[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 134 (Thursday, July 11, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36502-36506]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17644]


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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52

[TN-167-9627a; FRL-5529-3]


Control Strategy: Ozone (O3); Tennessee

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving an exemption request from the oxides of 
nitrogen (NOX) reasonably available control technology (RACT) and 
conformity requirements of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA) 
for the five county Middle Tennessee (Nashville) moderate ozone 
(O3) nonattainment area. The request for a NOX RACT and 
conformity exemption was submitted on March 21, 1995, by the State of 
Tennessee through the Tennessee Department of Environment and 
Conservation (TDEC). The exemption request is based upon the

[[Page 36503]]

most recent three years of monitoring data, which demonstrate that 
additional reductions of NOX would not contribute to attainment of 
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

DATES: This final rule is effective September 9, 1996 unless adverse or 
critical comments are received by August 12, 1996. If the effective 
date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the Federal 
Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: William Denman; 
Stationary Source Planning Unit; Regulatory Planning and Development 
Section; Air Programs Branch; Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management 
Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4; 345 Courtland 
Street NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30365.
    A copy of the exemption request is available for inspection at the 
following locations (it is recommended that you contact William Denman 
at (404) 347-3555 extension 4208 before visiting the Region 4 office).

United States Environmental Protection Agency; Air, Pesticides, and 
Toxics Management Division; Air Programs Branch; Regulatory Planning 
and Development Section; Stationary Source Planning Unit; 345 Courtland 
Street NE; Atlanta, Georgia 30365.
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Air 
Pollution Control, L & C Annex, 9th Floor, 401 Church Street, 
Nashville, Tennessee 37243-1531, 615/532-0554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Denman; Stationary Source 
Planning Unit; Regulatory Planning and Development Section; Air 
Programs Branch; Air Pesticides and Toxics Management Division; U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency; 345 Courtland Street NE, Atlanta, 
Georgia 30365. Reference file TN-167-9627a.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The air quality planning requirements for 
the reduction of NOX emissions are set out in section 182(f) of 
the CAA, which requires states with nonattainment areas of moderate and 
above to require the same provisions for major stationary sources of 
NOX as apply to major stationary sources of volatile organic 
compounds (VOCs). One of the requirements of major sources of VOCs is 
RACT. Therefore, per section 182 of the CAA, RACT is also a requirement 
for major sources of NOX. However, under section 182(f)(1)(A) of 
the CAA, an exemption from the NOX requirement may be granted for 
nonattainment areas outside an ozone transport region if additional 
reductions of NOX would not contribute to attainment. The NOX 
RACT exemption request is based upon the most recent three years of 
monitoring data, which demonstrate that additional reductions of 
NOX would not contribute to attainment of the NAAQS.
    The criteria established for the evaluation of a NOX RACT 
exemption request from the section 182(f) requirements are set forth in 
an EPA memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, dated May 27, 1994, entitled, ``Section 182(f) 
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Exemptions--Revised Process and Criteria;'' 
an EPA memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, dated December 16, 1993, entitled, ``Guideline 
for Determining the Applicability of Nitrogen Oxide Requirements Under 
