[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 11, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-551]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 11, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[FRL-4822-4]
RIN 2060-AD10
Criteria for Exercising Discretionary Sanctions Under Title I of
the Clean Air Act
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rulemaking sets forth criteria that EPA must consider
when exercising its discretionary authority to impose sanctions on a
statewide basis pursuant to the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (Act).
If EPA makes one of the findings of State implementation plan (SIP)
deficiency described in the Act, EPA may impose an emissions offset or
highway funding sanction on any portion of the State that the
Administrator determines is reasonable and appropriate for the purpose
of ensuring that the requirements of the Act relating to plans are met.
This rulemaking establishes the criteria EPA shall use in exercising
its discretionary authority during the 24-month period following a
finding of a plan deficiency to ensure that these sanctions are not
applied on a statewide basis when one or more political subdivisions
are principally responsible for such deficiency. In addition, EPA
describes the discretionary sanctions provision and EPA's anticipated
application of these sanctions ``at any time'' after the Agency makes a
finding.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will be effective February 10, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this rulemaking are contained in
Docket No. A-91-66. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket
materials. The Docket is located at the following address and may be
inspected from 8:30 a.m. until noon and from 1:30 p.m. until 3:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday: Room M-1500 (LE-131), Waterside Mall, 401 M
Street SW., Washington, DC 20640.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ted Creekmore, U.S. EPA, MD-15,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, (919) 541-5699.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
The EPA is promulgating criteria under section 110(m) of the Act to
ensure that, during the 24-month period following a finding,
disapproval, or determination (hereinafter ``finding'') referred to in
section 179(a), sanctions pursuant to section 110(m) are not applied on
a statewide basis where one or more political subdivisions are
principally responsible for such deficiency. Thus, these criteria apply
only in the limited circumstance in which EPA is considering the
imposition of statewide sanctions under section 110(m) within 24 months
after the Agency makes a section 179(a) finding.
On September 28, 1992 (57 FR 44534), EPA proposed criteria that EPA
will use to determine if sanctions imposed pursuant to section 110(m)
of the Act may not be applied statewide. The preamble to the proposed
rule contains a detailed discussion of the background of the Act, of
the proposed criteria, and of the provisions of section 179 and section
110(m) (see 57 FR 44534-44535).
New Sec. 52.30(c) of the rule provides five criteria that EPA will
use to determine if sanctions imposed pursuant to section 110(m) may
not be imposed statewide. If at least one political subdivision meets
all five of the criteria, then that political subdivision will be
considered principally responsible, and EPA will not impose sanctions
on a statewide basis. Rather, EPA will impose sanctions only on the
areas of the State for which EPA determines it is reasonable and
appropriate to impose sanctions. If all of the criteria are not met by
at least one political subdivision, then no political subdivision is
principally responsible, and EPA will use its discretion to determine
whether to apply statewide sanctions. However, if EPA, using its
discretion, initially determines that less-than-statewide sanctions
should be applied, the Agency will not need to consider the criteria;
EPA will impose sanctions on those political subdivisions the Agency
has determined to be reasonable and appropriate. Such decisions will be
made on a case-by-case basis and each action will be subject to the
notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures of the Administrative
Procedure Act.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\As noted in EPA's proposed rule, the Agency will follow
notice-and-comment rulemaking in every instance that EPA anticipates
imposing section 110(m) sanctions (57 FR 44534, September 28, 1992).
In each rulemaking action, the public will have an opportunity to
comment on the proposed geographic scope of the sanctions, the
timing of the sanctions, and the order in which the two available
sanctions will be imposed. To the extent the public has commented on
these issues as a general matter in this rulemaking action, EPA has
responded by suggesting that the issue is more appropriately raised
in independent rulemaking actions in which section 110(m) sanctions
are proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the final rule, EPA has changed four provisions from the
proposal based on comments received regarding specific details of the
regulatory text. They are as follows:
1. In Sec. 52.30(a)(2), the definition of ``required activity'' was
revised in two ways. First, the phrase ``may include, but is not
limited to'' was deleted from the definition. Second, the phrase
``adequate SIP or SIP element'' is replaced by the phrase ``plan or
plan item.'' These two changes were made in order to follow more
clearly the language of section 110(m). Since section 110(m) refers
only to actions required with respect to a ``plan or plan item,'' EPA
agrees that the phrase ``may include, but is not limited to'' is
unnecessary because it appears to imply EPA has authority to impose
sanctions with respect to findings other than those for a plan or plan
item. Furthermore, since section 110(m) uses the phrase ``plan or plan
item,'' EPA believes it would be more consistent to use that phrase in
the regulatory language rather than the phrase ``adequate SIP or SIP
element.''
2. The terms ``plan or plan items'' are added to the definitions
section of the rule, Sec. 52.30(a)(4), and are defined as follows:
``For purposes of Sec. 52.30, the terms `plan' or `plan item' mean an
implementation plan or portion of an implementation plan or action
needed to prepare such plan required by the Act, as amended in 1990, or
in response to a SIP Call under section 110(k)(5) of the amended Act.''
3. In Sec. 52.30(c), ``criteria,'' as defined in the proposal,
provides: ``The EPA will use the following five criteria, all of which
must be met, to determine whether a political subdivision is
principally responsible for the deficiency.'' This section is clarified
by revising it to read as follows: ``For the purposes of this
provision, EPA will consider a political subdivision to be principally
responsible for the deficiency on which a section 179(a) finding is
based, if all five of the following criteria are met.'' Thus, the rule
clarifies that all five criteria are to be met, not merely used by EPA
to determine how sanctions will be imposed.
