[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 15 (Monday, January 24, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-1129]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 24, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[IL83-1-6155; FRL-4826-3]
Federal Highway Funding Assistance Limitations and Emissions
Offset Requirements; Illinois
AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is proposing
this action to impose sanctions on Illinois under the discretionary
authority provided to the Agency under the Clean Air Act, as amended in
1990, (CAA or Act) for failure by the State to meet its commitment to
adopt a basic and enhanced motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/
M) program as required by the Act for certain ozone nonattainment
areas. On November 11, 1992, the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (IEPA), acting as the governor's designee, submitted a
commitment to adopt (Committal SIP) an I/M program to meet the
requirements of the Act and the I/M rule by November 15, 1993. The
committal SIP provides for the adoption and implementation of a basic
and enhanced I/M program meeting all requirements of US EPA's I/M
regulations and includes an implementation schedule. On December 2,
1993, US EPA proposed to disapprove this SIP revision based on the
failure by the State to meet milestones contained in the committal
SIP's implementation schedule pertaining to the enactment of necessary
legislative authority. A full SIP revision including State legislative
authority to implement the program was required by November 15, 1993.
The Illinois General Assembly adjourned on November 4, 1993, for the
second time this year without taking necessary action to provide for
implementation of the basic and enhanced I/M programs.
On December 30, 1993, EPA Region 5 issued a letter finding that the
State had failed to submit the SIP revision required under sections 110
and 182 of the Act. Due to the failure of the State to submit a
complete SIP revision fulfilling either the requirements of the Act and
its commitment to adopt and implement the required I/M programs as
promised in its committal SIP, USEPA proposes to exercise its
discretionary authority under the Act to apply a statewide highway
funding limitation sanction and a 2 for 1 growth offset sanction in all
areas required to have a permit program under the new source review
provision of the Act.
DATES: Comments on this proposed action are to be submitted by March
15, 1994. The USEPA will hold two public hearings on March 2 and 4,
1994.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed rule should be addressed to: J.
Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Regulation Development Section, Regulation
Development Branch (5AR-18J), United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
The hearings will be held in Illinois as follows: March 2, 1994 in
Chicago, at the Harold Washington Library on 400 S. State Street in the
multipurpose room at 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.; and March 4, 1994 in
Collinsville, at the Holiday Inn on 1000 Eastport Plaza Drive at 10
a.m. to 4 p.m.
Copies of Illinois' I/M Committal SIP submittal, USEPA's proposals
and rulemakings, and other documents pertinent to this proposed rule
are available at the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, Regulation Development
Branch, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francisco J. Acevedo, Environmental
Engineer, Regulation Development Section, Regulation Development Branch
(5AR-18J), United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6061. Anyone
wishing to come to Region 5 offices should first contact Francisco J.
Acevedo.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. I/M Program requirements
Pursuant to the 1977 amendments to the Act, vehicle I/M programs
were mandated for certain areas with long standing air quality
problems. The 1990 amendments to the Act expanded the role of I/M
programs as an attainment strategy and required USEPA to develop
different performance standards for ``basic'' and ``enhanced'' I/M
programs. The performance standard is the minimum amount of emission
reductions a program must achieve, based on a model or benchmark
program design. In addition, the amended Act directed USEPA to address
requirements for specific design elements and program implementation
issues for both basic and enhanced I/M programs. The amended Act
requires states containing nonattainment areas to make changes to
improve existing I/M programs or implement new ones. Section
182(a)(2)(B) of the Act directed USEPA to publish updated guidance for
state I/M programs, taking into consideration findings of the
Administrator's audits and investigations of these programs. The Act
further requires each area required by the Act to have an I/M program
to incorporate this guidance into the SIP. Based on these requirements,
USEPA promulgated an I/M regulation on November 5, 1992. (57 FR 52950)
Under section 182(c)(3) of the Act, areas designated as serious or
worse ozone nonattainment areas with 1980 populations of 200,000 or
more, in addition to metropolitan statistical areas with populations of
100,000 or more in the northeast ozone transport region, are required
to meet USEPA requirements for ``enhanced'' I/M programs. These areas
were required to submit a SIP revision to incorporate an I/M program by
November 15, 1992. In Illinois, the State must implement I/M programs
in the urbanized areas of the Chicago and East St. Louis ozone
nonattainment areas.
