[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 62 (Friday, March 31, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16591-16595]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7718]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[IN32-1-6006; FRL-5180-8]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Indiana
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
proposes to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision request
submitted by the State of Indiana for the purpose of bringing about the
attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for
particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a
nominal 10 micrometers (PM). The SIP revision request was submitted by
the State to satisfy certain Federal requirements for an approvable
nonattainment area PM SIP for the Lake County nonattainment area. This
area was designated nonattainment for PM and classified as moderate by
the Clean Air Act (Act), upon enactment of the 1990 Amendments (amended
Act). The amended Act requires that States make plan submittals by
November 15, 1991, for those areas designated nonattainment and
classified as moderate for PM upon enactment (the ``initial moderate
nonattainment areas'').
DATES: Comments on this SIP revision request and on USEPA's proposed
rulemaking action must be received by May 1, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: J. Elmer Bortzer,
Chief, Regulation Development Section, Regulation Development Branch
(AR-18J), United States Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Pohlman, Regulation Development
Branch, Regulation Development Section (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-3299.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The air quality planning requirements for moderate PM nonattainment
areas are set out in Title I of the amended Act.1 The USEPA has
issued a ``General Preamble'' describing USEPA's preliminary views on
how USEPA intends to review SIPs and SIP revisions submitted under
Title I of the amended Act, including those State submittals containing
moderate PM nonattainment area SIP requirements (see generally 57 FR
13498, April 16, 1992). The reader should refer to the General Preamble
for a more detailed discussion of the interpretations of Title I
advanced in this proposed rule and the supporting rationale. In this
proposed rule on the Indiana moderate PM SIP submittal for the Lake
County nonattainment area, USEPA is proposing to apply the
interpretations as expressed in the General Preamble, taking into
consideration the special factual issues presented.
\1\The 1990 Amendments to the Act made significant changes to
the air quality planning requirements for areas that do not meet (or
that significantly contribute to ambient air quality in a nearby
area that does not meet) the PM national ambient air quality
standards (see Pub. L. No. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399). References
herein are to the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part D of Title I contains the provisions applicable to
nonattainment areas. Moderate PM nonattainment areas must meet the
applicable requirements set out in Subparts 1 (sections 171-179B of the
Act) and 4 (sections 188-190 of the Act) of Part D. Subpart 1 contains
provisions generally applicable to all nonattainment areas and Subpart
4 contains provisions specifically applicable to PM nonattainment
areas. At times, Subparts 1 and 4 overlap or conflict. USEPA has
attempted to clarify the relationship among these various provisions in
the General Preamble and, as appropriate, in this proposed rule.
Under Part D, those States containing initial moderate PM
nonattainment areas were required to submit, among other things, the
following provisions by November 15, 1991:
1. Provisions to assure that reasonably available control measures
(RACM) (including such reductions from existing sources in the area as
may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably
available control technology--RACT) shall be implemented;
[[Page 16592]]
2. Either a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the
plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no
later than December 31, 1994, or a demonstration that attainment by
that date is impracticable;
3. Quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3 years
and which demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP) toward
attainment by December 31, 1994; and
4. Control requirements applicable to major stationary sources of
PM precursors, except where the Administrator determines that such
sources do not contribute significantly to PM levels which exceed the
NAAQS in the area. See sections 172(c), 188, and 189 of the Act.