4. In its proposed rule, Sec. 52.30(d)(1), EPA provides: ``If all
of the criteria in paragraph (c) of this section have been met through
the action or inaction of the `same' political subdivision, EPA will
not impose sanctions on a statewide basis.'' Although no comments were
received from the public on this language, a review by the Agency
suggested that the phrase ``same political subdivision'' may be
confusing. By including that language in the rule, EPA was attempting
to indicate that one political subdivision must meet all five of the
criteria before EPA's authority to impose sanctions on a statewide
basis would be constrained (see 57 FR 44536). For example, if a State
has two nonattainment areas and a rule, which was past due under the
Act, was not yet adopted and submitted to EPA for either area, EPA
would look at each nonattainment area independently to determine
whether the five criteria were met. If the first three criteria were
met by one nonattainment area and the last two by the second
nonattainment area, then EPA's authority to impose statewide sanctions
would not be constrained. However, if one nonattainment area met all
five of the criteria, EPA could not impose statewide sanctions based on
the finding for that area. The EPA is replacing the word same with the
word one in the rule in order to alleviate any confusion. This
provision will be implemented in accordance with the interpretation
above.
II. Background
In general, the preamble to the proposed rule notes that the Act
contains two sanctions provisions:
1. Section 110(m),2 provides the Administrator with discretion
to impose sanctions at any time on any portion of the State that she
determines is reasonable and appropriate;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\42 U.S.C. section 7410(m).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Section 179(a)3 requires the Administrator to impose
sanctions after specific timeframes if the deficiencies on which the
sanctions are based are not corrected.4
\3\42 U.S.C. section 7509(a).
\4\It is necessary, for clarity's sake, to understand that
section 179(a) performs two very distinct functions: it defines
several types of findings, and requires EPA to impose sanctions if
one of these findings has been made. Section 179(a) (1) through (4)
sets forth the four types of findings which may lead to the
imposition of a sanction. The introduction and latter part of
section 179(a) mandate that at least one sanction must be imposed 18
months after a finding has been made with respect to certain types
of plans if the deficiency is not corrected.
This rulemaking considers the application of sanctions under section
110(m). However, because section 110(m) and section 179 are
interrelated, the preamble to the proposed rulemaking discussed
sanctions under section 179 (a) and (b) in order to clarify what is
required by section 110(m).
The specific types of sanctions which may be imposed under section
110(m), or must be imposed under section 179(a), are listed in section
179(b). The two sanctions provided are a highway funding sanction and a
2:1 offset sanction. These two sanctions are described in more detail
in the preamble to the proposed rule (see 57 FR 44535).
Section 179(b) sanctions may be applied pursuant to section 110(m)
when the Administrator makes a finding under section 179(a) (1) through
(4), provided that the Agency has followed all procedural requirements
for imposing a sanction. The Administrator has no authority under
section 110(m), nor any mandatory duty under section 179(a), to impose
sanctions until she has made a finding. The types of findings provided
under section 179(a) are discussed in more detail in the preamble to
the proposed rule (see 57 FR 44535).
Section 110(m) may be divided into two distinct parts (see 57 FR
44535). The first part of section 110(m) contains four distinct
elements:
1. The timing of the imposition of section 110(m) sanctions;
2. The availability under section 110(m) of the sanctions listed in
section 179(b);
3. The reference to a finding, disapproval, or determination under
section 179(a) (1) through (4); and
4. The geographic scope of application of sanctions under section
110(m).
The second part requires the Administrator to propose criteria to be
used when considering the application of sanctions on a statewide basis
under section 110(m) within 24 months of a section 179(a) finding.
Although not central to the purpose of this rulemaking, EPA presented a
detailed discussion of the four elements referred to in the first part
of section 110(m) in the proposed rule. The purpose was to explain how
sections 110(m) and 179 provisions are interrelated. As shall be
evident in the ``Response to Comments'' section, the preamble language
discussing these four elements was the basis for numerous comments. The
criteria, which are the basis of this action, seemed to generate
significantly fewer comments.
III. Development of Criteria
The second sentence of section 110(m) requires the Agency to
establish criteria that EPA must apply if the Agency considers applying
sanctions under section 110(m) on a statewide basis within 24 months of
a section 179(a) finding. These criteria should enable EPA to determine
when a political subdivision,5 rather than the entire State, is
principally responsible for a section 179(a) deficiency. Where the
political subdivision is principally responsible, EPA may not impose
sanctions on a statewide basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\In Sec. 52.30(a)(1), EPA defines the term political
subdivision as ``* * * the representative body that is responsible
for adopting and/or implementing air pollution controls for one, or
any combination of one or more of the following: city, town,
borough, county, parish, district, or any other geographical
subdivision created by, or pursuant to, Federal or State law. This
will include any agency designated under section 174, 42 U.S.C.,
section 7504, by the State to carry out the air planning
responsibilities under part D.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA recognizes that an understanding of the term ``principal
responsibility'' was integral to the development of the criteria. The
preamble to the proposed rule contains a detailed discussion on how a
political subdivision may be held ``principally responsible'' for a
section 179(a) failure when the EPA recognizes that the States have
primary responsibility for meeting the requirements of the Act (see 57
FR 44535-36). The EPA believes that the criteria promulgated today will
clearly indicate when the political subdivision carries the principal
burden of carrying out an activity.
The EPA is promulgating five criteria (summarized below) that it
believes will enable a determination of when a State has relinquished
its primary control over an activity to a political subdivision and the
political subdivision has failed to perform that required activity. The
EPA believes that the political subdivision is principally responsible
when the political subdivision:
1. Has the legal authority to perform the required activity;
2. Has traditionally performed, or has been delegated the
responsibility to perform, the required activity;
3. Has received, where appropriate, adequate funding or authority
to obtain funding from the State to perform the required activity;
4. Has agreed to perform (and has not revoked that agreement) or is
required to accept responsibility for performing the required activity;
and
5. Has failed to perform the required activity.
If one or more political subdivisions each meet all five of the
criteria, EPA will consider those subdivisions principally responsible,
and EPA may impose sanctions only on those political subdivisions and
on other areas (short of the entire State) for which the Agency
determines reasonable and appropriate. The EPA would not impose
sanctions statewide. However, if all of the criteria have not been met
by at least one political subdivision, EPA will use its discretion to
determine whether to apply sanctions on a statewide basis.
These five criteria are intended to be applicable to SIP failures
relating to stationary, area, and mobile sources. The EPA believes that
the criteria developed here will enable it to successfully determine
when a political subdivision is principally responsible for a
deficiency.
