15270 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 56 / Thursday, March 23, 1995 / Proposed Rules

the maximum concentration area rather

than in the southwest. Priority was

given to placing new sites in the

northwest.

In 1993, APCD added two new sites

in the northwest—Enrel and South

Boulder Creek. No violations were

recorded at these two sites in 1993.

However, data in AIRS show one

exceedance at the South Boulder Creek

site in 1993. Three exceedances must

occur for there to be a violation.

These two new sites were retained

and studied in 1994. The APCD has

reported that no violations or

exceedances occurred at either of these

sites in 1994.

There are nine sites currently on the

Denver ozone ambient air monitoring

network, including the two new sites.

The Enrel and South Boulder Creek sites

continue to record higher values than

other sites on the network. The one

exceedance at the South Boulder Creek

site in 1993 and the continued higher

value readings at the same site and at

the Enrel site confirm study findings

that these sites are within the maximum

concentration area and should remain in

place.

Modifying the network to ensure

monitoring of maximum concentrations

is an EPA priority and is required by 40

CFR part 58. The EPA is working with

APCD to ensure that at least one

monitoring site is established in the

southwest area in 1995. In addition, the

APCD plans to conduct further study in

this southwest area during the 1995

summer ozone season to more

accurately identify where sites should

be placed.

Although there have been concerns

with the monitoring network, EPA

believes that many of the concerns have

been corrected and that any remaining

concerns are not significant enough to

deny the NOX waiver. As indicated

above, no violations have been recorded

by the network, even since installation

of the Enrel and South Boulder Creek

sites in 1993. In addition, the NOX

waiver policy published in the General

Preamble provides further protection by

providing for granting a NOX exemption

on a contingent basis as described in

section IV of this Federal Register

document. This allows EPA to revoke

the exemption if violations are recorded

at any monitoring sites.

IV. Approval of the NOX Exemption on

a Contingent Basis

According to the General Preamble,

approval of an exemption based solely

on ambient air quality monitoring data

shall be granted on a contingent basis,

i.e., the exemptions will last for only as

long as the area’s monitoring data

continue to demonstrate attainment. If

EPA subsequently determines that the

area has violated the ozone standard,

the exemption, as of the date of the

determination, will no longer apply. If

a violation of the ozone NAAQS is

monitored in the Denver Metropolitan

Area, EPA will provide notice in the

Federal Register. Existing transportation

plans and TIPs and past conformity

determinations will not be affected by a

determination that the NOX exemption

no longer applies, but new conformity

determinations would have to observe

the NOX requirements of the conformity

rule. The State must continue to operate

an appropriate ambient air quality

monitoring network, in accordance with

40 CFR Part 58, to verify the attainment

status of the area. The air quality data

relied on for the above determination

must be consistent with 40 CFR part 58

requirements and other relevant EPA

guidance, and recorded in EPA’s AIRS

national database.

The EPA NOX exemption guidelines,

published in the General Preamble, do

not require that a redesignation request

be submitted with a request for a NOX

transportation conformity exemption.

Conditional exemptions from the

transportation conformity NOX

requirements do not substitute for the

redesignation process.

The General Preamble stated that for

areas which are relying on monitoring

data for the exemption request, the

notice proposing approval of the

exemption request should provide

opportunity for comment on the

preliminary interpretations contained in

the General Preamble. It should also

offer opportunity for comment on the

appropriateness of using monitoring

data which are consistent with the

requirements in 40 CFR part 58 and are

recorded in AIRS as the basis of EPA’s

approval and rescission of the

contingent NOX exemption.

Accordingly, EPA requests comments

regarding these matters.

V. Impacts of Granting a NOX Waiver

for Denver Metropolitan Area

In ozone nonattainment areas

classified as transitional, such as the

Denver metropolitan area, the effect of

a NOX exemption is limited solely to the

issue of whether such areas may be

exempted from meeting the applicable

NOX requirements of the transportation

and general conformity rule.

EPA also stated in the General

Preamble that it plans to amend the

transportation conformity rule to require

that once an area’s maintenance plan is

approved, any previously approved

NOX conformity exemption no longer

applies. The area must then demonstrate

as part of its conformity determinations

that the transportation plan and TIP are

consistent with the motor vehicle

emissions budgets for NOX where such

a budget is established by the

maintenance plan. As currently written,

none of the transportation conformity

rule’s NOX requirements would ever

apply to an area once such an area had

received a NOX transportation

conformity exemption.

Regulatory Flexibility

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 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.

