Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 1995 / Proposed Rules 10819

APPENDIX A TO PART 117—DRAWBRIDGES EQUIPPED WITH RADIOTELEPHONES

Waterway Mile Location Bridge name and owner Call sign Calling

channel

Working

channel

* * * * * * *

Massachusetts.

* * * * * * *

Lagoon Pond .................. 0.0 Tisbury ....... Lagoon Pond ........................................................ MHD 13 13

* * * * * * *

Dated: January 11, 1995.

J.L. Linnon,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,

First Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 95–4905 Filed 2–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Ch. I

[FRL–5162–5]

Open Meeting of the Negotiated

Rulemaking Advisory Committee for

Small Nonroad Engine Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: FACA committee meeting;

Negotiated rulemaking on small

nonroad engine regulations.

SUMMARY: As required by section 9(a)(2)

of the Federal Advisory Committee Act

(Pub. L. 92–463), EPA is giving notice of

the next meeting of the Advisory

Committee to negotiate a rule to reduce

air emissions from small nonroad

engines. The meeting is open to the

public without advance registration.

The purpose of the meeting is to

continue identification and discussion

of issues, discuss interests of committee

members, and hear reports from task

groups.

DATES: The committee will meet on

March 21 and 22, 1995 from 10 a.m. to

6 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The location of the meeting

will be the Holiday Inn East, 3750

Washtenaw, Ann Arbor, MI 48104, (313)

971–2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Persons needing further information on

the technical and substantive matters of

the rule should contact Betsy McCabe,

National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions

Laboratory, 2565 Plymouth Rd., Ann

Arbor Michigan 48105, (313) 668–4344.

Persons needing further information on

committee procedes should call

Deborah Dalton, Consensus and Dispute

Resolution Program, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460, (202) 260–5495,

or the Committee’s facilitator, Lucy

More or John Folk-Williams, Western

Network, 616 Don Gaspar, Santa Fe,

New Mexico 87501, (505) 982–9805.

Dated: February 23, 1995.

Deborah Dalton,

Designated Federal Official, Deputy Director,

Consensus and Dispute Resolution Program.

[FR Doc. 95–4892 Filed 2–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 78–2–6824; FRL–5162–4]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California

Implementation Plan Revision; South

Coast Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to

conditionally approve revisions to the

California State Implementation Plan

(SIP) which concern the control of

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and oxides of

sulfur (SOX) emissions using an

emissions-limiting economic incentives

program, the NOX and SOX Regional

Clean Air Incentives Market (NOX and

SOX RECLAIM). This program, which

consists of twelve rules and associated

appendices known as Regulation XX,

applies to facilities in the South Coast

Air Quality Management District

(SCAQMD) with four or more tons of

NOX or SOX emissions per year from

permitted equipment. The subject

facilities, in order to meet annual

emission reduction requirements, will

participate in an economic incentive

program (EIP) in order to reduce

emissions at a significantly lower cost.

The intended effect of proposing

approval of Regulation XX is to regulate

emissions of NOX and SOX in

accordance with the requirements of the

Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990

(CAA or the Act). EPA’s final action on

this notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM) will incorporate this regulation

into the federally approved SIP. EPA

has evaluated this regulation and is

proposing to conditionally approve it

under provisions of the CAA regarding

EPA action on SIP submittals, SIPs for

national primary and secondary ambient

air quality standards and plan

requirements for nonattainment areas.

The EPA’s final conditional approval is

contingent on the SCAQMD providing

the Agency with an enforceable

commitment which addresses and cures

all of the deficiencies associated with

NOX and SOX RECLAIM within 12

months of the publication of the

proposed conditional approval. In the

event that SCAQMD fails to provide

EPA with such a commitment, then EPA

will publish a final rule to approve NOX

and SOX RECLAIM in the form of a

limited approval/limited disapproval

action. Both the conditional approval

action and the limited approval/limited

disapproval action are discussed in this

NPRM.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before March 30, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

to: Daniel A. Meer, Rulemaking Section

(A–5–3), Air and Toxics Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105.