IV. Limits of This Rulemaking
Nothing in the Act precludes EPA from applying sanctions pursuant
to section 110(m), without examining the criteria, if the Agency elects
to impose a sanction on a less-than-statewide basis or where EPA
imposes statewide sanctions more than 24 months after a finding.
Furthermore, this rulemaking does not affect the situation where each
of a group of political subdivisions, whose combined area comprises the
entire State, suffer a deficiency. The EPA could impose a sanction on
each of those political subdivisions as an independent area without
applying the criteria, even though this may appear to be a statewide
sanction. All decisions to impose section 110(m) sanctions will be made
on a case-by-case basis, and will be subject to notice-and-comment
rulemaking.
This rule is not intended to identify which sanction EPA will apply
in a particular circumstance, nor the type of deficiency for which EPA
might use its discretion to apply sanctions. Furthermore, it is not
intended to describe the notice and comment procedures EPA will
ultimately use to impose a sanction pursuant to section 110(m).
V. Response to Comments
The EPA received comments from 15 sources including business
associations, and Federal, State and local government entities. The
following section provides a summary of the responses to major
comments.
A. The EPA's Interpretation of the Statutory Requirements of Section
110(m)
Under this category, the commenters expressed concern with respect
to the timing of sanctions and the application of sanctions beyond a
nonattainment area. Although, as stated before, these issues are not
central to the criteria being promulgated, EPA has responded to these
comments below.
1. Imposition of Sanctions Earlier Than 18 Months
Comment. The Illinois EPA (IEPA) and the Virginia Department of
Transportation (DOT) believe section 110(m) does not give EPA the
authority to impose sanctions earlier than 18 months after a finding
under section 179. These commenters believe it is incorrect to impose
any sanctions during the 18-month period immediately following a
finding because section 179 clearly states that EPA may not impose
sanctions if the deficiency is corrected within 18 months. The IEPA
believes Congress included this 18-month period in recognition of the
magnitude of the State's responsibilities under the Act as well as the
time involved in the legislative and rulemaking processes. Also, the
Illinois DOT states that because section 179 is the more detailed
sanctions provision, under established principles of statutory
construction and interpretation, it must prevail over section 110(m).
The IEPA suggests that if EPA determined to impose sanctions
earlier than the 18-month period specified in section 179, EPA should
develop specific criteria for when these early sanctions will be
imposed, and provide notice and opportunity for potentially affected
parties to comment prior to imposing sanctions. The IEPA also indicates
that these criteria are necessary to avoid placing industries that are
located in States that meet deadlines in a timely manner at a
competitive disadvantage.
Response. Section 110(m) provides that the Administrator ``* * *
may apply any of the sanctions listed in section 179(b) (at any time or
at any time after) the Administrator makes a finding. * * *'' under
section 179(a). This language plainly authorizes sanctions without
regard to a waiting period after a finding is made.
The EPA believes that section 179 is phrased to require sanctions
after 18 months not, as the commenters say, to prohibit sanctions
before 18 months. Section 179 states ``for any implementation plan or
plan revision required under this part (or required in response to a
finding of substantial inadequacy as described in section 110(k)(5)),
if the Administrator [makes a finding], unless such deficiency has been
corrected within 18 months after the finding * * * one of the sanctions
referred to in subparagraph (b) shall apply. * * *'' This provision
mandatorily imposes sanctions at 18 months if the deficiency has not
been corrected, but does not prohibit sanctions earlier. Because
section 179 does not prohibit the earlier application of sanctions, it
does not conflict with section 110(m), which provides that sanctions
may be imposed earlier than 18 months. Therefore, there is not a
statutory construction issue of whether section 179 needs to prevail
over section 110(m).
Regarding the request by the IEPA that EPA develop specific
criteria for when an early sanction will be imposed, the EPA does not
believe such criteria are statutorily required; however, since EPA will
provide the public with an opportunity to comment on any sanction
action under section 110(m) through notice-and-comment rulemaking prior
to imposition of the sanctions, the public will have the opportunity to
comment on EPA's rationale for the application of sanctions earlier
than 18-months following the finding. Although EPA does not intend to
develop specific criteria, Section A(4) of this preamble provides
further discussion on application of sanctions earlier than 18-months
following a finding.
As to IEPA's concern about competitive disadvantage, imposition of
sanctions under section 110(m) should benefit sources located in those
areas that make timely submittal of plans and plan revisions. Rather
than delaying sanctions until 18 months after a finding, under section
110(m) sanctions may be applied much earlier than 18 months. Therefore,
delinquent areas may be burdened much sooner than the 18-month period
under section 179. Imposition of section 110(m) sanctions should
inhibit any advantage achieved through delayed submittal of required
plans and revisions.
2. Application of Sanctions Beyond Nonattainment Areas Comment
Five commenters believe highway sanctions should not be imposed
outside of a nonattainment area. The Texas DOT, New York DOT, Illinois
DOT and IEPA are concerned that EPA has not extended the nonattainment
limitations of section 179 (a) and (b) to the imposition of sanctions
under section 110(m). These commenters indicate that sanctions should
apply only to nonattainment areas. The Virginia DOT believes that
section 110(m) sanctions should not extend beyond a nonattainment area,
except in extreme cases (such as where lack of good faith exists) and
after a 24-month correction period has passed.
The New York DOT and IEPA believe that EPA's position regarding the
geographic applicability of offset and highway sanctions is
inconsistent, and that the reasoning that is applied to make the offset
sanction applicable to a specific area should benefit the highway
sanction as well. The IEPA feels that section 110(m) refers to the
section 179(b) sanctions without exempting the Administrator from
complying with the geographic limitations specified in section 179(b).
The Illinois DOT comments that section 110(m) allows EPA to
sanction an area less than a whole nonattainment area if a unit of
local government is really to blame.