The I/M regulation establishes minimum performance standards for
basic and enhanced I/M programs as well as requirements for the
following: Network type and program evaluation; adequate tools and
resources; test frequency and convenience; vehicle coverage; test
procedures and standards; test equipment; quality control; waivers and
compliance via diagnostic inspection; motorist compliance enforcement;
motorist compliance enforcement program oversight; quality assurance;
enforcement against contractors, stations and inspectors; data
collection; data analysis and reporting; inspector training and
licensing or certification; public information and consumer protection;
improving repair effectiveness; compliance with recall notices; on-road
testing; SIP revisions; and implementation deadlines.
For enhanced I/M programs, all requirements must be implemented by
January 1, 1995 except that areas switching from an existing test-and-
repair network to a test-only network may phase in that change between
January 1995 and January 1996.
Each state required to implement an I/M program was required to
submit by November 15, 1992, a SIP revision (here and after referred to
as the ``I/M committal SIP'') including two elements: (1) A commitment
from the Governor or his/her designee to the timely adoption and
implementation of an I/M program meeting all the requirements of the I/
M regulation; and (2) a schedule for adoption of the program, with
interim milestones including passage of enabling statutory or other
legal authority and adoption of final regulations. Acceptance of I/M
committal SIPs in lieu of full SIPs was justified by the fact that
states could not have been expected to begin development of an I/M
program meeting the requirements of the Act and the I/M regulation
until the I/M regulation was adopted as a final rule, which did not
occur until November 5, 1992. A complete SIP revision which contained
all of the elements identified in the adoption schedule, including the
authorizing legislation and implementing regulations, was to be
submitted no later than November 15, 1993.
On November 11, 1992, the State of Illinois submitted a committal
SIP to USEPA. A public hearing on this submittal was held by the State
on October 27, 1992, in Springfield, Illinois. The submittal included a
schedule of implementation and a commitment to the timely adoption and
implementation of an I/M program in the Chicago and East St. Louis
ozone nonattainment areas meeting all the requirements of the I/M
regulation and the amended Act by November 15, 1993.
On July 13, 1993, the Illinois General Assembly adjourned without
taking the necessary action to enable Illinois to adopt and implement
the I/M provisions mandated by the amended Act and the final I/M rule
in Chicago and East St. Louis ozone nonattainment areas. Failure to
provide such authority prevented the State from submitting a complete
SIP revision containing all the required elements of the program by
November 15, 1993. On September 28, 1993, USEPA sent a letter to
Illinois Governor Edgar advising him that USEPA had decided to exercise
its discretionary authority under section 110(m) of the Act to impose
sanctions at any time once a finding of SIP deficiency is made if
necessary legislation was not adopted during the October 1993 veto
session of the Illinois General Assembly. The Illinois General Assembly
reconvened on October 12, 1993, for the fall veto session. During this
session which adjourned November 4, 1993, the legislature failed for
the second time to enact the legislation needed to implement the
required I/M program meeting the requirements of the Act in the State
of Illinois. After review of the committal SIP, USEPA proposed to
disapprove the commitment on December 2, 1993 (58 FR 63547), based on
the failure by the State to meet interim and final milestones in the
schedule contained in the SIP submittal pertaining to the enactment of
necessary authority to implement I/M requirements during the 1993
Illinois General Legislative session. On November 15, 1993, the State
of Illinois failed to meet its commitment to USEPA by failing to submit
a full SIP revision for I/M program implementation.
Beyond being a specific mandate of the Act, I/M programs play an
important role in the ability of the Chicago and East St. Louis ozone
nonattainment areas to comply with the requirements of the Act for
achieving the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone,
as well as the Act's requirements for reasonable further progress (RFP)
reductions for ozone. The Act provides that each state in which all or
part of certain classifications for ozone nonattainment areas are
located is required to provide an attainment demonstration showing that
its SIP, as revised, will provide for attainment of the ozone NAAQS by
the applicable attainment date(s). The Act further requires that each
state in which all or part of a serious, severe, or extreme ozone
nonattainment area is located shall submit SIP revisions that will
reduce VOC emissions by November 15, 1996 by at least 15% of the 1990
baseline emissions. If the reductions identified in the SIP revisions
are less than 15% of baseline emissions, the State may obtain a waiver
under section 182(b)(1)(A)(ii); this requires the State to make several
demonstrations, including one that the plan reflecting the lesser
amount includes all measures that can feasibly be implemented in the
area in light of technological achievability. The Chicago and East St.