Copies of the new regulation and

EPA’s evaluation report of the

regulation are available for public

inspection at EPA’s Region 9 office

(address above) during normal business

hours. Copies of the submitted

regulation are also available for

inspection at the following locations:

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95814.

South Coast Air Quality Management

District, 21865 E. Copley Drive,

Diamond Bar, CA 91765–4182.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kenneth Israels, Rulemaking Section

(A–5–3), Air and Toxics Division,
10820 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 1995 / Proposed Rules

1The Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin was

designated nonattainment and classified by

operation of law pursuant to sections 107(d) and

181(a) upon the date of enactment of the CAA. See

55 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991).

2EPA made a finding of nonsubmittal for NOX

RACT in SCAQMD on April 21, 1993. NOX

RECLAIM in combination with other measures

satisfy this requirement. On October 21, 1994, EPA

found that SCAQMD had submitted measures

satisfying the NOX RACT requirements.

3EPA adopted the completeness criteria on

February 16, 1990 (55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to

section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA, revised the criteria

on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).

Environmental Protection Agency, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105, Telephone: (415) 744–1194.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On November 15, 1990, the Clean Air

Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA) were

enacted. Pub. L. 101–549, 104 Stat.

2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

The air quality planning requirements

for the reduction of NOX emissions

through reasonably available control

technology (RACT) are set out in section

182(f) of the CAA. On November 25,

1992, EPA published a NPRM entitled

‘‘State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen

Oxides Supplement to the General

Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments

of 1990 Implementation of Title I;

Proposed Rule,’’ (the NOX Supplement)

which describes the requirements of

section 182(f). The November 25, 1992,

notice should be referred to for further

information on the NOX requirements

and is incorporated into this proposal

by reference.

Section 182(b)(2) requires submittal of

RACT rules for major stationary sources

of VOC emissions (not covered by a preenactment control technologies

guidelines (CTG) document or a postenactment CTG document) by

November 15, 1992. There were no NOX

CTGs issued before enactment and EPA

has not issued a CTG document for any

NOX sources since enactment of the

CAA. The RACT rules covering NOX

sources and submitted as SIP revisions

are expected to require final installation

of the actual NOX controls by May 31,

1995, for those sources where

installation by that date is practicable.

Section 182(f) of the Clean Air Act

requires States to apply the same

requirements to major stationary sources

of NOX (‘‘major’’ as defined in section

302 and section 182 (c), (d), and (e)) as

are applied to major stationary sources

of volatile organic compounds (VOCs),

in moderate or above ozone

nonattainment areas. The Los AngelesSouth Coast Air Basin is classified as

extreme,1 therefore this area was subject

to the RACT requirements of section

182(b)(2), cited above, and the

November 15, 1992 deadline.2

On April 7, 1994, EPA published a

final rule concerning EIPs entitled

‘‘Economic Incentive Program Rules,’’

(EIP Rules) in order to fulfill the

requirements of section 182(g)(4)(A) of

the Act (see 59 FR 16690). The EIP

Rules establish several requirements

which State programs must meet.

These requirements are:

• Statement of goals and rationale.

This element shall include a clear

statement as to the environmental

problem being addressed, the intended

environmental and economic goals of

the program, and the rationale relating

the incentive-based strategy to the

program goals.

• Program scope. This element shall

contain a clear definition of the sources

affected by the program.

• Program baseline. A program

baseline shall be defined as a basis for

projecting program results and, if

applicable, for initializing the incentive

mechanism (e.g., for marketable permits

programs). The program baseline shall

be consistent with, and adequately

reflected in, the assumptions and inputs

used to develop an area’s reasonable

further progress (RFP) plans and

attainment and maintenance

demonstrations, as applicable. The State

shall provide sufficient supporting

information from the areawide

emissions inventory and other sources

to justify the baseline used in the State

or local EIP.

• Replicable emission quantification

methods. This program element, for

programs other than those which are

categorized as directionally-sound, shall

include credible, workable, and

replicable methods for projecting

program results from affected sources

and, where necessary, for quantifying

emissions from individual sources

subject to the EIP. Such methods, if

used to determine credit taken in

attainment, RFP, and maintenance

demonstrations, as applicable, shall

yield results which can be shown to

have a level of certainty comparable to

that for source-specific standards and

traditional methods of control strategy

development.