The New York and Illinois DOT also state that since the statute is
clear and understandable on its face, no reference to legislative
history is required or allowed. The Illinois DOT believes that section
110(m) should be viewed in conjunction with section 179(b)(1), and if
Congress had not meant to limit the use of highway funding sanctions to
nonattainment areas, it would not have placed that limitation in
section 179(b). The Illinois DOT comments that Congressman Anderson had
prefaced his remarks as expressing the intent of only four members of
the House Public Works and Transportation Committee. The commenter
noted that in May 1990 the House Energy and Commerce Committee sent out
a version of the Amendments with no limit in section 179(b) on the area
for sanctions (see H. Rep. No. 140, 101st Cong., 2d Sess., Part 1). The
House Public Works Committee responded with a report of its own at that
time amending section 110(m) and repeating almost the same words quoted
by EPA in the proposed rulemaking. Congressman Anderson's words may
have been on the point then, but they did not agree with the language
of section 179(b) the way it was finally passed by Congress.
Also, the Illinois DOT cites the House Conference Committee Report
which accompanied the final version of the Act as evidence that
sanctions are to be limited to nonattainment areas [H. Rep. No. 952,
101st Cong., 2d Sess. 335-6; Cong. Rec. H13101, 13197; Oct. 26, 1990;
1990 U.S. Code Cong. & Adm. News 3385, 3867-8 (Discussing imposition of
sanctions ``* * * in an area that fails to prepare or implement a plan
to attain air quality Pstandards. * * *'')].
Response. To address the concerns of all five commenters, EPA
believes that section 110(m) and section 179, although interrelated, do
set up two distinct sanctions processes. In general, section 179
provides for mandatory sanctions with respect to failures under part D
(in general, the nonattainment area provisions). As provided in the
proposed rule, section 179 focuses on nonattainment areas in several
respects (see 57 FR 44536-37). First, the general introductory language
of section 179(a) provides that sanctions must be imposed for a failure
with respect to ``* * * any implementation plan or plan revision
required under this Ppart. * * *'' The provision is referring to part D
of title I, the portion of the Act dealing with nonattainment area
requirements. While some part D requirements may also apply to
attainment areas in limited circumstances, the primary focus of part D
is nonattainment areas. Second, the highway sanction language expressly
limits the application of sanctions under section 179(a) to
nonattainment areas. Finally, the offset sanction requires new or
modified sources in complying with the requirements of section 173 to
increase their offsets to 2:1. Typically, only sources in nonattainment
areas need to comply with section 173 and, therefore, in most instances
the offset sanction will only affect sources in nonattainment areas.
For the above reasons, EPA believes that section 179(a) does not
require statewide imposition of sanctions.
On the other hand, section 110(m) clearly provides for the
imposition of sanctions beyond nonattainment areas. The express
language of section 110(m) provides that the Administrator may impose
sanctions on ``* * * any portion of the State the Administrator
determines reasonable and Pappropriate. * * *'' Beyond that, section
110(m) provides for the discretionary imposition of sanctions for a
finding that an area has failed to meet any requirement with respect to
any ``plan or plan item'' under the Act. Such requirements could apply
to nonattainment, attainment, or unclassified areas. Although section
110(m) refers to the sanctions established in section 179(b), there is
no language stating that the geographical limitations in section 179
override section 110(m)'s express authorization for sanctions on any
part of the State that EPA determines reasonable and appropriate.
Section 110(m) refers only to the sanctions themselves, not the
accompanying limitations. For the above reasons, EPA believes that
section 110(m) does establish its own geographic scope.
The Virginia DOT suggests that EPA should limit application of
section 110(m) sanctions beyond the nonattainment area to circumstances
where there is a lack of good faith. While EPA may take good faith into
consideration in determining the geographic scope of section 110(m)
sanctions, EPA does not agree that it should establish lack of good
faith as a prerequisite for imposition of section 110(m) sanctions
beyond the nonattainment area.
With respect to the comment of Illinois DOT that EPA can sanction
less than an entire nonattainment area, the Agency agrees that under
section 110(m)'s broad grant of authority for the imposition of
discretionary sanctions, EPA may select an area smaller than the
nonattainment area.
The IEPA comments that EPA is treating the geographic limitations
of the highway and offset sanctions differently and that EPA should say
that highway sanctions are also limited in scope. The EPA disagrees.
First, we believe that both sanctions may be imposed on any portion of
the State. However, by its method of application, the offset sanction
will only have effect in those areas that must apply the emission
offset requirements of section 173. Therefore, the offset sanction
would have no effect in certain areas. The highway sanction is not
self-limiting; therefore, it will have a broader effect.
Second, the EPA did not rely on legislative history to override
statutory language, but rather to support statutory language that
grants EPA discretion to apply sanctions to other than nonattainment
areas. The Illinois DOT bases its argument that the legislative history
does not support the imposition of sanctions beyond the nonattainment
area on an assumption that section 110(m) does not provide an
independent grant of authority to impose sanctions. However, the Act
does provide two separate grants of sanction authority with different
geographic scopes; this is supported by the language of the Act, as
described above, and by the legislative authority. The language from H.
Conf. Rep. No. 101-952 that references the imposition of sanctions on
an area that fails to attain the air quality standard appears to refer
to the imposition of sanctions under section 179 because it discusses
the required imposition of sanctions. The language cited by EPA in the
preamble to the proposed rule addresses a different grant of statutory
authority to impose sanctions, namely, that authority under section
110(m). In addition, Illinois DOT cites H. Rep. No. 101-490, which
clearly provides that EPA may impose sanctions beyond nonattainment
areas by stating that EPA ``* * * is empowered to apply sanctions to
any portion of a State.'' The committee goes on to clarify how it
believes EPA should use this broad grant of authority, indicating that
EPA should impose sanctions on the governmental entity that is
``primarily responsible,'' and noting that a State legislature's
failure to adopt an inspection/maintenance program is a circumstance
where statewide sanctions are appropriate.
3. Section 110(m) Does Not Establish Independent Authority to Sanction
Comment. The Virginia DOT believes section 179 is the basis for
imposing sanctions and is not superseded by section 110(m).
Furthermore, the Virginia DOT comments that section 110(m) expands on
section 179 by requiring that an additional minimum 6-month grace
period must be observed after the initial 18-month period (i.e., 24
months) before sanctions may be imposed on a statewide basis where a
political subdivision is principally responsible for the deficiency.