II. Analysis of State Submittal
Section 110(k) of the Act sets out provisions governing USEPA's
review of SIP submittals (see 57 FR 13565-13566). In this proposed
rule, USEPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision request submitted
to USEPA on June 16, 1993, and supplemented on December 9, 1993,
September 8, 1994, and November 17, 1994, for the Lake County
nonattainment area. The submittal repeals rules 326 Indiana
Administrative Code (IAC) 5-1-6, 6-1-10, and 6-1-11. The submittal
contains the following new or revised rules:
326 IAC 1-2-32.1*.................. ``Gooseneck cap'' definition
326 IAC 1-2-34.1*.................. ``Jumper pipe'' definition
326 IAC 1-2-62.1*.................. ``Quench car'' definition
326 IAC 1-2-63.1*.................. ``Quench reservoir'' definition
326 IAC 1-2-63.2*.................. ``Quench tower'' definition
326 IAC 5-1-1*..................... Applicability of rule
326 IAC 5-1-2*..................... Visible emission limitations
326 IAC 5-1-3*..................... Temporary exemptions
326 IAC 5-1-4*..................... Compliance determination
326 IAC 5-1-5*..................... Violations
326 IAC 5-1-7*..................... State implementation plan
revisions
326 IAC 6-1-10.1(a-k).............. Lake County PM10 emissions
requirements
326 IAC 6-1-10.2................... Lake County PM10 coke battery
emissions requirements
326 IAC 6-1-11.1................... Lake County fugitive particulate
matter control requirements
326 IAC 11-3-2(a-f and i)*......... Emission limitations
326 IAC 11-3-4*.................... Compliance determination
While some of these rules apply strictly to Lake County, others
(marked above with an asterisk) are intended to have state-wide
applicability. The USEPA is proposing to approve the rules marked above
with an asterisk for the entire state of Indiana. The others are being
approved for sources in Lake County only.
Public comments are solicited on the requested SIP revision and on
USEPA's proposed rulemaking action. The USEPA will consider any
comments received during the public comment period before taking final
action on the requested SIP revision. Presented below are the SIP
requirements under which the submittal was reviewed, and the results of
USEPA's review.
1. Procedural Requirements
The Act requires States to observe certain procedural requirements
in developing implementation plans for submission to USEPA. Section
110(a)(2) of the Act provides that each implementation plan submitted
by a State must be adopted after reasonable notice and public
hearing.2
\2\Also, Section 172(c)(7) of the Act requires that plan
provisions for nonattainment areas meet the applicable provisions of
Section 110(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The USEPA also must determine whether a submittal is complete and
therefore warrants further USEPA review and action (see section
110(k)(1) and 57 FR 13565). The USEPA's completeness criteria for SIP
submittals are set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V (1991), as amended
by 57 FR 42216 (August 26, 1991). The USEPA attempts to make
completeness determinations within 60 days of receiving a submittal.
However, a submittal is deemed complete by operation of law if a
completeness determination is not made by USEPA 6 months after receipt
of the submission.
The State of Indiana held a public hearing on October 22, 1992, in
Gary, Indiana to receive public comment on the requested implementation
plan revision for the Lake County PM nonattainment area. Following the
public hearing the plan was adopted by the State on May 12, 1993, and
submitted to USEPA on June 16, 1993, as a SIP revision request.
Supplemental submittals were made with cover letters dated December 9,
1993, September 8, 1994, and November 17, 1994.
The SIP revision request was reviewed by USEPA to determine
completeness shortly after its submittal, in accordance with the
completeness criteria set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V (1991), as
amended by 57 FR 42216 (August 26, 1991). The submittal was found to be
complete and a letter dated July 13, 1993, was sent to the
Commissioner, Office of Air Management, Indiana Department of
Environmental Management (IDEM), indicating the completeness of the
submittal and the next steps to be taken in the review process.
2. Accurate Emissions Inventory
Section 172(c)(3) of the Act requires that nonattainment plan
provisions include a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of
actual emissions from all sources of relevant pollutants in the
nonattainment area. Further, for the attainment demonstration, the SIP
must contain a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of
allowable emissions in the area. Because the submission of an emissions
inventory is necessary to an area's attainment demonstration (or
demonstration that the area cannot practicably attain), the emissions
inventory must be received with the submission (see 57 FR 13539).
The emissions inventory information was compiled from data supplied
by individual companies, permit applications in the IDEM files, and
information from personnel at local agencies. The emissions inventory
contains information on approximately 900 point and area sources. The
Lake County PM emissions inventory is dominated by industrial sources,
including metal manufacturers, mineral product manufacturers, and food/
agricultural facilities. For further information on the emissions
inventory, see the Technical Support Document available at the above
address.