• Source requirements. This program

element shall include all source-specific

requirements that constitute compliance

with the program. Such requirements

shall be appropriate, readily

ascertainable, and State and federally

enforceable.

• Projected results and audit/

reconciliation procedures. This program

element includes a commitment to

ensure the timely implementation of

programmatic revisions or other

measures which the State, in response

to the audit, deems necessary for the

successful operation of the program in

the context of overall RFP and

attainment requirements. (see 40 CFR

51.493(f)(3)(i))

• Implementation schedule. The

program shall contain a schedule for the

adoption and implementation of all

State commitments and source

requirements included in the program

design.

• Administrative procedures. The

program shall contain a description of

State commitments which are integral to

the implementation of the program, and

the administrative system to be used to

implement the program, addressing the

adequacy of the personnel, funding, and

legislative authority.

• Enforcement mechanisms. The

program shall contain a compliance

instrument(s) for all program

requirements, which is legally binding

and enforceable by both the State and

EPA. This program element shall also

include a State enforcement program

which defines violations, and specifies

auditing and inspections plans and

provisions for enforcement actions. The

program shall contain effective penalties

for noncompliance which preserve the

level of deterrence in traditional

programs. For all such programs, the

manner of collection of penalties must

be specified.

The EIP Rule should be referred to for

further information on the EIP

requirements and is incorporated into

this proposal by reference.

The State of California submitted the

regulation being acted on in this

document on March 21, 1994. This

document addresses EPA’s proposed

action for SCAQMD, Regulation XX,

NOX and SOX RECLAIM. SCAQMD

adopted Regulation XX on October 15,

1993. This submitted regulation was

found to be complete on April 11, 1994,

pursuant to EPA’s completeness criteria

that are set forth in 40 CFR Part 51,

Appendix V,3 and is being proposed for

approval into the SIP.

NOX emissions contribute to the

production of ground level ozone and

smog. The regulation was adopted as

part of SCAQMD’s efforts to achieve the

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) for ozone and in response to

the CAA requirements cited above. The

following is EPA’s evaluation and

proposed action for this regulation.

EPA Evaluation and Proposed Action

In determining the approvability of a

NOX regulation, EPA must evaluate the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 1995 / Proposed Rules 10821

4Among other things, the pre-amendment

guidance consists of those portions of the proposed

post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide policy that

concern RACT, 52 FR 45044 (November 24, 1987);

‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints,

Deficiencies, and Deviations, Clarification to

Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal Register

Notice’’ (Blue Book) (notice of availability was

published in the Federal Register on May 25, 1988).

regulation for consistency with the

requirements of the CAA and EPA

regulations, as found in section 110 and

Part D of the CAA and 40 CFR Part 51

(Requirements for Preparation,

Adoption, and Submittal of

Implementation Plans). The EPA

interpretation of these requirements,

which forms the basis for today’s action,

appears in the various EPA policy

guidance documents.4 Among these

provisions is the requirement that a

NOX rule must, at a minimum, provide

for the implementation of RACT for

stationary sources of NOX emissions.

For the purpose of assisting state and

local agencies in developing RACT

rules, EPA prepared the NOX

supplement to the General Preamble,

cited above (57 FR 55620). In the NOX

supplement, EPA provides guidance on

how RACT will be determined for

stationary sources of NOX emissions.

While most of the guidance issued by

EPA on what constitutes RACT for

stationary sources has been directed

towards application for VOC sources,

much of the guidance is also applicable

to RACT for stationary sources of NOX

(see section 4.5 of the NOX

Supplement). In addition, pursuant to

section 183(c) EPA is issuing alternative

control technique documents (ACTs)

that identify alternative controls for all

categories of stationary sources of NOX.