The City of Chicago comments that EPA's proposed imposition of
statewide sanctions under section 110(m) as an alternative to section
179 would vitiate section 179. Once EPA determines none of the
political subdivisions meet the criteria, and thus the entire State is
principally responsible for a section 179(a) deficiency, EPA is bound
by the requirements of section 179.
Response. The EPA agrees that sanctions cannot be imposed statewide
within the first 24 months following a finding where a political
subdivision is found principally responsible for the deficiency.
However, EPA disagrees that section 179 provides the sole authority for
imposing sanctions and, in doing so, allows for the imposition of
statewide sanctions. As discussed in the response to Comment 2 above,
section 179 does not refer to the imposition of statewide sanctions
and, in fact, focuses on the imposition of sanctions in nonattainment
areas. In fact, the EPA believes the reference to statewide sanctions
under section 110(m) makes it clear that section 110(m) establishes a
different authority to sanction States and that statewide sanctions are
not required under section 179. Section 110(m) provides that statewide
sanctions shall not be applied within 24 months of the time a finding
is made if a political subdivision is principally responsible for the
deficiency; this provision means that statewide sanctions may be
imposed earlier than 24 months if no political subdivision is found
principally responsible. If section 179 required statewide sanctions
after 18 months, it would be contrary to the section 110(m) provision
that sanctions shall not apply within the 24 months following the
finding if a political subdivision is principally responsible for the
deficiency. Therefore, EPA believes that its ability to impose
statewide sanctions during the 24-month period following a finding is
based on a determination under section 110(m) that a political
subdivision is not principally responsible for the deficiency.
Section 110(m) does not vitiate section 179 because section 179
sanctions are not statewide but are imposed on the specific area for
which the deficiency arises, in most instances nonattainment areas. As
stated previously, section 179 mandates that sanctions be imposed 18
months after a finding is made. While the imposition of sanctions
earlier under section 110(m) could remove the need to impose sanctions
under section 179 sanctions in that area, section 179 has continued
force and effect in areas where section 110(m) sanctions are not
imposed. The EPA does not believe that imposition of sanctions under
section 110(m) conflicts with section 179 sanctions. Application of
sanctions earlier than 18 months is not inconsistent because EPA
believes the purpose of section 179 was to ensure that EPA did not
delay sanctions beyond the periods prescribed in that action.
4. Regulatory Limitation on Early Imposition of Sanctions
Comment. The United States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT)
recommends adding a statement to the rule that EPA expects to impose
sanctions on a statewide basis earlier than 18 months only in limited
circumstances, after notice-and-comment rulemaking.
Response. This statement was not in the proposed rule and EPA
believes it should not be included in the final rule. The EPA stated in
the preamble to the proposed rule that it would only apply sanctions
early in ``unusual circumstances where the State has indicated explicit
resistance to working to resolve a plan deficiency'' (see 57 FR 44534).
The final rule revises this preamble language because EPA believes the
term ``unusual circumstances'' provides little guidance as to when EPA
intended to use its discretionary sanction authority.
While EPA does not intend to use the section 110(m) authority in
all situations where a finding is made, the Agency needs to ascertain
that it has the flexibility to use this option when necessary. In order
to develop some plans or plan items, States must perform certain steps
that EPA can track to determine whether the State will meet deadlines
in the Act. When a State believes that EPA can impose sanctions only
after a deadline is missed and 18 months have gone by, then there is
little incentive for the State to take the necessary actions to
complete authorization and implementation of politically-difficult
rules and regulations. The EPA needs to maintain its flexibility to
respond rapidly to situations where it appears a State will not meet a
deadline, and to assure the State that it does not, in fact, have an
extended grace period for noncompliance. The certainty and swiftness of
imposition of the Act's penalties are critical to timely completion of
the SIP's. Consequently, the revised language, clarifies EPA's position
concerning when discretionary sanctions may be appropriate while
retaining EPA's flexibility to use such sanctions to ensure compliance
with the Act. Thus, EPA will exercise section 110(m) sanctions earlier
than 18 months only in cases where:
1. The State has indicated an explicit resistance to resolving a
plan or program deficiency or to making a required plan or program
submittal; or
2. Where special circumstances, particular program needs, or time
constraints dictate the need for use of such sanctions.
Thus, the rule retains the Administrator's discretion to apply
sanctions at any time after a finding is made; however, EPA will
provide notice and opportunity for comment on the basis for all section
110(m) actions.
B. EPA Discretion to Determine the ``Reasonable and Appropriate'' Area
for Imposition of Sanctions
1. Comment. The City of Chicago believes the discretion in
Sec. 52.30(d)--that if the criteria are met EPA may impose sanctions on
a less than statewide basis to the area it determines is reasonable and
appropriate--was not Congress' intent in enacting section 110(m). The
City of Chicago believes EPA's only discretion is whether to apply
sanctions to political subdivisions that meet the criteria. Thus, the
City of Chicago believes EPA has no basis to apply sanctions when the
criteria are not met (i.e., to apply sanctions to political
subdivisions that were thought to be principally responsible, but did
not meet the criteria, and to any other surrounding political
subdivisions EPA determines is reasonable and appropriate) and that to
apply sanctions to these areas is arbitrary and capricious.
Response. Section 110(m) states that sanctions may be applied to
any portion of the State the Administrator determines reasonable and
appropriate, with one exception. If one or more political subdivisions
are principally responsible for the deficiency, sanctions may not be
applied statewide. Therefore, if the criteria are met, i.e., a
political subdivision is principally responsible, then EPA may not
impose sanctions on a statewide basis. However, if no political
subdivision is principally responsible, the text of section 110(m)
expressly authorizes EPA to move forward and impose sanctions on a
statewide basis. The EPA would make a determination, however,
concerning what area of the State for which sanctions would be
reasonable and appropriate. Furthermore, EPA is not required to
establish criteria to determine the area of the State for which it is
reasonable and appropriate to apply sanctions under section 110(m).