Louis ozone nonattainment areas in Illinois will have difficulty
meeting the applicable RFP requirements because credit for certain pre-
1990 CAA programs, such as the federal motor vehicle control program
and basic I/M is not allowed. The additional benefits resulting from
implementing an I/M program that meets the requirements of the final
November 5, 1992, I/M regulation, however, are fully creditable towards
meeting the RFP requirement. An I/M program is one of the most powerful
tools available to areas in terms of providing expeditious reductions
in both VOC and NOx, both of which are precursors of ozone.
Finally, a federally approvable basic and enhanced I/M program
represents one of the most cost-effective air quality control
strategies available. Without an effective I/M program, attainment of
the ozone air quality standard is virtually impossible, and without
appropriate enabling legislation, an I/M program meeting final USEPA I/
M regulations cannot be implemented.
II. Sanctions Under the Clean Air Act
This sanction action is being proposed under USEPA's discretionary
authority contained in section 110(m) of the Act. The predicate
findings and types of sanctions are in section 179. The two sanctions
available to USEPA for application under section 110(m), as provided in
section 179(b), are: (1) A prohibition on the funding of certain
highway projects; and (2) an increase in the emission offset
requirement for new and modified major stationary sources. The highway
funding sanction prohibits the approval by the Secretary of
Transportation of any projects or the awarding by the Secretary of any
grants, under Title 23 of the U.S. Code, other than projects or grants
for safety and certain other categories of projects listed in section
179(b)(1). The offset sanction requires that, when states apply the
emission offset requirement of section 173 to new or modified sources,
the ratio of emission reductions to increased emissions must be at
least 2 to 1.
Section 179(a) of the Act sets forth the findings1 which
provide USEPA with discretion under section 110(m) to impose one or
both of the sanctions specified under section 179(b). The four findings
are: (1) A state has failed, for a nonattainment area, to submit a SIP
or an element of the SIP, or that the SIP or SIP element submitted
fails to meet the completeness criteria of section 110(k); (2) USEPA
disapproves a SIP submission for a nonattainment area based on the
submission's failure to meet one or more plan elements required by the
Act; (3) a state has not made any other submission required by the Act
or has made a submission that does not meet the completeness criteria
or has made a required submission that is disapproved by USEPA for not
meeting the Act's requirements; or (4) a requirement of an approved
plan is not being implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Section 179(a) refers to Agency findings, disapprovals, and
determinations. These will all be referred to by the one term
``findings.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under section 179(a), unless the state corrects the deficiency, one
of the two sanctions listed in section 179(b) must be imposed 18 months
after a finding is made, and the second must be imposed 6 months after
the first sanction is imposed, if the deficiency remains
uncorrected.2 In addition, USEPA may apply both sanctions after 18
months if the Administrator finds a lack of good faith on the part of
the state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\On October 1, 1993, U.S. EPA proposed a rule governing the
order in which the sanctions shall apply under section 179 of the
Act. 58 FR 51270. The rule proposes that the offset sanction apply
first and the highway funding sanction apply second. According to
the proposed rule, U.S. EPA may change this sequence of sanctions
through individual notice-and-comment rulemaking. This proposed
sequencing applies only to mandatory sanctions that apply under
section 179(a) and does not govern sanctions imposed under section
110(m).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although section 179(a) establishes mandatory deadlines for the
application of sanctions at certain points after a finding of
deficiency, section 110(m) provides USEPA with the discretion to impose
section 179(b) sanctions at any time (or at any time after) a section
179(a) finding. Likewise, although mandatory sanctions under section
179 are limited to the area with the deficiency, section 110(m)
authorizes USEPA to apply discretionary sanctions to any portion of the
state that USEPA deems reasonable and appropriate to ensure that the
requirements of the Act are met. See 57 FR 44534, 44536-44537. However,
the Act requires USEPA to establish by rule criteria 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 the deficiency.