The USEPA is proposing to approve the emissions inventory because
it is generally accurate and comprehensive, and provides a sufficient
basis for determining the adequacy of attainment demonstration for this
area consistent with the requirements of sections 172(c)(3) and
110(a)(2)(k) of the Act.
3. RACM (Including RACT)
As noted above, the State must submit provisions for initial
moderate PM nonattainment areas to assure that RACM (including RACT)
are implemented (see sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C)). The General
Preamble contains a detailed discussion of USEPA's interpretation of
the RACM (including RACT) requirement (see 57 FR 13539-13545 and 13560-
13561). The USEPA's interpretation of this requirement is set out here
only in broad terms.
The State should first identify available control measures and
evaluate them for their reasonableness in light of the feasibility of
the controls and the [[Page 16593]] attainment needs of the area. A
State may reject an available control measure if the measure is
technologically infeasible or the cost of the control is unreasonable.
The State must demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS as expeditiously as
practicable but no later than December 31, 1994, unless the State
demonstrates that attainment by that date is impracticable. Therefore,
if a State adopts less than all available measures but demonstrates,
adequately and appropriately, that RFP and attainment of the PM NAAQS
is assured, and application of all such available measures would not
result in attainment any faster, then a plan which requires
implementation of less than all available measures may be approved as
meeting the RACM requirement. As a suggested starting point, USEPA has
identified reasonably available control measures for sources of
fugitive dust, residential wood combustion, and prescribed burning (see
57 FR 18072-18074, April 28, 1992). The State should add to the list of
available measures in an area any measures that public commenters
demonstrate may well be reasonably available in a particular
circumstance.
The RACT for a particular source is similarly determined. The
USEPA's longstanding definition of RACT is the lowest emission
limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the
application of control technology that is reasonably available
considering technological and economic feasibility (see 57 FR 13541).
Thus, USEPA recommends that available control technology be applied to
those existing sources in the area that are reasonable to control in
light of the attainment needs of the area and the feasibility of
controls.3
\3\USEPA has issued technological and economic parameters that
should be considered in determining RACT for a particular source
(see 57 FR 18073-74).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A State should submit a reasoned justification for partial or full
rejection of any available control measure (including any available
control technology) that explains, with appropriate documentation, why
each rejected control measure is infeasible or otherwise unreasonable
and, therefore, does not constitute RACM (or RACT) for the area. In
those PM nonattainment areas where mobile sources significantly
contribute to the PM air quality problem, States also must address the
section 108(f) transportation control measures (see 57 FR 13561).
The limitations on point sources in Lake County include source-
specific emissions limits in terms of pounds per ton (lb/ton), pounds
per hour (lbs/hr), pounds per Million British Thermal Units (lb/MMBTU),
and grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf). There are also
source-specific opacity limits ranging from 5-20 percent on certain
sources in the nonattainment area. These limits are listed in Title 326
Indiana Administrative Code (326 IAC) 6-1-10.1. Compliance with these
emissions limits is to be determined using Title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, part 60 (40 CFR part 60), appendix M, Methods 201
and 201A for PM; 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Methods 5, 5A, 5D, 5E or
17 for Total Suspended Particulate; and 40 CFR part 60, appendix A,
Method 9 for opacity limits. Other limitations on point sources include
emission limits on coke ovens located in Lake County (326 IAC 6-1-10.2)
and a general 20 percent opacity limit for all sources in the
nonattainment area (326 IAC 5-1-2).
Limitations on sources of fugitive emissions in Lake County include
a 10 percent opacity limit for paved roads and parking lots, unpaved
roads and parking lots, and wind erosion from storage piles (326 IAC 6-
1-11.1(d)). Subsection (e) of this rule also requires sources to submit
control plans which will achieve compliance with the limitations of
subsection (d). These plans are to include maps and descriptions of
facilities, descriptions of the proposed control measures and practices
to be implemented, and a schedule for achieving compliance with the
rule.