Section 182(f),'' dated December 16, 1993; and an EPA memorandum from 
John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 
dated February 8, 1995, entitled, ``Section 182(f) Nitrogen Oxides 
(NOX) Exemptions--Revised Process and Criteria.'' The February 8, 
1995, memorandum referenced above decouples the section 182(f) 
exemptions from NOX transport issues. In an area that did not 
implement the section 182(f) NOX requirements, but did attain the 
O3 standard as demonstrated by ambient air monitoring data 
(consistent with 40 CFR Part 58 and recorded in the EPA's Aerometric 
Information Retrieval system (AIRS)), it is clear that the additional 
NOX reductions required by section 182(f) would not contribute to 
attainment of the NAAQS in that area.
    On November 14, 1994, the State of Tennessee submitted to EPA 
Region 4 a request to redesignate the Middle Tennessee (Nashville) 
moderate O3 nonattainment area to attainment. The redesignation 
request is currently under review and will be addressed in a separate 
rulemaking. On March 21, 1995, the State of Tennessee requested an 
exemption from the NOX RACT and NOX conformity requirements 
in section 182(f) of the CAA for the Middle Tennessee ozone 
nonattainment area. The exemption request is based upon ambient air 
monitoring data from 1992, 1993, and 1994. The five county Middle 
Tennessee nonattainment area was determined to have attained the 
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone in the Federal 
Register on August 8, 1995, (60 FR 40291) in accordance with EPA 
guidance issued on May 10, 1995, and has continued to monitor 
attainment to date. This guidance relieved certain nonattainment areas 
with ``clean air data'' from some CAA requirements. Therefore, this 
area is meeting the O3 NAAQS standard in the entire five county 
Middle Tennessee area for the relevant three year period. Because the 
Middle Tennessee area is meeting the O3 NAAQS, this exemption 
request for the area meets the applicable requirements contained in the 
EPA policy and guidance documents referenced above.
    However, some NOX reductions were either obtained prior to the 
area attaining the ozone standard or have been determined to be 
necessary for maintenance. Specifically, those reductions obtained 
prior to attaining the standard were from major source tangentially-
fired coal burning boilers subject to Tennessee's rule for the 
regulation of nitrogen oxides (1200-3-27-.03(1)(b)). The NOX 
reductions necessary for maintenance are from two natural gas pumping 
stations located in the nonattainment area.
    Tennessee submitted its chapter for regulating nitrogen oxides 
(1200-3-27) in submittals to EPA dated June 14, 1993, and May 26, 1994, 
and revised the submittals on July 29, 1994, and February 23, 1996. 
Tennessee held a public hearing for the operating permits issued for 
the two natural gas pumping stations on April 29, 1996. These two 
sources must be controlled to demonstrate maintenance. The Tennessee 
Air Pollution Control Board (TAPCB) met to take action on these permits 
on May 9-10, 1996. After approval by the TAPCB, the permits will be 
officially submitted to EPA. EPA will act on the NOX controls 
which obtained emission reductions prior to the area attaining the 
standard and those necessary for maintaining the ozone standard either 
prior to or concurrently with the ozone redesignation request. The 
approval of this exemption does not exempt sources from any State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) approved NOX control requirements.
    Until this area is designated attainment, the continuation of the 
section 182(f) exemption granted herein is contingent upon continued 
monitoring and continued maintenance of the O3 NAAQS in the entire 
Middle Tennessee nonattainment area. If there is a violation of the 
O3 NAAQS in any portion of the Middle Tennessee nonattainment 
area, the exemption will no longer be applicable as of the date of any 
such determination. Should this occur, EPA will provide notice in the 
Federal Register. A determination that the NOX exemption no longer 
applies would mean that the NOX RACT requirement is immediately 
applicable to the affected area and the exemption

[[Page 36504]]