The ACT documents will provide

information on control technology for

stationary sources that emit or have the

potential to emit 25 or more tons per

year of NOX. However, the ACTs will

not establish a presumptive norm for

what is considered RACT for stationary

sources of NOX. In general, the guidance

documents cited above, as well as other

relevant and applicable guidance

documents, have been set forth to

ensure that submitted NOX RACT rules

meet federal RACT requirements and

are fully enforceable and strengthen or

maintain the SIP.

In determining the approvability of an

EIP, EPA must evaluate the regulation

for consistency with the requirements of

the CAA and EPA regulations, as found

in section 110 and Part D of the CAA

and 40 CFR Part 51 (Requirements for

Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of

Implementation Plans). The EPA

interpretation of these requirements,

which forms the basis for today’s action,

appears in the various EPA policy

guidance documents listed in footnote 4

of this notice. Among these provisions

is the requirement that an EIP rule must,

at a minimum, be consistent with

attainment and RFP requirements found

in the CAA.

For the purpose of assisting state and

local agencies in developing rules

which incorporate economic incentive

strategies, EPA prepared the EIP Rules,

cited above (59 FR 16690). In the EIP

Rules, EPA provides guidance on how

EIPs can be designed to be consistent

with the attainment and RFP

requirements of the CAA. In general, the

guidance documents cited above, as

well as other relevant and applicable

guidance documents, have been set

forth to ensure that submitted EIPs meet

federal requirements and are fully

enforceable and strengthen or maintain

the SIP.

SCAQMD’s Regulation XX, NOX and

SOX RECLAIM, is a new rule which was

adopted to control NOX and SOX

emissions using an emissions-limiting

economic incentives program applicable

to facilities with four or more tons of

NOX or SOX emissions per year.

Facilities with NOX or SOX emissions

from permitted equipment participate in

a pollutant-specific market in order to

reduce emissions at a significantly

lower cost. The program subsumes

fourteen SCAQMD Air Quality

Management Plan (AQMP) control

measures and is projected to reduce

emissions by an equivalent amount.

The regulation discussed below is

being proposed for conditional approval

under Section 110(k)(4) of the CAA

because it strengthens the SIP and EPA

is optimistic that the SCAQMD will

provide EPA a commitment within 12

months of the publication of this

proposal and prior to the publication of

the final rule. Such a commitment must

obligate the SCAQMD to revise

Regulation XX to correct the identified

Appendix D deficiencies, within one

year after the date of publication of the

final rule. The conditional approval

shall be treated as a disapproval if the

SCAQMD fails to comply with the

submitted commitment.

The NOX and SOX RECLAIM program

strengthens the SIP by placing a

declining emissions cap on subject

facilities. The declining cap is based on

the application of RACT (or

requirements more stringent than

RACT) at the facility and is reduced to

overall emissions below RACT levels in

order to bring the South Coast Air Basin

into attainment of the ozone NAAQS.

Regulation XX is comprised of 12 rules

and 2 associated appendices which are

described below:

• Rule 2000—General. This rule

provides the program’s objective, its

purpose, and applicable definitions;

• Rule 2001—Applicability. This rule

provides the criteria for inclusion in

NOX and SOX RECLAIM, requirements

for sources electing to enter NOX and

SOX RECLAIM and identifies provisions

in SCAQMD rules and regulations that

do not apply to NOX and SOX RECLAIM

sources;

• Rule 2002—Allocations for Oxides

of Nitrogen (NOX) and Oxides of Sulfur

(SOX). This rule establishes the

methodology for calculating initial

facility allocations for NOX and SOX

RECLAIM;

• Rule 2004—Requirements. This rule

establishes requirements for operating

under the NOX and SOX RECLAIM

program. The rule includes provisions

pertaining to permits, allocations,

reporting, variances, penalties, and

breakdowns;

• Rule 2005—New Source Review

(NSR) for RECLAIM. This rule sets forth

pre-construction review requirements

for new facilities subject to the

requirements of the NOX and SOX

RECLAIM program and for

modifications to existing NOX and SOX

RECLAIM facilities;

• Rule 2006—Permits. This rule sets

forth procedures for issuing and

amending NOX and SOX RECLAIM

facility permits;

• Rule 2007—Trading Requirements.