On September 28, 1992, USEPA proposed criteria under section 110(m)
that it would use when proposing statewide sanctions to determine if
one or more political subdivisions is principally responsible for a SIP
deficiency. 57 FR 44534. These proposed criteria are discussed later in
this notice. With regard to Illinois, USEPA is using its discretionary
authority under section 110(m) to propose early sanctions3 based
on Illinois' failure to submit a complete I/M program. USEPA is taking
this action for two reasons: (1) Congress required timely submittal of
I/M programs as a measure central to allowing the State's metropolitan
areas to meet CAA deadlines and any legislative delay threatens the
State's ability to meet those deadlines, and (2) enhanced I/M is the
single most effective air pollution control measure available. Delayed
legislative approval of an acceptable I/M program places a
disproportionate burden for cleaning the air on the State's major
industrial sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\U.S. EPA issued a letter on December 30, 1993, finding that
the state's failed to submit a SIP revision as required by the Act.
Mandatory sanctions under section 179(a) were triggered by issuance
of the letter notifying the state of the finding of the deficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Proposed Sanctions
A. Finding Under Section 179(a)
As stated previously, on December 30, 1993, USEPA Region 5 issued a
letter notifying the State of its failure to submit a complete SIP
revision on November 15, 1993, as required by the Act. USEPA's letter
constitutes a finding under section 179(a) that triggers EPA's
discretionary authority to impose the sanctions proposed in this notice
under section 110(m). Further, on December 2, 1993, USEPA proposed to
disapprove the I/M committal SIP containing Illinois' commitment to
adopt and submit both basic and enhanced I/M programs meeting the
requirements of the Act and USEPA's I/M regulation by November 15,
1993. Illinois has now failed to adopt and submit such programs.
If sufficient progress has not been made by Illinois toward the
implementation of an approvable I/M program to be operational on or
before January 1, 1995, EPA hereby announces its intention to impose
sanctions on May 15, 1994.
B. Rationale and Approach for Section 110(m) Sanctions
Section 110(m) of the Act allows USEPA to apply the Federal highway
funding assistance limitations and the 2:1 emission offset sanction at
any time (or at any time after) it makes a finding under section
179(a). Based on its finding dated December 30, 1993, USEPA is
proposing to impose both the Federal highway funding assistance
limitations and 2:1 emission offset sanctions. USEPA believes that the
imposition of both sanctions is appropriate because of Illinois'
failure to submit a complete SIP revision to enhance its existing
vehicle I/M program. In the absence of improved vehicle I/M, the
ability of the State's metropolitan areas to meet the CAA deadlines for
attaining healthy air quality is severely compromised. As previously
noted, I/M programs are the single most effective air pollution control
measures available and delayed legislative approval of an acceptable
program further burdens major industrial sources of air pollution with
responsibility for cleaning the air.
Under section 110(m), USEPA may apply sanctions to any portion of
the state it determines is reasonable and appropriate. During the 24
months following the finding, USEPA may not impose the sanctions
statewide if one or more political subdivisions within the state is
principally responsible for the deficiency that is the basis for
sanctions. USEPA has proposed criteria for determining when a political
subdivision is principally responsible (57 FR 44534, September 28,
1992). The criteria provide that a political subdivision is principally
responsible if: (1) It has the legal authority to perform the required
activity; (2) it has traditionally performed, or has been delegated the
responsibility to perform, the required activity; (3) it has received,
where appropriate, adequate funding, or authority to obtain funding,
from the state to perform the required activity; (4) it has agreed to
perform (and has not revoked the agreement), or is required by state
law to accept responsibility for performing, the required activity; and
(5) it has failed to perform the required activity. A ``political
subdivision'' is defined as the representative body that is responsible
for adopting and/or implementing air pollution controls for any
combination of political subdivisions created by, or pursuant to,
Federal or State law. If no political subdivision meets all 5 criteria,
USEPA may use its discretion to determine whether it is reasonable and
appropriate to apply sanctions on a statewide basis.
In this notice, USEPA is proposing to use the above proposed
criteria to determine if it may impose sanctions statewide for Illinois
because of the failure to comply with the I/M committal SIP revision
adopting an I/M program. USEPA believes that the first criterion has
not been met by any political subdivision. Only the Illinois General
Assembly, composed of representatives from all portions of the State of
Illinois, has the authority to revise the state statute to provide for
a basic and enhanced I/M program meeting the CAA and USEPA
requirements. Once the legislature has acted, only state government
agencies can adopt any implementing regulations. While individual air
pollution control districts or air quality management districts may
request implementation of the state I/M program within their districts
once that program is adopted, this authority is meaningless unless the
State has first established an appropriate program through legislation
and regulations. Since the State legislature has not enacted the
legislation required to provide the legal authority for an I/M program
meeting the CAA and USEPA requirements an I/M program meeting such
requirements is not available to areas within the State that require
the program.