The USEPA has reviewed the State's explanation and associated
documentation and concluded that it adequately justifies the control
measures to be implemented. By this notice, USEPA is proposing to
approve the control strategy.
4. Attainment Demonstration
As noted above, the State must submit a demonstration for initial
moderate PM nonattainment areas (including air quality modeling)
showing that the plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously as
practicable but no later than December 31, 1994 (see section
189(a)(1)(B) of the Act). Alternatively, the State must show that
attainment by December 31, 1994 is impracticable. In the General
Preamble, USEPA indicated that the attainment demonstrations for the
initial moderate areas must follow existing modeling guidelines for PM
or, if appropriate, may be developed consistent with the supplemental
attainment demonstration policy issued for initial areas (see 57 FR
13539).
IDEM began the Lake County modeling study in 1989, using version
88348 of the Industrial Source Complex Short Term model (ISCST). An
updated version of ISCST, 90346, was used for the final runs. Version
93109 of the Industrial Source Complex Long Term model (ISCLT2) was
used to determine annual average concentrations. Version 93109 is the
most recent version of ISCLT2, and the versions of ISCST used by the
State were current at the time of application. Therefore, their use is
approvable by USEPA. Future SIP revision requests submitted to USEPA
must demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS through modeling performed in
accordance with current USEPA modeling guidance.
IDEM modeled a total of 540 sources, all with emissions greater
than one ton per year. Smaller sources were excluded from the modeling.
Direction-specific building dimensions were input for facilities which
chose to provide the information. The annual concentrations modeled
represent the actual hours of operation of sources which contributed
significantly to high annual concentrations.
Average background concentrations for each wind sector were derived
from measurements taken at ten local PM monitors during the years 1990
through 1992. The monitors were located in Lake County, Indiana; Porter
County, Indiana; and Cook County, Illinois. While the background
concentrations were developed so as not to include measurements
directly influenced by the emissions from large facilities, monitors
within the modeled area were expected to account for the influence of
small sources which were not included in the modeled source inventory.
IDEM arrived at an average annual background concentration of 23
micrograms per cubic meter (g/m3).
IDEM ran the models with five years of meteorological data (1984-
1988) from the Hammond and Whiting Towers, which are located in Lake
County. IDEM's final receptor network focused on hot spots pinpointed
by earlier modeling runs. Receptors were also placed in Illinois in
order to assess interstate impacts. Modeling showed that the Indiana
sources did not violate the NAAQS in Illinois.
The final modeling shows that the Lake County PM nonattainment area
will attain the 24-hour PM standard. The highest sixth high predicted
24-hour concentration is 149.9 g/m3 (the 24-hour PM
standard is 150 g/m3). The final modeling also predicts
attainment of the annual PM standard. The highest 5-year average
predicted PM concentration is 47.7 g/m3 (the standard is
50 g/m3). [[Page 16594]]
To have attained the PM NAAQS, an area must have an average of no
more than 1.0 expected exceedance of the 24-hour PM NAAQS per year for
the previous 3 years at any monitor. In addition, the average of the
annual PM concentrations for the previous 3 years at any monitor must
be below the annual standard.
A preliminary review of the Lake County air quality monitoring data
indicates that the area is attaining the PM NAAQS. No monitor in the
Lake County area has shown an exceedance of the annual PM NAAQS in the
last 3 years. In addition, the worst-case monitor in the Lake County PM
nonattainment area shows an average of 0.75 expected exceedance per
year for 1992, 1993, and 1994. The USEPA will make a formal
determination of the attainment status of the Lake County PM
nonattainment area at a later date.
5. PM Precursors
The control requirements which are applicable to major stationary
sources of PM must also apply to major stationary sources of PM
precursors unless the USEPA determines such sources do not contribute
significantly to PM levels which exceed the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards in that area (see section 189(e) of the Act). PM
precursors are pollutants emitted as gases that undergo chemical
transformations to become particulate, and principally include sulfates
and nitrates. The control requirements that apply to major stationary
sources in PM nonattainment areas generally include the following:
reasonably available control technology, which applies in moderate PM
nonattainment areas; best available control technology, which applies
in serious PM nonattainment areas; and control requirements under the
applicable new source review provisions, such as the lowest achievable
emission rate. The General Preamble (see 57 FR 13539-13540 and 13541-
13542) contains a lengthy discussion on control requirements for PM
precursors in moderate nonattainment areas and on the type of technical
information USEPA will rely on in making any determinations under
section 189(e).
