, due to the 
nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Act, preparation of 
a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into 
the economic reasonableness of State action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Oxides of Nitrogen, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

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

    Dated: February 27, 1995.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-5402 Filed 3-3-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F