This rule defines the NOX and SOX

RECLAIM trading credit (RTC) and

establishes the trading requirements for

NOX and SOX RECLAIM;

• Rule 2008—Mobile Source Credits.

This rule establishes criteria for and

requirements on utilizing emission

reductions generated from SCAQMD

1600 series rules as RTCs;

• Rule 2010—Administrative

Remedies and Sanctions. This rule

specifies provisions to ensure that NOX

and SOX RECLAIM facilities which

exceed their allocation provide

compensating emission reductions. This

rule also provides for administrative

penalties for NOX and SOX RECLAIM

rule violations;

• Rule 2011—Requirements for

Monitoring, Reporting, and

Recordkeeping for Oxides of Sulfur

Emissions. This rule and its appendix

(Appendix A) establish the monitoring,

reporting, and recordkeeping

requirements for SOX emissions under

the NOX and SOX RECLAIM program;

• Rule 2012—Requirements for

Monitoring, Reporting, and

Recordkeeping for Oxides of Nitrogen

Emissions. This rule and its appendix

(Appendix A) establish the monitoring,

reporting, and recordkeeping
10822 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 1995 / Proposed Rules

5SCAQMD is presently in attainment of the SO2

NAAQS.

6 In this instance, SCAQMD is not asserting and

EPA is not finding that SOX RECLAIM is designed

to be used as a means to identify or implement best

available control measures (BACM) for PM10 in the

South Coast Air Basin. If at some point in the future

SCAQMD decides to use SOX RECLAIM as a means

of fulfilling this requirement, an additional SIP

submittal must be made at which time EPA will

apply the appropriate review criteria.

requirements for NOX emissions under

the NOX and SOX RECLAIM program;

and

• Rule 2015—Backstop Provisions.

This rule specifies NOX and SOX

RECLAIM program auditing

requirements and actions that the

SCAQMD will take in the event that the

environmental goals of RECLAIM

program are not achieved.

• Although the approval of

Regulation XX will strengthen the SIP,

the regulation still contains deficiencies,

identified below and in the associated

technical support document (TSD),

which are required to be corrected

pursuant to section 182(b)(2) of the

CAA. The NOX and SOX RECLAIM

program contains the following

deficiencies:

• The program allows the use of

variances to avoid compliance with

program requirements; this results in

the program failing to meet the

requirements of section 110(i) of the

Act,

• The program does not meet certain

new source review requirements of the

Act and Part D,

• The program allows the use of

Executive Officer discretion in the

implementation of certain emissions

monitoring provisions; this results in

the program failing to meet the

requirements of section 110(i) of the

Act,

• The program’s references to other

programs, notably those involving the

use of mobile source emission reduction

credits (MERCs) is inconsistent with

section 110(i) of the Act, and

• The submittal does not provide all

of the necessary demonstrations to

ensure that the requirements of EPA’s

EIP Rules are being met.

A detailed discussion of the rule

deficiencies can be found in the TSD for

Regulation XX (January 5, 1995), which

is available from the U.S. EPA, Region

9 office. Because SCAQMD is not using

Regulation XX as a means to achieve or

maintain attainment of the SO2

NAAQS,5 the PM10 NAAQS,6 or the NO2

NAAQS, EPA does not believe that

Regulation XX will interfere with

SCAQMD’s ability to meet the

requirements necessary in the Act for

achieving or maintaining these

standards. EPA believes that the penalty

provisions found in RECLAIM Rule

2004 will be adequate for enforcement

of the RECLAIM program. However,

EPA does not believe that such penalty

provisions would necessarily be

adequate for other program designs.

EPA will evaluate the penalty

provisions of each program design on an

individual basis, paying particular

attention to the program elements found

in the EIP rule (see 40 CFR 51.493(i) and

59 FR 16700–16701 dated April 7, 1994)

where applicable.