from NOX conformity is no longer valid. EPA believes some 
reasonable period of notice is necessary to provide major stationary 
sources subject to the RACT requirement time to purchase, install, and 
operate any required controls. Accordingly, the State may provide 
sources a reasonable time period to meet the RACT emission limits after 
the EPA determination that NOX RACT requirement is necessary. EPA 
expects the time period to be as expeditious as practicable, but in no 
case longer than 24 months. The approval of this exemption from federal 
NOX requirements in no way exempts sources from any NOX 
controls required by the State.
    This approval of the State of Tennessee's request for an exemption 
from the NOX RACT requirement of the CAA as amended in 1990 is 
being acted on as a direct final rule making without a prior proposal 
for approval because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial 
amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. The National Resources 
Defense Council (NRDC), Sierra Defense Club, and Environmental Defense 
Fund (EDF) submitted adverse comments to Mary Nichols on August 24, 
1994, regarding all Federal Register notices proposing to approve 
section 182(f) NOX exemption requests. The EPA responded to the 
adverse comments as set forth below.
    NRDC Comment 1: Certain commenters argued that NOX exemptions 
are provided for in two separate parts of the CAA, section 182(b)(1) 
and section 182(f). Because the NOX exemption tests in subsections 
182(b)(1) and 182(f)(1) include language indicating that action on such 
requests should take place ``when [EPA] approves a plan or plan 
revision,'' these commenters conclude that all NOX exemption 
determinations by the EPA, including exemption actions taken under the 
petition process established by subsection 182(f)(3), must occur during 
consideration of an approvable attainment or maintenance plan, unless 
the area has been redesignated as attainment. These commenters also 
argue that even if the petition procedures of subsection 182(f)(3) may 
be used to relieve areas of certain NOX requirements, exemptions 
from the NOX conformity requirements must follow the process 
provided in subsection 182(b)(1), since this is the only provision 
explicitly referenced by section 176(c), the CAA's conformity 
provisions.
    EPA Response: Section 182(f) contains very few details regarding 
the administrative procedure for acting on NOX exemption requests. 
The absence of specific guidelines by Congress leaves EPA with 
discretion to establish reasonable procedures, consistent with the 
requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
    The EPA disagrees with the commenters regarding the process for 
considering exemption requests under section 182(f), and instead 
believes that subsections 182(f)(1) and 182(f)(3) provide independent 
procedures by which the EPA may act on NOX exemption requests. The 
language in subsection 182(f)(1), which indicates that the EPA should 
act on NOX exemptions in conjunction with action on a plan or plan 
revision, does not appear in subsection 182(f)(3). And, while 
subsection 182(f)(3) references subsection 182(f)(1), the EPA believes 
that this reference encompasses only the substantive tests in paragraph 
(1) [and, by extension, paragraph (2)], not the procedural requirement 
that the EPA act on exemptions only when acting on SIPs. Additionally, 
paragraph (3) provides that ``person[s]'' (which section 302(e) of the 
CAA defines to include States) may petition for NOX exemptions 
``at any time,'' and requires the EPA to make its determination within 
six months of the petition's submission. These key differences lead EPA 
to believe that Congress intended the exemption petition process of 
paragraph (3) to be distinct and more expeditious than the longer plan 
revision process intended under paragraph (1).
    Section 182(f)(1) appears to contemplate that exemption requests 
submitted under these paragraphs are limited to States, since States 
are the entities authorized under the Act to submit plans or plan 
revisions. By contrast, section 182(f)(3) provides that ``person[s]'' 
may petition for a NOX determination ``at any time'' after the 
ozone precursor study required under section 185B of the Act is 
finalized, and gives EPA a limit of 6 months after filing to grant or 
deny such petitions. Since individuals may submit petitions under 
paragraph (3) ``at any time'' this must include times when there is no 
plan revision from the State pending at EPA. The specific time frame 
for EPA action established in paragraph (3) is substantially shorter 
than the time frame usually required for States to develop and for EPA 
to take action on revisions to a SIP. These differences strongly 
suggest that Congress intended the process for acting on personal 
petitions to be distinct--and more expeditious--from the plan-revision 
process intended under paragraph (1). Thus, EPA believes that paragraph 
(3)'s reference to paragraph (1) encompasses only the substantive tests 
in paragraph (1) [and, by extension, paragraph (2)], not the 
requirement in paragraph (1) for EPA to grant exemptions only when 
acting on plan revisions.
    With respect to major stationary sources, section 182(f) requires 
States to adopt NOX NSR and RACT rules, unless exempted. These 
rules were generally due to be submitted to EPA by November 15, 1992. 
Thus, in order to avoid the CAA sanctions, areas seeking a NOX 
exemption would need to submit their exemption request for EPA review 
and rulemaking action several months before November 15, 1992. In 
contrast, the CAA specifies that the attainment demonstrations are not 
due until November 1993 or 1994 (and EPA may take 12-18 months to 
approve or disapprove the demonstration). For marginal ozone 
nonattainment areas (subject to NOX NSR), no attainment 
demonstration is called for in the CAA. For maintenance plans, the CAA 
does not specify a deadline for submittal of maintenance 
demonstrations. Clearly, the CAA envisions the submittal of and EPA 
action on exemption requests, in some cases, prior to submittal of 
attainment or maintenance demonstrations.
    The CAA requires conformity with regard to federally-supported 
NOX generating activities in relevant nonattainment and 
maintenance areas. However, EPA's conformity rules explicitly provide 
that these NOX requirements would not apply if EPA grants an 
exemption under section 182(f). In response to the comment that section 
182(b)(1) should be the appropriate vehicle for dealing with exemptions 
from the NOX requirements of the conformity rule, EPA notes that 
this issue has previously been raised in a formal petition for 
reconsideration of EPA's final transportation conformity rule and in 
litigation pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit on the substance of both the transportation and 
general conformity rules. The issue, thus, is under consideration 
within EPA, but at this time remains unresolved. Additionally, 
subsection 182(f)(3) requires that NOX exemption petition 
determinations be made by the EPA within six months. The EPA has stated 
in previous guidance that it intends to meet this statutory deadline as 
long as doing so is consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. 
The EPA, therefore, believes that until a resolution of this issue is 
achieved, the applicable rules governing this issue are those that 
appear in EPA's final conformity regulations, and EPA remains bound by 
their existing terms.