2. Comment. Four commenters, New York DOT, the Orange County
Transportation Authority (OCTA), the City of Chicago, and the U.S. DOT,
requested clarification of how EPA will determine the ``reasonable and
appropriate'' area to apply sanctions. The City of Chicago and the U.S.
DOT assert that the statute requires such clarification. The New York
DOT believes that the lack of adequate guidance on what area is
``reasonable and appropriate'' will create confusion and continual
uncertainty on the part of States as well as Federal agencies. The New
York DOT suggests that the prime consideration should be whether a good
faith effort has been made to bring the nonattainment area into
compliance. The New York DOT believes that if this issue is not
addressed in this rulemaking, it should be the subject of another
rulemaking.
The OCTA cites the example of California, which consists of several
regional authorities, which, in turn, each consist of several local
jurisdictions. The OCTA is concerned about how EPA would impose
sanctions in the case where a regional authority contains several local
jurisdictions and where a local authority failed to do everything
mandated by a regional plan. The commenter believes it would be more
reasonable and appropriate to apply sanctions to the single local
jurisdiction, not the regional authority. In addition to assuring that
the State does not suffer sanctions if one political subdivision is
principally responsible for the deficiency, the commenter suggests that
EPA assure that regions within a State would not be subject to
sanctions if one or more local jurisdictions is/are principally
responsible for the deficiency.
The U.S. DOT comments that in situations where a nonattainment area
contains multiple political subdivisions, none of which are principally
responsible according to the five criteria, the rule must clarify how
EPA will determine whether to apply sanctions to the specific
responsible political subdivision(s) rather than the entire
nonattainment area.
The City of Chicago and U.S. DOT assert that the statutory mandate
to promulgate criteria is not limited to the determination of principal
responsibility. These commenters argue that EPA must also develop
criteria to determine when the imposition of sanctions would be
reasonable and appropriate, and the criteria should be sufficient to
put potentially affected political subdivisions on notice of the
activities or agreements which may put them at risk of sanctions.
Response. Section 110(m) specifically provides that EPA may impose
sanctions on any part of the State that EPA deems is reasonable and
appropriate. Section 110(m) then requires that EPA ``* * * establish
criteria for exercising (this) authority * * * to ensure that * * *
such sanctions are not applied on a statewide basis where one or more
political subdivisions covered by the applicable implementation plan
are principally responsible for such deficiency.'' The EPA believes
this language strictly limits the required development of criteria to
those necessary to determine if a political subdivision is principally
responsible for the deficiency. There is no requirement that the
criteria must guide EPA's further decision of which area is
``reasonable and appropriate'' for the imposition of sanctions. At this
time, EPA does not have experience with imposing these sanctions and,
therefore, does not want to constrain the Agency in the exercise of
this discretion. The variety of circumstances would make it difficult
to develop criteria that would be applicable in every instance. As to
the comments of the City of Chicago and the U.S. DOT that EPA needs to
establish criteria for when it will impose sanctions under section
110(m), EPA does not believe that such criteria are mandated. The
public will have an opportunity to comment on EPA's determination of
the area on which it will impose sanctions and the timing of sanctions
during each specific section 110(m) rulemaking action.
C. Selection and Design of Criteria
Under this category, the commenters focused their particular
concerns on the sanction criteria.
1. Comment. The OCTA suggests that the rule clarify that all five
criteria are to be met, not merely used, by EPA to determine if a
subdivision is principally responsible for the deficiency. The OCTA
suggests the following language: ``Criteria. The EPA will use the
following five criteria, all of which must be met, to determine whether
a political subdivision is principally responsible for the
deficiency.''
Response. The EPA agrees with this comment but determined that
language other than that suggested would be clearer. Therefore, EPA has
revised Sec. 52.30(d)(1) to read as follows: ``For the purposes of this
action, EPA will consider a political subdivision to be principally
responsible for the deficiency on which a section 179(a) finding is
based, if all five of the following criteria are met.''
2. Comment. The New York DOT comments that the necessity for all
five criteria to be met is overly strict and biased toward imposition
of sanctions statewide, and it may be difficult to establish that all
five have been met. Therefore, the New York DOT suggests that only a
majority (three out of five) be met.
Response. The EPA believes all five criteria are needed to
determine whether a political subdivision is principally responsible.
The EPA sees no compelling reason to weaken this requirement. In
addition, the failure to determine that one or more areas are
principally responsible does not presuppose the imposition of statewide
sanctions; the EPA must determine that the area sanctioned is the
reasonable and appropriate area.
3. Comment. The U.S. DOT requests clarification of what State
actions are necessary to provide adequate legal authority under the
proposed Criterion 1. Criterion 1 states that the State must provide
adequate legal authority to a political subdivision to perform the
required activity.
Response. The EPA does not believe that there is a single distinct
definition of the term ``legal authority.'' What constitutes adequate
legal authority may vary from State to State. This should be handled on
a case-by-case basis.
4. Comment. The New York DOT comments that under the proposed
Criterion 2 [Sec. 52.30(c)(2)], there must be a very clear agreement in
the SIP or some other document as to which functions are to be
performed by which agencies. For example, functions traditionally
performed by local agencies may not be performed that way under the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA).
Response. The EPA agrees with the commenter and encourages States
to develop clear agreements as to which functions are being performed
by which agencies. Note in particular that section 174 of the Act
requires States to jointly review and update, as necessary, their
planning procedures that were in effect before the Act was amended in
1990 or to develop new procedures as appropriate. In preparing such
procedures, State and local elected officials must determine which
elements of a revised SIP will be developed, adopted, and implemented
by the State, and which elements will be carried out by local or
regional entities. The EPA has provided guidance on this and other
section 174 requirements in a document entitled ``1992 Transportation
and Air Quality Planning Guidelines'' (July 1992, EPA 420/R-92-001).
The EPA will work with the State and the political subdivision to
ascertain if this criterion has been met. In addition, any comments
raised as to this issue during the rulemaking process on a specific
section 110(m) action will be properly considered by EPA.