Because of the above deficiencies,

EPA cannot grant approval of this

regulation under section 110(k)(3),

section 110(a)(2), section 169A, and

Parts C and D of the Act. Also, because

the submitted regulation is not

composed of separable parts which meet

all the applicable requirements of the

CAA, EPA cannot grant partial approval

of the regulation under section

110(k)(3). However, EPA may grant a

conditional approval under section

110(k)(4) based on a commitment by the

SCAQMD to revise the regulation to

correct the identified deficiencies

within one year of the Notice of Final

Rulemaking of the conditional approval.

EPA is optimistic that the SCAQMD will

commit to adopt a regulation correcting

the deficiencies within the required

timeframe. The commitment letter must

contain a schedule of interim steps

(with dates) for the regulation. The State

of California must submit the

commitment letter to EPA. Therefore,

EPA is proposing to give conditional

approval to submitted Regulation XX

under section 110(k)(4) of the CAA.

Under section 110(k)(4), the

conditional approval shall be treated as

a disapproval of a rule if the SCAQMD

fails to adopt rules correcting the

deficiencies within the time allowed.

Under 179(a)(2), if the Administrator

disapproves a submission under section

110(k) for an area designated

nonattainment, based on the

submission’s failure to meet one or more

of the elements required by the CAA,

the Administrator must apply one of the

sanctions set forth in section 179(b)

unless the deficiency has been corrected

within 18 months of such disapproval.

Section 179(b) provides two sanctions

available to the Administrator: highway

funding and offsets. The 18 month

period referred to in section 179(a) will

begin on the effective date of EPA’s final

disapproval. Moreover, the final

disapproval triggers the federal

implementation plan (FIP) requirement

under section 110(c). It should be noted

that the regulation covered by this

NPRM has been adopted by the

SCAQMD and is currently in effect in

the SCAQMD.

In the event that SCAQMD is unable

to provide EPA with a commitment

which addresses all of the deficiencies

identified by EPA within 12 months of

the publication of this NPRM, then EPA

will publish a final rule which finalizes

a limited approval/limited disapproval

action on the NOX and SOX RECLAIM

program in lieu of publishing a final

rule which finalizes a conditional

approval action on the NOX and SOX

RECLAIM program. In the instance in

which SCAQMD fails to provide the

commitment within 12 months of the

publication of the NPRM, the limited

approval/limited disapproval would be

finalized based on the same deficiencies

noted elsewhere in this document and

the associated TSD. As noted above,

because of the noted deficiencies, EPA

cannot grant approval or partial

approval of this regulation under

section 110(k)(3) and part D. However,

EPA may grant a limited approval of the

submitted regulation under section

110(k)(3) in light of EPA’s authority

pursuant to section 301(a) to adopt

regulations necessary to further air

quality by strengthening the SIP. The

approval is limited because EPA’s

action also contains a simultaneous

limited disapproval. In the instance

where a commitment from SCAQMD is

not submitted within 12 months of the

publication of the NPRM, in order to

strengthen the SIP, EPA will finalize a

limited approval of SCAQMD’s

submitted Regulation XX under sections

110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the CAA.

At the same time, EPA will also

finalize a limited disapproval of this

regulation because it contains

deficiencies that have not been

corrected as required by section

182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, and, as such,

the regulation does not fully meet the

requirements of part D of the Act. As

noted above, if the identified

deficiencies are not corrected within 18

months of EPA’s final limited

disapproval, the sanctions described in

section 179 of the CAA will be applied.

It should be noted that the regulation

covered by this NPRM has been adopted

by the SCAQMD and is currently in

effect in the SCAQMD. EPA’s final

limited disapproval action in this NPRM

will not prevent the SCAQMD or the

EPA from enforcing this regulation.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any state

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the state implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 1995 / Proposed Rules 10823

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

Regulatory Process

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. Section 600 et seq., EPA must

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

Conditional approvals of SIP

submittals under sections 110 and 301

and subchapter I, Part D of the CAA 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, it

does not have a significant impact on

any small entities affected. Moreover,

due to the nature of the federal-state

relationship under the CAA, preparation

of a regulatory flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The CAA forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

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). This discussion applies in

the case where EPA finalizes a limited

approval/limited disapproval action as

well.