[[Page 36505]]

    NRDC Comment 2: Three years of ``clean'' data fail to demonstrate 
that NOX reductions would not contribute to attainment. EPA's 
policy erroneously equates the absence of a violation for one three-
year period with ``attainment.''
    EPA Response: The EPA has separate criteria for determining if an 
area should be redesignated to attainment under section 107 of the CAA. 
The section 107 criteria are more comprehensive than the CAA requires 
with respect to NOX exemptions under section 182(f).
    Under section 182(f)(1)(A), an exemption from the NOX 
requirements may be granted for nonattainment areas outside an ozone 
transport region if EPA determines that ``additional reductions of 
[NOX] would not contribute to attainment'' of the ozone NAAQS in 
those areas. In some cases, an ozone nonattainment area might attain 
the ozone standard, as demonstrated by 3 years of adequate monitoring 
data, without having implemented the section 182(f) NOX provisions 
over that 3-year period. The EPA believes that, in cases where a 
nonattainment area is demonstrating attainment with 3 consecutive years 
of air quality monitoring data without having implemented the section 
182(f) NOX provisions, it is clear that the section 182(f) test is 
met since ``additional reductions of [NOX] would not contribute to 
attainment'' of the NAAQS in that area. The EPA's approval of the 
exemption, if warranted, would be granted on a contingent basis (i.e., 
the exemption would last for only as long as the area's monitoring data 
continue to demonstrate attainment).
    NRDC Comment 3: The CAA does not authorize any waiver of the 
NOX reduction requirements until conclusive evidence exists that 
such reductions are counter-productive.
    EPA Response: EPA does not agree with this comment since it ignores 
Congressional intent as evidenced by the plain language of section 
182(f), the structure of the Title I ozone subpart as a whole, and 
relevant legislative history. By contrast, in developing and 
implementing its NOX exemption policies, EPA has sought an 
approach that reasonably accords with that intent. Section 182(f), in 
addition to imposing control requirements on major stationary sources 
of NOX similar to those that apply for such sources of VOC, also 
provides for an exemption (or limitation) from application of these 
requirements if, under one of several tests, EPA determines that in 
certain areas NOX reductions would generally not be beneficial. In 
subsection 182(f)(1), Congress explicitly conditioned action on 
NOX exemptions on the results of an ozone precursor study required 
under section 185B. Because of the possibility that reducing NOX 
in a particular area may either not contribute to ozone attainment or 
may cause the ozone problem to worsen, Congress included attenuating 
language, not just in section 182(f) but throughout the Title I ozone 
subpart, to avoid requiring NOX reductions where it would be 
nonbeneficial or counterproductive. In describing these various ozone 
provisions (including section 182(f), the House Conference Committee 
Report states in pertinent part: ``[T]he Committee included a separate 
NOX/VOC study provision in section [185B] to serve as the basis 
for the various findings contemplated in the NOX provisions. The 
Committee does not intend NOX reduction for reduction's sake, but 
rather as a measure scaled to the value of NOX reductions for 
achieving attainment in the particular ozone nonattainment area.'' H.R. 
Rep. No. 490, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 257-258 (1990). As noted in 
response to an earlier comment by these same commenters, the command in 
subsection 182(f)(1) that EPA ``shall consider'' the 185B report taken 
together with the time frame the Act provides both for completion of 
the report and for acting on NOX exemption petitions clearly 
demonstrate that Congress believed the information in the completed 
section 185B report would provide a sufficient basis for EPA to act on 
NOX exemption requests, even absent the additional information 
that would be included in affected areas' attainment or maintenance 
demonstrations. However, while there is no specific requirement in the 
Act that EPA actions granting NOX exemption requests must await 
``conclusive evidence,'' as the commenters argue, there is also nothing 
in the Act to prevent EPA from revisiting an approved NOX 
exemption if warranted due to better ambient information.
    In addition, the EPA believes (as described in EPA's December 1993 
guidance) that section 182(f)(1) of the CAA provides that the new 
NOX requirements shall not apply (or may be limited to the extent 
necessary to avoid excess reductions) if the Administrator determines 
that any one of the following tests is met:
    (1) in any area, the net air quality benefits are greater in the 
absence of NOX reductions from the sources concerned;
    (2) in nonattainment areas not within an ozone transport region, 
additional NOX reductions would not contribute to ozone attainment 
in the area; or
    (3) in nonattainment areas within an ozone transport region, 
additional NOX reductions would not produce net ozone air quality 
benefits in the transport region.
    Based on the plain language of section 182(f), EPA believes that 
each test provides an independent basis for receiving a full or limited 
NOX exemption. Only the first test listed above is based on a 
showing that NOX reductions are ``counter-productive.'' If one of 
the tests is met (even if another test is failed), the section 182(f) 
NOX requirements would not apply or, under the excess reductions 
provision, a portion of these requirements would not apply.

