[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