If the conditional approval is

converted to a disapproval under

section 110(k), based on the State’s

failure to meet the submitted

commitment, it will not affect any

existing state requirements applicable to

small entities. Federal disapproval of

the state submittal does not affect its

state-enforceability. Moreover, EPA’s

disapproval of the submittal does not

impose a new federal requirement.

Therefore, EPA certifies that this

disapproval action does not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities because it does

not remove existing state requirements

nor does it impose any new federal

requirements.

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this action from

review under Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Ozone, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements,

Volatile organic compounds, Nitrogen

dioxide.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: February 15, 1995.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–4891 Filed 2–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR PART 52

[IL97–1–6575; FRL–5158–6]

Clean Air Act Approval and

Promulgation of Employee Commute

Options Program; Illinois

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The USEPA is proposing to

approve the State Implementation Plan

(SIP) revision request submitted by the

State of Illinois on July 8, 1994, for the

purpose of establishing an Employee

Commute Options Program (ECO

Program) in the Chicago area, including

the counties of Cook, Lake, DuPage,

McHenry, Kane and Will and the

townships of Aux Sable and Gooselake

in Grundy County and Oswego in

Kendall County. The rationale for the

proposed approval is set forth below;

additional information is available at

the address indicated below.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

must be received on or before March 30,

1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be sent to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,

Regulation Development Section,

Regulation Development Branch, (AR–

18J) USEPA, Region 5, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604–

3590.

Copies of the ECO Program SIP

revision request and USEPA’s analysis

are available for inspection at the

following address: U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and

Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

(It is recommended that you telephone

Jessica Radolf at (312) 886–3198 before

visiting the Region 5 Office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jessica Radolf, Regulation Development

Section, Regulation Development

Branch, (AR–18J) USEPA, Region 5, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604–3590, (312) 886–3198.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Implementation of the section

182(d)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act, as

amended in 1990 (amended Act),

requires employers with 100 or more

employees in the counties of Cook,

Lake, Dupage, McHenry, Kane, and Will

and the townships of Aux Sable and

Gooselake in Grundy County and

Oswego in Kendall County to

participate in a trip reduction program.

The concerns that lead to the inclusion

of this Employee Commute Options

(ECO) provision in the amended Act are

that more people are driving and they

are driving longer distances. The

increase in the number of drivers and

the increase in the number of vehicle

miles traveled (VMT) currently offset a

large part of the emissions reductions

achieved through the production and

sale of vehicles that operate more

cleanly. It is widely accepted that

shortly after the year 2000, without

limits on increased travel, the increased

emissions caused by more vehicles

being driven more miles under more

congested conditions will outweigh the

fact that each new vehicle pollutes less,

resulting in an overall increase in

emissions from mobile sources. The

ECO provision outlines the

requirements for a program designed to

minimize the use of single occupancy

vehicles in commuting trips in order to

gain emissions reductions beyond what

can be and will be obtained through

stricter tailpipe and fuel standards.

Section 182(d)(1)(B) of the amended

Act requires that employers in severe

and extreme ozone and carbon

monoxide (CO) nonattainment areas

submit their compliance plans to the

State two years after the SIP is

submitted to USEPA. These compliance

plans developed by employers must be

designed to convincingly demonstrate

an increase in the average passenger

occupancy (APO) of vehicles used by

their employees who commute to work

during the peak period by no less than

25 percent above the average vehicle

occupancy (AVO) of the nonattainment

area. These compliance plans must

convincingly demonstrate that the

employers will meet the target no later

than 4 years after the SIP is submitted.

Where there are important differences in

terms of commute patterns, land use, or

AVO, the States may establish different

zones within the nonattainment area for

purposes of calculation of the AVO.

Section 110(k) of the amended Act

contains provisions governing USEPA’s

action on SIP submittals. The USEPA

can take one of three actions on ECO

Program SIP submittals. If the submittal

satisfactorily addresses all of the

required ECO Program elements, the

USEPA shall grant full approval. If the

submittal contains approvable

commitments to implement all required

ECO Program elements, but the State

does not yet have all of the necessary