Pollution Probe (Ontario 9-27-94)

    Air Quality Comment: Several commenters stated that the air quality 
monitoring data alone does not support this exemption proposal. The air 
quality levels are below EPA's definition of an exceedance of the ozone 
NAAQS at 0.125 ppm, but are greater than the ozone NAAQS of 0.120 ppm.
    EPA Response: For the reasons provided below, EPA does not agree 
with the commenter's conclusion. As stated in 40 CFR 50.9, the ozone 
``standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar 
year with maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 parts per 
million (235 ug/m3) is equal to or less than 1, as determined by 
Appendix H.'' Appendix H references EPA's ``Guideline for 
Interpretation of Ozone Air Quality Standards'' (EPA-450/4-79-003, 
January 1979), which notes that the stated level of the standard is 
taken as defining the number of significant figures to be used in 
comparison with the standard. For example, a standard level of 0.12 ppm 
means that measurements are to be rounded to two decimal places (0.005 
rounds up to 0.01). Thus, 0.125 ppm is the smallest concentration value 
in excess of the level of the ozone standard.
    The transportation conformity rule states that its NOX 
provisions do not apply when the Administrator has determined under 
section 182(f) of the Clean Air Act that ``additional reductions of 
NOX would not contribute to attainment.'' On June 17, 1994, EPA 
published in the Federal Register the general preamble for exemption 
from nitrogen oxide provisions (59 FR 31238). It was clarified in this 
notice that guidance for transportation conformity is intended to also 
apply with respect to general conformity. In accordance with this 
guidance, once EPA grants the NOX transportation conformity 
exemption, the area is

[[Page 36506]]

relieved of the transportation conformity rule's requirements for 
regional analysis of NOX emissions. However, once the maintenance 
plan for the middle Tennessee ozone nonattainment area is approved, any 
previously approved NOX conformity exemption no longer applies. 
The area must then demonstrate as part of its conformity determinations 
that the transportation plan and Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) 
are consistent with the motor vehicle emissions budget for NOX 
where such a budget is established by the maintenance plan.