Filter analysis data from ambient monitors in Cook County, Illinois
(the data was collected in 1992) were used to assess the significance
of PM precursors in the Lake County, Indiana PM nonattainment area. The
monitors used are located at the Washington School and the Bright
School in the city of Chicago, Illinois. These monitors are located
approximately .6 and 1.75 miles, respectively, west of the Lake County
nonattainment area. Besides the close proximity, these sites are also
appropriate because the source mix in southeast Chicago closely
approximates that of the Lake County nonattainment area.
The mean sulfate concentration plus the mean nitrate concentration
for the Washington school and Bright school monitors were
13.1g/m3 and 14.9g/m3 respectively. This
compares to an average annual background PM concentration of
23g/m3 in the Lake County nonattainment area. This
illustrates the relative insignificance of the impact of PM precursors,
and supports representing PM precursor impacts as part of the
background concentration.
Further considerations also argue against applying the same control
requirements for precursor sources as for direct emission sources. The
climatology in northwest Indiana is such that precursor emission
control for a particular source would not have a significant effect
until far downwind. Title IV of the Clean Air Act mandates significant
particulate precursor emission reductions in Indiana, after which the
impacts of these sources on particulate matter concentrations will be
even less significant.
For these reasons, it is appropriate to conclude that precursors do
not contribute significantly to particulate matter concentrations in
the Lake County nonattainment area. This finding is based on the
current character of the area including, for example, the existing mix
of sources in the area. It is possible, therefore, that future growth
could change the significance of precursors in the area. The USEPA
intends to issue future guidance addressing such potential changes in
the significance of precursor emissions in an area.
6. Quantitative Milestones and Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)
The PM nonattainment area plan revisions demonstrating attainment
must contain quantitative milestones, which are to be achieved every 3
years, until the area is redesignated to attainment. The plan also must
demonstrate RFP, as defined in section 171(1), toward attainment by
December 31, 1994 (see section 189(c) of the Act). Reasonable further
progress is defined in section 171(1) as such annual incremental
reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required
by part D or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the
purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the
applicable date.
For the initial moderate PM nonattainment areas, the emissions
reductions progress made between the SIP submittal due date of November
15, 1991 and the attainment date of December 31, 1994, (only 46 days
beyond the November 15, 1994 milestone date) will satisfy the first
milestone requirement. The de minimis timing differential makes it
administratively impracticable to require separate milestone and
attainment demonstrations.
In implementing RFP for an initial moderate area, USEPA has
reviewed the attainment demonstration and control strategy for the area
to determine whether the initial milestones have been satisfied, and to
determine whether annual incremental reductions different from those
provided in the SIP may be necessary to ensure attainment of the PM
NAAQS by December 31, 1994 (see section 171(1)). As indicated,
Indiana's PM SIP submittal for the Lake County PM nonattainment area
shows that the PM NAAQS will be attained by December 31, 1994. Also, a
preliminary review of the monitored air quality data shows that the
area is in attainment of the PM NAAQS. Therefore, the RFP requirement
has been satisfied.
7. Enforceability
All measures and other elements in the SIP must be enforceable by
the State and USEPA. See sections 172(c)(6), 110(a)(2)(A) and 57 FR
13556. The USEPA criteria addressing the enforceability of SIPs and SIP
revisions were stated in a September 23, 1987 memorandum (with
attachments) from the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, et
al., entitled ``Review of State Implementation Plans and Revisions for
Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency,'' and with an attached memorandum
with the same date and title which contained more detailed guidance
from the Associate Enforcement Counsel for Air Enforcement, et al. (see
57 FR 13541).
The particular control measures contained in the SIP are addressed
above under the section headed ``RACM (including RACT).'' These control
measures apply to the types of activities identified in that
discussion, including, for example, grain loading limits, lb/ton
limits, and lb/MMBTU limits for point sources and opacity limits for
roadways and storage piles. The SIP provides that these control
measures apply to the Lake County nonattainment area.