5. Comment. Concerning Criterion 4 [Sec. 52.30(c)(4)], the U.S. DOT
also comments there should be a provision included to provide against
``State failure.'' If a local agency cancels an agreement to perform a
certain function, it might leave the State without the time or
resources to perform the function. Thus, the State, instead of the
local agency, would become principally responsible. The U.S. DOT
believes it would be inappropriate to apply statewide sanctions in such
a case.
Response. If the local agency cancels its agreement to perform a
function, EPA would take this into consideration when determining
whether the political subdivision is principally responsible in causing
the deficiency. Moreover, this factor may be considered in determining
the area to which it is reasonable and appropriate to apply sanctions.
The EPA can consider all factors in determining what area is reasonable
and appropriate.
6. Comment. The Massachusetts DOT believes the rule should contain
a specific provision for State consultation in determining principal
responsibility because many factors such as regional demographic
trends, changing local traffic patterns, and land-use decisions in
adjoining areas have a larger impact on emissions than institutional
arrangements for air quality planning. The proposed criteria may be the
best way to evaluate whether the State or the political subdivision is
solely responsible for the emissions requirements, but it may not be
relevant in targeting the actual source of the problem or in defining
solutions.
Response. To the extent it determines appropriate, EPA will consult
with the State when evaluating the criteria under section 110(m). In
any event, the State will have adequate opportunity to raise any such
concerns in the comment period following the notice of proposed
rulemaking for imposition of section 110(m) sanctions.
D. Other Relevant Comments
1. Comment. The State of Vermont comments that it is the only State
in attainment with the ozone national ambient air quality standards and
also located within the Northeast Ozone Transport Region. Vermont
requests clarification in the rule of whether attainment status or
inclusion in the ozone transport region (OTR) is the deciding factor
with respect to applicability of these rules.
Response. Neither attainment status nor inclusion in the OTR is the
deciding factor. Under section 110(m), EPA may impose sanctions on a
statewide basis or on any area of the State deemed reasonable and
appropriate based on the failure of the State or a political
subdivision of the State to meet a requirement of the Act with respect
to a plan or plan element. If a requirement is applicable to a
political subdivision of the State, EPA will determine whether that
political subdivision was principally responsible for the failure,
using the criteria established in this rulemaking. The EPA's ability to
use the section 110(m) sanctions is not limited to nonattainment areas
or areas that must meet the title I, part D nonattainment requirements.
2. Comment. The City of Chicago comments that the term ``required
activity'' contravenes the definition of required activity in section
179 and permits EPA to sanction entities without providing any prior
notice that EPA considers a particular action to be sanctionable. The
City of Chicago also comments that since section 110(m) incorporates
section 179(a), EPA is not permitted to create a second, conflicting
definition. Furthermore, the proposed definition does not identify
covered activities, and it does not give entities prior notice of
sanctionable activities. Finally, the City of Chicago is concerned
about the ambiguity of the definition and that it may mean EPA is
expanding the definition from section 179(a).
Response. Section 179(a) does not define required activity. Rather,
EPA believes this introductory phrase under section 179(a) refers to
submittals required under part D of the Act. The four general
categories of activities listed in section 179(a) are the four possible
types of State failure with respect to the required activities under
part D. The types of failure are not synonymous with required
activities under the introductory language of section 179(a). Finally,
the City of Chicago contends that the definition of ``required
activity'' is too open-ended because of the language ``may include, but
is not limited to.''
The EPA interprets the term ``required activity'' for purposes of
section 110(m) in a manner similar to that for section 179(a); however,
EPA recognizes that for section 110(m), ``required activity'' refers to
any plan or plan item requirement under the Act, not just those
required under part D. Finally, EPA agrees that the language ``may
include, but is not limited to'' may provide broader authority than
that granted under section 110(m). Therefore, EPA has changed the
definition in the final rule to provide: ``The term `required activity'
refers to the submission of a plan or plan item or the implementation
of a plan or plan item under the Clean Air Act.''
3. Comment. The OCTA and the U.S. DOT request clarification of the
term ``political subdivision.'' Both commenters appear concerned about
whether EPA in making a determination of ``principal responsibility''
may consider less than the entire nonattainment area. The OCTA notes
that California has several regional authorities that each are composed
of numerous local jurisdictions. These local jurisdictions often have
the responsibility for ``adopting and implementing air pollution
controls.''
Response. The definition of ``political subdivision'' set forth in
Sec. 52.30(a)(1) includes all types of governmental entities, including
local jurisdictions. The EPA could sanction less than an entire
nonattainment area based on a determination that a local jurisdiction
was principally responsible for the deficiency on which the sanction is
based.
4. Comment. The OCTA comments that the proposed rule should include
a definition of ``plan item.'' The OCTA notes that section 110(m) reads
in part ``* * * in relation to any plan or plan item (as that term is
defined by the Administrator). * * *'' The OCTA cites the example of
the California SIP, which is partially composed of regional plans. Some
regional plans require local jurisdictions to take certain actions,
which to the commenter appear to be plan items.
Response. As discussed earlier, to make this clearer, EPA replaces
the phrase ``adequate SIP or SIP element'' under Sec. 52.30(a)(2) with
the phrase ``plan or plan item.'' Although EPA interpreted the phrase
``adequate SIP or SIP element'' to essentially mean the same as the
phrase ``plan or plan item,'' this replacement is more consistent with
the language of section 110(m) which refers to ``plan or plan item.''
``Plan and plan item'' are also defined under Sec. 52.30(a)(4).
E. Comments on Policy Stated In Preamble to Proposed Rule
1. Choice of Sanctions
Comment. The Texas DOT, the Chemical Manufacturers Association
(CMA), and the Northwest Indiana Regional Planning Commission (NIRPC)
asked EPA to identify which sanction will be applied for various types
of SIP deficiencies. These commenters all state that the sanction
should be tied to the underlying deficiency. For example, the
commenters state that highway sanctions should only be applied when
there is a SIP deficiency relative to mobile sources and the offset
sanction where the deficiency is relative to stationary sources. The
CMA recommends adding extra language to the rule as follows: ``The EPA
will assess the nature of the deficiencies and take this into account
when determining which sanction to apply.''