Since no political subdivision within the State has met the first
criterion, USEPA believes that no political subdivision is principally
responsible for the failure to have an I/M program that meets final
USEPA regulations. Therefore, USEPA is not prohibited from imposing
sanctions statewide. As noted above, the State legislature bears the
ultimate responsibility to adopt the requisite legislative authority
and IEPA, not the individual air quality districts, must subsequently
adopt adequate regulations. Since the State does bear the ultimate
responsibility, USEPA believes that it is reasonable and appropriate
for USEPA to impose the highway sanction on the entire State.
The 2:1 offset sanction requirements apply only to new or modified
major stationary sources located in or to be located in areas that are
required to have a permit program pursuant to section 173. Thus, USEPA
is proposing to impose the 2:1 emission offset sanction only in those
areas in which it will have an effect, i.e., the following ozone
nonattainment counties: Cook, Lake, Kane, DuPage, Will, McHenry,
Madison, Monroe, St. Clair, Grundy (Aux Sable and Gooselake Townships
only), and Kendall (Oswego Township only). The 2:1 emission offset
would apply to all new or modified major stationary sources of VOC and
NOx that are locating to or located in each of these areas. USEPA
proposes to impose the offset sanctions in the manner described in the
proposed action on the sequencing of sanctions (58 FR 51270, 51275-
51277 (October 1, 1993)).
C. Removal of Discretionary Sanctions
USEPA is proposing to temporarily lift (i.e., toll)4 the
highway and offset sanctions imposed under section 110(m) upon the
passage by the Illinois General Assembly and signature by the Governor
of legislation which USEPA preliminary determines provides legal
authority for a basic and enhanced I/M program meeting the requirements
of the CAA and the I/M regulations. USEPA proposes to notify the State
of this tolling by a letter to the Governor and the public by a notice
published in the notice section of the Federal Register. The section
110(m) sanctions would not be completely lifted until the State submits
a complete enhanced I/M program. USEPA will take action to completely
lift section 110(m) sanctions upon a determination that the State has
submitted a complete enhanced I/M program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ As a general rule, an Agency must go through rulemaking to
remove or alter a requirement imposed through rulemaking. While
USEPA intends to issue a notice tolling the 110(m) sanctions upon
the occurrence of the events described, USEPA will use the good
cause exception to the otherwise applicable requirement for proposed
rulemaking. EPA believes there is good cause to toll the sanctions
once the state takes the action which cures the deficiency that
resulted in imposition of sanctions. See 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(b)(B).
Therefore, no proposed action for removal will be issued. Consistent
with USEPA's intent to impose discretionary sanctions only on those
areas that lack legislative authority, USEPA believes that it is in
the public interest to remove, at least temporarily, these
discretionary sanctions as expeditiously as possible once the State
of Illinois has enacted legislative authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an alternative, if EPA takes final action disapproving
Illinois's committal SIP prior to taking final action imposing
sanctions, EPA proposes that such disapproval be the basis for imposing
the discretionary sanctions. In such case, the sanctions would be
tolled in the same manner; however, if the disapproval is the final
basis for imposing the sanctions such sanctions would not be completely
lifted until EPA formally approves an enhanced I/M program for the
State of Illinois. In such a case, EPA would take action to lift the
sanctions at the same time as EPA took final action approving the
State's I/M program.
USEPA's action imposing or tolling the section 110(m) sanctions
will in no manner affect USEPA's obligation to impose mandatory
sanctions under section 179(a) where one mandatory sanction shall apply
18 months after USEPA's finding of failure to submit a complete SIP and
the second mandatory sanction shall apply 6 months later. Sanctions
under section 179(a) apply to the areas for which the deficiency
exists. If the State does not adopt and submit to USEPA a complete
submittal providing for an I/M program within the 18-month and
additional 6-month periods, the sanctions will automatically apply on
those areas of the State that were required to have but do not have
such a complete I/M program under the amended Act. See 58 FR 51270
(October 1, 1993). Moreover, if EPA takes final action disapproving
Illinois's I/M committal SIP, a second sanctions clock will be
triggered and Illinois must not only submit an I/M program, but EPA
must also approve that program within the relevant time frames to stop
the mandatory sanctions clock and avoid sanctions based on the final
disapproval.