Upon initial review of Indiana's submittal, USEPA identified two
enforcement concerns. The first enforcement concern was related to the
20 percent opacity limit as it applies to [[Page 16595]] coal preheater
bypass stacks at U.S. Steel. A number of years ago, Indiana issued a
variance to these stacks under a previous State rule. The USEPA
requested IDEM's interpretation of how the variance relates to the new
rule. On November 17, 1994, IDEM submitted to USEPA a letter clarifying
this issue. In the letter, IDEM stated that ``no variance currently
exists for the U.S. Steel. Any variance from a previous, repealed rule
that existed prior to the adoption of 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(B) has been
superseded by the revised PM rule.'' Therefore, this issue has been
resolved.
The second enforcement concern was related to the shutdown of the
A. Metz Asphalt Company in Gary, Indiana. IDEM did not include this
source in the emissions inventory because it is not currently
operating, but the plant still has a limit in the State rules. The
USEPA was concerned about the enforceability of the shutdown, and the
possibility that the plant might resume operation. In a November 17,
1994, letter, IDEM assured USEPA that the A. Metz Asphalt Company has
not operated since 1989, and does not have a valid operating permit.
IDEM stated that restarting of operations at this plant would trigger
Indiana's new source review permitting process. Therefore, this issue
has been resolved.
8. Contingency Measures
As provided in section 172(c)(9) of the Act, all moderate
nonattainment area SIPs that demonstrate attainment must include
contingency measures. See generally 57 FR 13543-13544. Contingency
measures should consist of other available measures that are not part
of the area's control strategy. These measures were to have been
submitted by November 15, 1993, for initial moderate nonattainment
areas. These measures must take effect without further action by the
State or USEPA, upon a determination by USEPA that the area has failed
to make RFP or attain the PM NAAQS by the applicable statutory
deadline.
On January 25, 1994, a letter was sent to the State indicating that
the USEPA was making a finding that the State of Indiana had failed to
submit PM contingency measures for the Lake County PM nonattainment
area. The letter also stated that Indiana would have 18 months from the
date of the letter to make a complete submission of PM contingency
measures before USEPA would be mandated to impose sanctions as
identified in section 179(b) of the amended Act. The USEPA is currently
working with IDEM to develop the required PM contingency measures. The
USEPA will take separate rulemaking action on the contingency plan for
the Lake County nonattainment area.
III. USEPA's Proposed Rulemaking Action
USEPA is proposing to approve the plan revision submitted to USEPA
by the State of Indiana on June 16, 1993, and supplemented on December
9, 1993, September 8, 1994, and November 17, 1994, for the Lake County
PM nonattainment area. Among other things, the State of Indiana has
demonstrated through modeling that the Lake County moderate PM
nonattainment area will attain the PM NAAQS by December 31, 1994. In
addition, a preliminary review of the monitored air quality data for
the Lake County area shows that this area is in attainment of the
NAAQS.
As noted, additional submittals for the initial moderate PM
nonattainment areas are due at later dates. The USEPA will determine
the adequacy of any such submittals as appropriate.
USEPA is requesting comments on the requested SIP revision and this
proposed rule. As indicated at the outset of this dowment, USEPA will
consider any comments received by May 1, 1995.
This action has been classified as a Table 2 action by the Regional
Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on
January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by an October 4, 1993
memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget has exempted
this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.
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. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
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.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Act
do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements
that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP-
approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does
not have a significant impact on small entities affected. Moreover, due
to the nature of the Federal-state relationship under the Act,
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
Act forbids USEPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.
See Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A. , 427
U.S. 246, 256-66 (S. Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: March 21, 1995.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-7718 Filed 3-30-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