The NIRPC further asserts that only those projects which have the
potential for increasing emissions should be targeted; withholding
highway funds which may correct a problem is inappropriate.
Response. The type of sanction to be applied and the selection
procedure are not part of this rulemaking. Sanction determinations will
be made on a case-by-case basis. The EPA will go through notice-and-
comment rulemaking on selection and imposition of sanctions under
section 110(m). The notice will propose for comment which sanctions or
sanction will be applied. In addition, the Act sets forth those
projects exempted from the highway funding restrictions. The EPA will
act consistently with the requirements of the Act in imposing the
highway funding restrictions.
2. Impact of Rule on Title 23 Funds
Comment. The American Public Transit Association is concerned about
how EPA's sanction determination process could affect the process and
procedures of transferring flexible funds (i.e., certain title 23
program funds) from highway to transit purposes. The Southeastern
Pennsylvania Transportation Authority requests clarification of how any
imposed restrictions on highway funds would affect funds previously
flexed to transit as provided for in the ISTEA.
Response. This rulemaking is not intended to address how the
highway sanctions will be implemented. The EPA is in the process of
developing procedures with the U.S. DOT to provide for the coordinated
implementation of the highway sanction. The EPA and the U.S. DOT will
develop procedures consistent with the specifications in section
179(b).
3. Authority to Sanction For Failure to Implement
Comment. The Massachusetts DOT comments that EPA's authority to
sanction a State if ``* * * a requirement of an approved plan is not
being implemented is too broad, given the large number of agencies,
regulatory authorities, and group interests which can prevent a planned
project from being implemented.'' Instead, a State's good faith effort
to implement an approved project should be identified as an exception
to this policy.
Response. The types of findings that may lead to the imposition of
sanctions are specified in the Act; they are not being developed by
this rulemaking. Therefore, once a finding of failure to implement a
plan has been made, section 179(a) requires that the 18-month mandatory
sanctions clock begins. Furthermore, any finding made under section
179(a) provides EPA with discretion to impose sanctions under section
110(m).
4. Clarification of Offset Sanction
Comment. The Massachusetts DOT requests clarification of the
requirement for a 2:1 emissions reduction from existing sources to
offset emissions from major new facilities. The Massachusetts DOT
believes it is not reasonable to require reductions from existing,
older or congested facilities before major new improvements are made.
Response. The procedure by which facilities offset emissions is not
the subject of this rulemaking. Those issues must be resolved in
regulations adopted by the State pursuant to the requirements of
section 173.
VI. Miscellaneous
A. Relationship to Permit Program
The Act includes specific sanctions provisions for permitting
requirements in section 502(d) and (i), 42 U.S.C., 7661a(d) and (i).
The section 110(m) sanctions procedure does not apply with respect to
findings regarding permit program failures.
B. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local, or tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has notified
EPA that this action is a ``significant regulatory action'' within the
meaning of the Executive Order. For this reason, this action was
submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB
suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the public record.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C 605(b), the Administrator
hereby certifies that the attached rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Since the
rule requires EPA to consider criteria before applying sanctions on a
statewide basis, it potentially could result in a reduced burden on
small entities.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not contain any information collection
requirements subject to review by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ozone, Carbon
monoxide, Nitrogen oxides, Sulfur dioxide, PM-10, Sanctions.
Dated: December 29, 1993.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATIONS PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
2. Part 52 is amended by adding a new Sec. 52.30 to subpart A to
read as follows:
Sec. 52.30 Criteria for limiting application of sanctions under
section 110(m) of the Clean Air Act on a statewide basis.
(a) Definitions. For the purpose of this section:
(1) The term ``political subdivision'' refers to the representative
body that is responsible for adopting and/or implementing air pollution
controls for one, or any combination of one or more of the following:
city, town, borough, county, parish, district, or any other
geographical subdivision created by, or pursuant to, Federal or State
law. This will include any agency designated under section 174, 42
U.S.C. 7504, by the State to carry out the air planning
responsibilities under part D.
(2) The term ``required activity'' means the submission of a plan
or plan item, or the implementation of a plan or plan item.
(3) The term ``deficiency'' means the failure to perform a required
activity as defined in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(4) For purposes of Sec. 52.30, the terms ``plan'' or ``plan item''
mean an implementation plan or portion of an implementation plan or
action needed to prepare such plan required by the Clean Air Act, as
amended in 1990, or in response to a SIP call issued pursuant to
section 110(k)(5) of the Act.
(b) Sanctions. During the 24 months after a finding, determination,
or disapproval under section 179(a) of the Clean Air Act is made, EPA
will not impose sanctions under section 110(m) of the Act on a
statewide basis if the Administrator finds that one or more political
subdivisions of the State are principally responsible for the
deficiency on which the finding, disapproval, or determination as
provided under section 179(a)(1) through (4) is based.
(c) Criteria. For the purposes of this provision, EPA will consider
a political subdivision to be principally responsible for the
deficiency on which a section 179(a) finding is based, if all five of
the following criteria are met.
(1) The State has provided adequate legal authority to a political
subdivision to perform the required activity.
(2) The required activity is one which has traditionally been
performed by the local political subdivision, or the responsibility for
performing the required activity has been delegated to the political
subdivision.
(3) The State has provided adequate funding or authority to obtain
funding (when funding is necessary to carry out the required activity)
to the political subdivision to perform the required activity.
(4) The political subdivision has agreed to perform (and has not
revoked that agreement), or is required by State law to accept
responsibility for performing, the required activity.
(5) The political subdivision has failed to perform the required
activity.
(d) Imposition of sanctions. (1) If all of the criteria in
paragraph (c) of this section have been met through the action or
inaction of one political subdivision, EPA will not impose sanctions on
a statewide basis.
(2) If not all of the criteria in paragraph (c) of this section
have been met through the action or inaction of one political
subdivision, EPA will determine the area for which it is reasonable and
appropriate to apply sanctions.
[FR Doc. 94-551 Filed 1-10-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