IV. Regulatory Requirements
A. 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 Office of Management and Budget (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 effect in a material way the economy, a sector of 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, it has been
determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action.''
Nevertheless, after reviewing information regarding this action, OMB
has waived review.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. Alternatively, USEPA 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.
The USEPA cannot reliably predict the impact of these restrictions
because of the exemptions authorized for certain highway projects
related to mass transit, public safety, and those that have beneficial
air quality impacts. Careful review and evaluation of each project is
necessary to determine whether or not a project is exempt.
If USEPA takes final action on this proposal, the 2:1 emission
offset requirement will apply to major new sources and major
modifications to existing sources of VOC and NOx, in the Illinois
ozone areas subject to the section 173 offset requirement.
Major stationary sources of VOC and NOx with emissions are
generally not small entities. Also, the 2:1 emission offset requirement
does not prevent growth and modification but sets a higher offset
standard than the current offset required. It is not expected that a
large number of small entities will be affected by the emission offset
requirement. In the past, when USEPA has made efforts to quantify the
impact of the Act's rules on the construction and modification of
sources, USEPA has been unable to do so due, in part, to the need to
obtain information on future plans for business growth. This
information is difficult to obtain, as businesses are understandably
reluctant to make their plans public.
The USEPA is also proposing to impose Federal highway funding
assistance limitations statewide. This limitation could affect a number
of government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000 since government entities often apply for and receive federal
funding under Title 23, United States Code, for road improvement
projects. Although a great many projects are exempted under section
179(b)(1)(B), a number of projects are expected to be affected if the
USEPA takes final action. For the reasons stated above, USEPA cannot
further analyze the economic impacts of this action on small entities.
The statements in this package constitute USEPA's full regulatory
Flexibility analysis.
C. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
This rule does not contain any information collection requirements
which require OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.). Should the highway sanctions become effective, the
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) is required
to determine which projects or grants should not be affected by the
sanction and which, therefore, are exempt. This determination will be
based on information readily available in existing documentation
gathered for the purpose of evaluating the environmental, social, and
economic impacts of different alternatives for transportation projects.
These analyses are already required for the preparation of
environmental assessments and impact statements under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Historically, exemption determinations
by USDOT for sanctions have been based on such NEPA documentation and
have not necessitated additional information gathering and analysis by
the states. In addition, since under NEPA, final environmental
documents must be approved by USDOT, in most cases the NEPA
documentation will already be in USDOT's possession. Therefore, USEPA
does not believe that the highway sanctions, when applied, will impose
an additional information collection burden on the states.
When the offset sanction applies, sources subject to it will not
incur an additional information collection burden because sources are
already required under section 173 offset requirements to obtain an
emission offset from between 1 to 1 and 1.5 to 1 (depending on the
classification of the nonattainment area in which they are located).
Should the offset sanction apply, it would not impose an additional
information collection burden because sources will not have to provide
additional information in the application beyond that which they would
already have to provide in the absence of the sanction. (For the
information collection burden of new requirements of the amended Act
for nonattainment new source review and prevention of significant
deterioration, an information collection request is being prepared to
support rulemaking changes to parts 51 and 52.)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Motor vehicle pollution, Nitrogen oxide, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: January 7, 1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
40 CFR part 52 is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart A--[Amended]
2. Section 52.32, as proposed to be added in a document published
elsewhere in this Federal Register, is amended by adding entries for
the State of Illinois in the tables in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (c)(2)
to read as follows:
Sec. 52.32 Discretionary sanction under section 110(m) of the Clean
Air Act.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date
Affected area sanction Pollutant(s)
applies affected
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*****
State of Illinois:
Cook........................................ ......... VOC, NOX
DuPage...................................... ......... VOC, NOX
Grundy
--Aux Sable Township...................... ......... VOC, NOX
--Gooselake Township...................... ......... VOC, NOX
Kane........................................ ......... VOC, NOX
Kendal
--Oswego Township......................... ......... VOC, NOX
Lake........................................ ......... VOC, NOX
Madison..................................... ......... VOC, NOX
McHenry..................................... ......... VOC, NOX
Monroe...................................... ......... VOC, NOX
St. Clair................................... ......... VOC, NOX
Will........................................ ......... VOC, NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(2) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected area Date sanction applies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * *
State of Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------------------
...............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 94-1129 Filed 1-21-94; 10:00 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