Final Action

    The EPA is approving Tennessee's request to exempt the Middle 
Tennessee moderate O3 nonattainment area from the section 182(f) 
NOX RACT and NOX conformity requirements without a prior 
proposal for approval because the Agency views this as a 
noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. This 
approval is based upon the evidence provided by Tennessee showing 
compliance with the requirements outlined in the CAA and in applicable 
EPA guidance. If a violation of the O3 NAAQS occurs in any portion 
of the Middle Tennessee area while the area is designated 
nonattainment, the exemption from the NOX RACT and NOX 
conformity requirements of section 182(f) of the CAA in the applicable 
area shall no longer apply.
    This action is not a SIP revision and is not subject to the 
requirements of section 110 of the CAA. The authority to approve or 
disapprove exemptions from NOX requirements under section 182 of 
the CAA was delegated to the Regional Administrator from the 
Administrator in a memo dated July 6, 1994, from Jonathan Cannon, 
Assistant Administrator, to the Administrator, titled, ``Proposed 
Delegation of Authority: `Exemptions from Nitrogen Oxide Requirements 
Under Clean Air Act section 182(f) and Related Provisions of the 
Transportation and General Conformity Rules' Decision Memorandum.'' In 
a separate document in this Federal Register publication, the EPA is 
proposing to approve the request should adverse or critical comments be 
filed. This action will be effective September 9, 1996 unless, by 
August 12, 1996, adverse or critical comments are received.
    If the EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn 
before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will 
withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be 
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the separate proposed 
rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this 
action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do 
so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is 
advised that this action will be effective September 9, 1996.
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 
7607(b)(1), petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed 
in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by 
September 9, 1996. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the 
Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this 
rule for purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within 
which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not 
postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not 
be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See 
section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(2).)
    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 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. sections 603 and 
604. Alternatively, EPA 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. This rule approves an exemption from a CAA requirement. 
Therefore, I certify that it does not have a significant impact on any 
small entities affected.

Unfunded Mandates

    Under Sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 
1995, EPA must undertake various actions in association with proposed 
or final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in 
estimated costs of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to 
State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate.
    Through submission of this state implementation plan or plan 
revision, the State and any affected local or tribal governments have 
elected to adopt the program provided for under Section 182 of the CAA. 
These rules may bind State, local and tribal governments to perform 
certain actions and also require the private sector to perform certain 
duties. EPA has examined whether the rules being approved by this 
action will impose any new requirements. Since such sources are already 
subject to these regulations under State law, no new requirements are 
imposed by this approval. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, 
local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from 
this action, and therefore there will be no significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 18, 1996.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator.

    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart RR--Tennessee

    2. Section 52.2237 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 52.2237  NOX RACT and NOX conformity exemption.

    Approval--EPA is approving the section 182(f) oxides of nitrogen 
(NOX) reasonably available control technology (RACT) and NOX 
conformity exemption request submitted by the Tennessee Department of 
Environment and Conservation on March 21, 1995, for the five county 
middle Tennessee (Nashville) ozone moderate nonattainment area. This 
approval exempts the area from implementing federal NOX RACT on 
major sources of NOX and exempts Tennessee from NOX 
conformity. This approval does not exempt sources from any State 
required or State Implementation Plan (SIP) approved NOX controls. 
If a violation of the ozone NAAQS occurs in the area, the exemption 
from the requirement of section 182(f) of the CAA in the applicable 
area shall not apply.

[FR Doc. 96-17644 Filed 7-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P