This proposal does not create any new

requirements. Therefore, I certify that it

does not have 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 OMB has exempted these actions

from review under Executive Order

12866.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on all aspects of this proposed

action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon Monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental

relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide,

Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements,

Volatile organic compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: March 10, 1995.

William P. Yellowtail,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–6926 Filed 3–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[OH45–1–5974b; FRL 5169–3]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Ohio

AGENCY: United States Environmental

Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 56 / Thursday, March 23, 1995 / Proposed Rules 15271

SUMMARY: The USEPA proposes to

approve the State Implementation Plan

(SIP) revision request submitted by the

State of Ohio for the purpose of

satisfying Clean Air Act requirements.

In the final rules section of this Federal

Register, the USEPA is approving the

State’s SIP revision request as a direct

final rule without prior proposal,

because the USEPA views this as a

noncontroversial revision amendment

and anticipates no adverse comments. A

detailed rationale for the action is set

forth in the direct final rule. If no

adverse comments are received in

response to that direct final rule, no

further activity is contemplated in

relation to this proposed rule. If the

USEPA receives adverse comments, the

direct final rule will be withdrawn, and

all public comments received will be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this proposed rule. The

USEPA will not institute a second

comment period on this notice. Any

parties interested in commenting on this

notice should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before April 24, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be mailed to: William L. MacDowell,

Chief, Regulation Development Section,

Air Enforcement Branch (AE–17J),

United States Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

Copies of the State submittal and the

USEPA’s analysis of it are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at: (It is recommended

that you telephone Bonnie Bush at (312)

353–6684, before visiting the Region 5

office.)

Regulation Development Section, Air

Enforcement Branch (AE–17J), United

States Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bonnie J. Bush, Air Enforcement

Branch, Regulation Development

Section (AE–17J), United States

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, Chicago, Illinois, 60604. (312)

353–6684.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For

additional information see the direct

final rule published in the rules section

of this Federal Register.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671(q).

Dated: February 23, 1995.

Robert Springer,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–7102 Filed 3–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[IL115–6791b; FRL–5166–2]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Illinois

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The United States

Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA) proposes to approve the State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

request submitted by the State of Illinois

on October 25, 1994, for the purpose of

lowering the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP)

of gasoline from 9.0 pounds per square

inch (psi) to 7.2 psi for the Metro-East

St. Louis (Metro-East) ozone

nonattainment area which includes

Madison, Monroe, and St. Clair

Counties. In the final rules section of

this Federal Register, the USEPA is

approving this action as a direct final

rule without prior proposal because

USEPA views this as a noncontroversial

action and anticipates no adverse

comments. A detailed rationale for the

approval is set forth in the direct final

rule. If no adverse comments are

received in response to that direct final

rule, no further activity is contemplated

in relation to this proposed rule. If

USEPA receives adverse comments, the

direct final rule will be withdrawn and

all public comments received will be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on the proposed rule. USEPA will

not institute a second comment period

on this action. Any parties interested in

commenting on this notice should do so

at this time.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

must be received on or before April 24,

1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be mailed to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,

Regulation Development Section,

Regulation Development Branch (AR18–

J), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

Copies of the State submittal and

USEPA’s analysis of it are available for

inspection at: Regulation Development

Section, Regulation Development

Branch (AR18–J), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois

60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Francisco Acevedo, Regulation

Development Section, Regulation

Development Branch (AR–18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6061.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For

additional information see the direct

final rule published in the rules section

of this Federal Register.

Dated: February 23, 1995.

Robert Springer,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–7101 Filed 3–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 32–3–6502; FRL–5177–6]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision; South

Coast Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited

approval and limited disapproval of

revisions to the California State

Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone.

These revisions concern the control of

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) from stationary

gas turbines. The intended effect of

proposing limited approval and limited

disapproval of this rule is to regulate

emissions of NOX 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 will incorporate

this rule into the Federally approved

SIP. EPA has evaluated this rule and is

proposing a simultaneous limited

approval and limited disapproval under

provisions of the CAA regarding EPA

actions on SIP submittals and general

rulemaking authority because these

revisions, while strengthening the SIP,

also do not fully meet the CAA

provisions regarding plan submissions

and requirements for nonattainment

areas.

DATES: Comments on this proposed

action must be received in writing on or

before April 24, 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 rule and EPA’s

evaluation report of the rule are

available for public inspection at EPA’s

Region IX office during normal business

hours. Copies of the submitted rule are

also available for inspection at the

following locations: