Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 19515

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

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

Regulatory Process

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA 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. It has been

determined that this action is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

the terms of Executive Order 12866, and

is therefore not subject to OMB review.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by May 19, 1995. Filing a

petition for reconsideration by the

Administrator of this rule does not

affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such a rule. This action may not be

challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. Section

307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compounds.

NOTE: Incorporation by reference of

the State Implementation Plan for the

State of Arizona was approved by the

Director of the Federal Register on July

1, 1982.

Dated: April 11, 1995.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart D—Arizona

2. Subpart D is amended by adding

§ 52.136 to read as follows:

§ 52.136 Control strategy for ozone:

Oxides of nitrogen.

EPA is approving an exemption

request submitted by the State of

Arizona on April 13, 1994 for the

Maricopa County ozone nonattainment

area from the NOX RACT requirements

contained in section 182(f) of the Clean

Air Act. This approval exempts the

Phoenix area from implementing the

NOX requirements for RACT, new

source review (NSR), and the applicable

general and transportation conformity

and inspection and maintenance (I/M)

requirements of the CAA. The

exemption is based on Urban Airshed

Modeling as lasts for only as long as the

area’s modeling continues to

demonstrate attainment without NOX

reductions from major stationary

sources.

[FR Doc. 95–9568 Filed 4–18–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–W

40 CFR Part 52

[TX–49–1–6831; FRL–5193–8]

Approval and Promulgation of

Temporary Section 182(f) Exemption to

the Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Control

Requirements for the Houston and

Beaumont Ozone Nonattainment

Areas; Texas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: In this action, the EPA is

approving a petition from the State of

Texas requesting that the Houston and

Beaumont ozone nonattainment areas be

temporarily exempted from NOX control

requirements of section 182(f) of the

Clean Air Act (CAA) as amended in

1990. The State of Texas bases its

request upon preliminary

photochemical grid modeling which

shows that reductions in NOX would be

detrimental to attaining the National

Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) for ozone in these areas. This

temporary exemption is being requested

under section 182(f) of the CAA.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective

as of April 12, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents

relevant to these actions are available

for public inspection during normal

business hours at the following

locations. The interested persons

wanting to examine these documents

should make an appointment with the

appropriate office at least 24 hours

before the visiting day.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 6, Air Programs Branch (6T–

A), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas

75202–2733

The Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC

20460

Texas Natural Resource Conservation

Commission, P.O. Box 13087, Austin,

Texas 78711–3087

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Leila Yim Surratt or Mr. Quang Nguyen,

Planning Section (6T–AP), Air Programs

Branch, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733,

telephone (214) 665–7214.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On August 17, 1994, the Texas

Natural Resource Conservation

Commission (TNRCC) submitted to the

EPA a petition pursuant to section

182(f) of the CAA which requests that

the Houston and Beaumont ozone

nonattainment areas be temporarily

exempted by the EPA from the NOX

control requirements of section 182(f).

The Houston nonattainment area

includes the cities of Houston and

Galveston, and consists of the following

eight counties: Brazoria, Chambers, Fort

Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty,

Montgomery, and Waller. The

Beaumont nonattainment area includes

the cities of Beaumont and Port Arthur,

and consists of the following three

counties: Hardin, Jefferson, and Orange.

The State bases its petition on an Urban

Airshed Modeling (UAM)

demonstration showing that NOX

reductions would not contribute to

attainment in either area because the

decrease in ozone concentrations

resulting from volatile organic

compound (VOC) reductions alone is

equal to or greater than the decrease

obtained from NOX reductions or a

combination of VOC and NOX

reductions.

As described in the State’s petition,

the TNRCC plans to complete additional

UAM modeling between November

1995 and May 1996 using the results of

an intensive 1993 field study, the

Coastal Oxidant Assessment for

Southeast Texas (COAST). The data

collected through the COAST study

consist of hourly point source

emissions, gridded typical summer day

on-road mobile source emissions,

hourly air quality data, and detailed

meteorological data for specific ozone

exceedance episodes in the HoustonBeaumont domain. Because it is the

most comprehensive data set available,

it should result in greater accuracy in

the modeling and therefore in the
19516 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

attainment control strategy. Since the

modeling is expected to be completed

by May 1996, the TNRCC is requesting

only a temporary NOX exemption until

May 31, 1997.

The TNRCC had previously adopted

and submitted to the EPA complete NOX

Reasonably Available Control

Technology (RACT) rules for the

Houston and Beaumont areas. The

TNRCC has also adopted and submitted

to the EPA New Source Review (NSR),

conformity, and vehicle inspection and

maintenance (I/M) rules, each of which

contain NOX provisions. The EPA’s

approval of the temporary NOX

exemption petition affects the federal

applicability and enforcement of the

State’s NOX RACT rule and the NOX

provisions contained in the State’s NSR,

conformity, and I/M rules.

On December 15, 1994, the EPA

proposed to approve the section 182(f)

petition for a temporary NOX exemption

for the Houston and Beaumont areas

(see 59 FR 64640). The proposed

rulemaking notice, the EPA’s Technical

Support Document (November 1994) on

the proposed action, and supplemental

information are contained in the docket

and provide a detailed discussion of the

TNRCC’s submittal, applicable guidance

and the EPA’s rationale for proposing

approval of the State’s petition. Rather

than repeating that entire discussion in

this document, that discussion is

incorporated by reference herein. Thus,

the public should review the notice of

proposed rulemaking for relevant

background on this final rulemaking

action.

II. Response to Comments

The EPA requested public comments

on all aspects of the proposed action to

approve the section 182(f) petition for a

temporary NOX exemption for the

Houston and Beaumont ozone

nonattainment areas. The EPA received

51 letters of support from individuals,

industry, local judges, the State

transportation authority, State and

Federal legislators, and local

governments.

Six adverse comment letters were

received from individuals,

environmental groups, and an

association of companies which supply

stationary source air pollution control

systems, equipment, and services. One

of the letters was submitted by three

environmental groups and contained

generic comments objecting to the EPA’s

general policy on section 182(f)

exemptions. The three environmental

groups who submitted the generic letter

requested that it be included in each

EPA rulemaking action for each section

182(f) petition.

Comment: Two letters of support

asked for clarification concerning when

the NOX requirements would take effect

if the COAST modeling results indicate

that some or all of the applicable NOX

control requirements would contribute

to attainment of the ozone NAAQS.

Response: In the FR notice proposing

to approve the temporary NOX

exemption for Houston and Beaumont

(see 59 FR 64640, December 15, 1994),

the EPA also proposed that upon the

expiration of the temporary exemption

on December 31, 1996, if the State had

not received a permanent NOX

exemption from the EPA prior to that

time, the NOX RACT, NSR, conformity

and I/M requirements would again

become applicable except that the NOX

RACT compliance date shall be as

expeditious as practicable but no later

than May 31, 1997. The EPA continues

to believe that the above stated

requirement is appropriate. Therefore,

through this rulemaking on the

temporary NOX exemption for the

Houston and Beaumont areas, the

following requirements would become

applicable on January 1, 1997, if the

Houston and Beaumont areas had not

received a permanent NOX exemption

prior to that time: (1) The State must

have adopted and submitted to the EPA

RACT, NSR, conformity, and I/M

regulations to control NOX emissions

(note that these provisions have already

been met by the TNRCC), (2) the State’s

NOX RACT regulation must require

subject sources to comply with the NOX

control requirements as expeditiously as

practicable but no later than May 31,

1997, (3) any NSR permits that had not

been deemed complete prior to January

1, 1997, must comply with the NOX

NSR requirements, consistent with the

policy set forth in the EPA’s NSR

Supplemental Guidance memo dated

September 3, 1992, from John S. Seitz,

Director, EPA’s Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, (4) any

conformity determination (for either a

new or revised transportation plan and

transportation improvement program

(TIP)) made on or after January 1, 1997,

must comply with the NOX conformity

requirements, and (5) any I/M vehicle

inspection made on or after January 1,

1997, must comply with the I/M NOX

requirements.

Comment: One commenter stated that

the temporary NOX waiver would expire

on May 15, 1997, and asked for

clarification on whether TIPs being

developed this year would be exempted

from the NOX conformity requirements.

Response: The EPA would like to

clarify that the NOX waiver does not

expire on May 15, 1997, as stated by the

commenter, but rather will expire on

December 31, 1996, as discussed in the

EPA’s proposed approval of the State’s

petition (see 59 FR 64643). Because the

State’s petition clearly indicates that the

attainment modeling should be

completed between November 1995 and

May 1996 (which will determine

whether a VOC, NOX, or combination

thereof, strategy is most beneficial for

attainment), the EPA believes that the

petition supports granting the State’s

request for a temporary exemption only

until the end of 1996. Any conformity

determination (for either a new or

revised transportation plan and TIP)

made after the effective date of the

EPA’s approval of this 182(f) petition for

Houston and Beaumont, and before the

expiration of the waiver on December

31, 1996, would be exempted from the

NOX conformity requirements. Any

conformity determination (for either a

new or revised transportation plan and

TIP) made on or after January 1, 1997,

must comply with the NOX conformity

requirements, unless the State had

received a permanent section 182(f)

NOX exemption prior to that time.

Comment: Several adverse comments

stated that an area must submit a

complete, approvable attainment State

Implementation Plan (SIP) before a NOX

waiver could be granted. Certain

comments continued by stating that

NOX exemptions are provided for in two

separate parts of the CAA, section

182(b)(1) and section 182(f). Because the

NOX exemption tests in subsections

182(b)(1) and 182(f)(1) include language

indicating that action on such requests

should take place ‘‘when [EPA]

approves a plan or plan revision,’’ these

commenters conclude that all NOX

exemption determinations by the EPA,

including exemption actions taken

under the petition process established

by subsection 182(f)(3), must occur

during consideration of an approvable

attainment or maintenance plan, unless

the area has been redesignated as

attainment. These commenters also

argue that even if the petition

procedures of subsection 182(f)(3) may

be used to relieve areas of certain NOX

requirements, exemptions from the NOX

conformity requirements must follow

the process provided in subsection

182(b)(1), since this is the only

provision explicitly referenced by

section 176(c), the CAA’s conformity

provisions.

Response: The TNRCC petitioned the

EPA for an exemption under section

182(f), as evidenced by the letter from

John Hall, Chairman of the TNRCC,

transmitting the petition to the EPA

(dated August 17, 1994) which states,

‘‘The TNRCC is submitting for your

review, pursuant to Section 182(f) of the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 19517

CAA, a petition requesting a temporary

exemption from NOX RACT * * * ’’ In

addition, on page 3 of the petition, the

State also referenced subsection

182(f)(3) concerning the procedure for

petitioning the Administrator.

Section 182(f) contains very few

details regarding the administrative

procedure for acting on NOX exemption

requests. The absence of specific

guidelines by Congress leaves the EPA

with discretion to establish reasonable

procedures, consistent with the

requirements of the Administrative

Procedure Act (APA).

The EPA disagrees with the

commenters regarding the process for

considering exemption requests under

section 182(f), and instead believes that

subsections 182(f)(1) and 182(f)(3)

provide independent procedures by

which the EPA may act on NOX

exemption requests. The language in

subsection 182(f)(1), which indicates

that the EPA should act on NOX

exemptions in conjunction with action

on a plan or plan revision, does not

appear in subsection 182(f)(3). And,

while subsection 182(f)(3) references

subsection 182(f)(1), the EPA believes

that this reference encompasses only the

substantive tests in paragraph (1) (and,

by extension, paragraph (2)), not the

procedural requirement that the EPA act

on exemptions only when acting on

SIPs. Additionally, paragraph (3)

provides that ‘‘person[s]’’ (which

section 302(e) of the CAA defines to

include States) may petition for NOX

exemptions ‘‘at any time,’’ and requires

the EPA to make its determination

within six months of the petition’s

submission. These key differences lead

the EPA to believe that Congress

intended the exemption petition process

of paragraph (3) to be distinct and more

expeditious than the longer plan

revision process intended under

paragraph (1).

With respect to major stationary

sources, section 182(f) requires States to

adopt NOX NSR and RACT rules, unless

exempted. These rules were generally

due to be submitted to the EPA by

November 15, 1992. Thus, in order to

avoid the CAA sanctions, areas seeking

a NOX exemption would need to submit

their exemption request for EPA review

and rulemaking action several months

before November 15, 1992. In contrast,

the CAA specifies that the attainment

demonstrations are not due until

November 1993 or 1994 (and the EPA

may take 12–18 months to approve or

disapprove the demonstration). For

marginal ozone nonattainment areas

(subject to NOX NSR), no attainment

demonstration is called for in the CAA.

For maintenance plans, the CAA does

not specify a deadline for submittal of

maintenance demonstrations. Clearly,

the CAA envisions the submittal of an

EPA action on exemption requests, in

some cases, prior to submittal of

attainment or maintenance

demonstrations.

The CAA requires conformity with

regard to federally-supported NOX

generating activities in relevant

nonattainment and maintenance areas.

However, the EPA’s conformity rules

explicitly provide that these NOX

requirements would not apply if the

EPA grants an exemption under section

182(f). In response to the comment that

section 182(b)(1) should be the

appropriate vehicle for dealing with

exemptions from the NOX requirements

of the conformity rule, the EPA notes

that this issue has previously been

raised in a formal petition for

reconsideration of the EPA’s final

transportation conformity rule and in

litigation pending before the U.S. Court

of Appeals for the District of Columbia

Circuit on the substance of both the

transportation and general conformity

rules. The issue, thus, is under

consideration within the EPA, but at

this time remains unresolved.

Additionally, subsection 182(f)(3)

requires that NOX exemption petition

determinations be made by the EPA

within six months. The EPA has stated

in previous guidance that it intends to

meet this statutory deadline as long as

doing so is consistent with the

Administrative Procedure Act. The EPA,

therefore, believes that until a resolution

of this issue is achieved, the applicable

rules governing this issue are those that

appear in the EPA’s final conformity

regulations, and the EPA remains bound

by their existing terms.

Comment: Several commenters felt

that the UAM computer model is not

sufficiently accurate to allow good

predictions of air quality. Some stated

that the modeling performed by the

TNRCC was inconclusive. One

commenter argued that focusing on

severe rather than more typical ozone

episodes may significantly distort the

findings. Another commenter stated that

TNRCC only modeled three episodes,

each with varying performance. Finally,

several commenters felt that the

emissions inventories were significantly

inaccurate so as to discredit the

modeling results.

Response: The EPA disagrees with the

comment that the UAM demonstration

conducted by the TNRCC was

insufficient to allow good predictions of

air quality. Due to the large number of

factors that influence ozone formation,

the EPA agrees that the UAM model

cannot precisely predict the exact

relationship between VOC, NOX, and

ozone. However, Congress clearly

intended that photochemical grid

modeling be used for air quality

planning purposes. As noted in the

EPA’s December 1993 guidance, UAM

results are acceptable for the purpose of

the section 182(f) demonstrations and

application of UAM should be

consistent with techniques specified in

the EPA’s ‘‘Guideline on Air Quality

Models (Revised).’’

The EPA disagrees with the comment

that the episodes analyzed by the

TNRCC may have distorted the findings.

The TNRCC followed the EPA’s

‘‘Guideline for Regulatory Application

of the Urban Airshed Model’’ in

selecting the episodes that were used in

the 182(f) demonstration. In accordance

with the EPA guidance, the State

selected episodes that were likely to

cover different sets of meteorological

conditions corresponding with high

ozone concentrations, not necessarily

the most severe ozone exceedance. The

EPA recommends that high ozone days

be analyzed to ensure that the control

strategy plan developed from the UAM

analysis will result in ozone attainment

under most meteorological conditions,

not just the average meteorological

condition. The selected multi-day

episodes used in the Houston and

Beaumont UAM analyses are

representative of the primary

meteorological conditions typically

found on high ozone days.

The EPA’s UAM guidance

recommends that a minimum of three

days from among all meteorological

regimes should be modeled (e.g., three

meteorological regimes each containing

one primary episode day, or two

meteorological regimes with at least two

primary days from one of those

regimes). The TNRCC’s analyses are

consistent with the EPA’s guidance in

that the two episodes that exhibited

satisfactory performance cover more

than three days of ozone exceedances

and represent several of the

predominant meteorological regimes for

ozone exceedances in the Gulf Coast.

(For further information, see the EPA’s

proposed approval notice for the

temporary NOX exemption for Houston

and Beaumont (59 FR 64640), and the

EPA’s Technical Support Document for

the proposed action.)

The EPA disagrees with the comment

that the emissions inventories were too

inaccurate to produce acceptable

modeling results. In accordance with

the EPA’s UAM guidance the State used

the 1990 emissions inventory for

Houston and Beaumont to developing

its modeling demonstration. The EPA

evaluated the State’s 1990 base year
19518 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

1 ‘‘Guideline for Determining the Applicability of

Nitrogen Oxide Requirements under Section

182(f),’’ from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards, to the Regional

Division Directors, December 16, 1993.

emissions inventories and a final

approval was published in the FR on

November 8, 1994 (see 59 FR 55588).

Comment: Several commenters stated

that the modeling required by the EPA

is insufficient to establish that NOX

reductions would not contribute to

attainment since only one level of NOX

control, i.e., ‘‘substantial’’ reductions, is

required to be analyzed. They argued

that larger NOX reductions are

realistically available, and that if Texas

had considered large enough reductions

in NOX emissions, the modeling would

have shown decreases in ozone. They

further explained that an area must

submit an approvable attainment plan

before the EPA can know whether NOX

reductions will aid or undermine

attainment.

Response: As described in the EPA’s

December 1993 NOX exemption

guidance,1 photochemical grid modeling

is generally needed to document cases

where NOX reductions are

counterproductive to net air quality, do

not contribute to attainment, do not

show a net ozone benefit, or include

excess reductions. The UAM or, in an

ozone transport region, the Regional

Oxidant Model (ROM) are acceptable

models for these purposes.

The EPA guidance also states that

application of UAM should be

consistent with techniques specified in

the EPA ‘‘Guideline on Air Quality

Models (Revised).’’ Further, application

of UAM should also be consistent with

procedures contained in the EPA

‘‘Guideline for Regulatory Application

of the Urban Airshed Model’’ (July

1991). Thus, episode selection for the

section 182(f) demonstration should be

consistent with the UAM guidance for

SIP attainment demonstrations.

The section 182(f) contribute to

attainment and net ozone benefit

demonstrations concern an unspecified

‘‘additional reductions’’ of NOX. The

EPA’s December 1993 guidance

specifies that the analysis should reflect

three scenarios of ‘‘substantial’’ NOX

and VOC emission reductions. The

guidance states that, in the first

scenario, the demonstration should use

the VOC reductions needed to attain

(demonstrated by EKMA or UAM

analyses). Alternatively, if the

attainment demonstration has not been

completed, the demonstration may use

some other substantial VOC reduction.

In any case, the VOC reductions should

be substantial and documented as

reasonable to expect for the area due to

the CAA requirements. In the second

scenario, NOX reductions should be

modeled without any VOC reductions

above the attainment year baseline. The

level of NOX reductions should reflect

the same percent reduction of

anthropogenic VOC emissions in

scenario (1) above. In the third scenario,

a similar level of NOX reductions would

be modeled along with the level of VOC

reductions chosen. That is, if a 40

percent VOC reduction is chosen in

scenario (1), then the model for scenario

(3) would simulate a 40 percent VOC

reduction and approximately a 40

percent NOX reduction. It would be

inappropriate to select a high level of

VOC reductions and a low level of NOX

reductions since this could artificially

favor a finding that NOX reductions are

not beneficial; thus, the scenarios are

constrained to avoid an inappropriate

analysis.

The EPA believes that these analyses

are appropriate to determine in a

directional manner whether or not NOX

reductions are expected to be beneficial

with respect to the air quality in the

area/region. These analyses described in

the EPA’s December 1993 guidance may

be less precise than an attainment

demonstration required under section

182(c). With respect to the excess

reductions provision in section

182(f)(2), however, the EPA believes

that more than a directional analysis is

needed (for reasons described in the

December 1993 guidance) and,

therefore, requires an analysis based on

the attainment demonstration.

Contrary to the statements of some of

the commenters, the State modeled

substantial NOX emission reductions

that are significantly greater than the

10–15 percent reductions cited by the

commenters as projected to result from

NOX RACT. In the 1999 projected

domain-wide (i.e., Houston and

Beaumont) NOX emissions inventory

used in the State’s section 182(f)

demonstration, point source emissions

comprise 66 percent of the total NOX

inventory. The State modeled a 50

percent total reduction of NOX (which

would represent a 76 percent reduction

in the point source NOX inventory)

along with a 50 percent reduction of

VOC and 50 percent reduction of both

VOC and NOX. Clearly, the TNRCC’s

section 182(f) modeling demonstration

reflects substantial NOX reductions in

addition to substantial VOC reductions.

Comment: Three groups provided a

generic comment on all section 182(f)

actions that three years of ‘‘clean’’ data

fail to demonstrate that NOX reductions

would not contribute to attainment.

Response: The EPA does not believe

that this comment is applicable to the

Houston and Beaumont actions because

neither area has based its section 182(f)

petition on ‘‘clean’’ air monitoring data.

Comment: Several commenters stated

that the EPA’s December 1993 guidance

prohibits granting a section 182(f)

waiver based on three years of clean

data if evidence exists showing that the

waiver would interfere with attainment

or maintenance in downwind areas.

They argued that the condition should

also apply to waiver requests based on

modeling. The commenters felt that a

NOX exemption in Houston and

Beaumont would likely exacerbate

ozone formation downwind in other

nonattainment areas (e.g., Dallas) or

near nonattainment areas (e.g., Austin,

San Antonio, Corpus Christi, and

Longview-Tyler-Marshall).

Response: As a result of the

comments, the EPA reevaluated its

position on this issue and has revised

the previously issued guidance. As

described below, the EPA intends to use

its authority under section 110(a)(2)(D)

to require a State to reduce NOX

emissions from stationary and/or mobile

sources where there is evidence, such as

photochemical grid modeling, showing

that NOX emissions would contribute

significantly to nonattainment in, or

interfere with maintenance by, any

other State. This action would be

independent of any action taken by the

EPA on a NOX exemption request for

stationary sources under section 182(f).

That is, EPA action to grant or deny a

NOX exemption request under section

182(f) would not shield that area from

EPA action to require NOX emission

reductions, if necessary, under section

110(a)(2)(D).

Modeling analyses are underway in

many areas for the purpose of

demonstrating attainment in the 1994

SIP revisions. Recent modeling data

suggest that certain ozone

nonattainment areas may benefit from

reductions in NOX emissions far

upwind of the nonattainment area. For

example, the northeast corridor and the

Lake Michigan areas are considering

attainment strategies which rely in part

on NOX emission reductions hundreds

of kilometers upwind. The EPA is

working with the States and other

organizations to design and complete

studies which consider upwind sources

and quantify their impacts. As the

studies progress, the EPA will continue

to work with the States and other

organizations to develop mutually

acceptable attainment strategies.

At the same time as these large scale

modeling analyses are being conducted,

certain nonattainment areas in the

modeling domain have requested

exemptions from NOX requirements
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 19519

2There are 3 NOX exemption tests specified in

section 182(f). Of these, 2 are applicable for areas

outside an ozone transport region; the ‘‘contribute

to attainment’’ test described above, and the ‘‘net

air quality benefits’’ test. EPA must determine,

under the latter test, that the net benefits to air

quality in an area ‘‘are greater in the absence of NOX

reductions’’ from relevant sources. Based on the

plain language of section 182(f), EPA believes that

each test provides an independent basis for

receiving a full or limited NOX exemption.

Consequently, as stated in section 1.4 of the

December 16, 1993 EPA guidance, ‘‘[w]here any one

of the tests is met (even if another test is failed),

the section 182(f) NOX requirements would not

apply or, under the excess reductions provision, a

portion of these requirements would not apply.’’

3 ‘‘Criteria and Procedures for Determining

Conformity to State or Federal Implementation

Plans of Transportation Plans, Programs, and

Projects Funded or Approved under Title 23 U.S.C.

of the Federal Transit Act,’’ November 24, 1993 (58

FR 62188).

4 ‘‘Determining Conformity of General Federal

Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans;

Final Rule,’’ November 30, 1993 (58 FR 63214).

under section 182(f). Some areas

requesting an exemption may be

upwind of and impact upon downwind

nonattainment areas. The EPA intends

to address the transport issue through

section 110(a)(2)(D) based on a domainwide modeling analysis.

Under section 182(f) of the CAA, an

exemption from the NOX requirements

may be granted for nonattainment areas

outside an ozone transport region if the

EPA determines that ‘‘additional

reductions of [NOX] would not

contribute to attainment of the national

ambient air quality standard for ozone

in the area.’’ 2 As described in section

4.3 of the December 1993 guidance

document, the EPA believes that the

term ‘‘area’’ means the ‘‘nonattainment

area’’ and that the EPA’s determination

is limited to consideration of the effects

in a single nonattainment area due to

NOX emissions reductions from sources

in the same nonattainment area.

Section 4.3 of the guidance goes on to

encourage, but not require, States/

petitioners to include consideration of

the entire modeling domain, since the

effects of an attainment strategy may

extend beyond the designated

nonattainment area. Specifically, the

guidance encourages States to ‘‘consider

imposition of the NOX requirements if

needed to avoid adverse impacts in

downwind areas, either intra- or interState. States need to consider such

impacts since they are ultimately

responsible for achieving attainment in

all portions of their State (see generally

section 110) and for ensuring that

emissions originating in their State do

not contribute significantly to

nonattainment in, or interfere with

maintenance by, any other State [see

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)].’’

In contrast, section 4.4 of the

guidance states that the section 182(f)

demonstration would not be approved if

there is evidence, such as

photochemical grid modeling, showing

that the NOX exemption would interfere

with attainment or maintenance in

downwind areas. The guidance goes on

to explain that section 110(a)(2)(D) (not

section 182(f)) prohibits such impacts.

Consistent with the guidance in

section 4.3, the EPA believes that the

section 110(a)(2)(D) and 182(f)

provisions must be considered

independently and hence is

withdrawing the guidance presently

contained in section 4.4. Thus, if there

is evidence that NOX emissions in an

upwind area would interfere with

attainment or maintenance in a

downwind area, that action should be

separately addressed by the State(s) or,

if necessary, by the EPA in a section

110(a)(2)(D) action. In addition, a

section 182(f) exemption request should

be independently considered by the

EPA. In some cases, then, the EPA may

grant an exemption from across-theboard NOX RACT controls under section

182(f) and, in a separate action, require

NOX controls from stationary and/or

mobile sources under section

110(a)(2)(D). It should be noted that the

controls required under section

110(a)(2)(D) may be more or less

stringent than RACT, depending upon

the circumstances.

Comment: Several comments were

received regarding exemption of areas

from the NOX requirements of the

conformity rules. They argue that such

exemptions waive only the

requirements of section 182(b)(1) to

contribute to specific annual reductions,

not the requirement that conformity

SIPs contain information showing the

maximum amount of motor vehicle NOX

emissions allowed under the

transportation conformity rules and,

similarly, the maximum allowable

amounts of any such NOX emissions

under the general conformity rules. The

commenters admit that, in prior

guidance, the EPA has acknowledged

the need to amend a drafting error in the

existing transportation conformity rules

to ensure consistency with motor

vehicle emissions budgets for NOX, but

want the EPA in actions on NOX

exemptions to explicitly affirm this

obligation and to also avoid granting

waivers until a budget controlling future

NOX increases is in place.

Response: The EPA’s conformity

rules 3,4 provide a NOX waiver if an area

receives a section 182(f) exemption. In

its ‘‘Conformity; General Preamble for

Exemption From Nitrogen Oxides

Provisions,’’ 59 FR 31238, 31241 (June

17, 1994), the EPA reiterated its view

that in order to conform nonattainment

and maintenance areas must

demonstrate that the transportation plan

and TIP are consistent with the motor

vehicle emissions budget for NOX even

where a conformity NOX waiver has

been granted. Due to a drafting error,

that view is not reflected in the current

transportation conformity rules. As the

commenters correctly note, the EPA

states in the June 17 notice that it

intends to remedy the problem by

amending the conformity rule. Although

that notice specifically mentions only

requiring consistency with the approved

maintenance plan’s NOX motor vehicle

emissions budget, the EPA also intends

to require consistency with the

attainment demonstration’s NOX motor

vehicle emissions budget. However, the

exemptions were submitted pursuant to

section 182(f)(3), and the EPA does not

believe it is appropriate to delay the

statutory deadline for acting on these

petitions until the conformity rule is

amended. As noted earlier in response

to a previous issue raised by these

commenters, this issue has also been

raised in a formal petition for

reconsideration of the Agency’s final

transportation conformity rule and in

litigation pending before the U.S. Court

of Appeals for the District of Columbia

Circuit on the substance of both the

transportation and general conformity

rules. This issue, thus, is under

consideration within the Agency, but at

this time remains unresolved. The EPA,

therefore, believes that until a resolution

of this issue is achieved, the applicable

rules governing this issue are those that

appear in the Agency’s final conformity

regulations, and the Agency remains

bound by their existing terms.

Comment: One group commented that

the CAA does not authorize any waiver

of the NOX reduction requirements until

conclusive evidence exists that such

reductions are counter-productive.

Response: The EPA does not agree

with this comment since it ignores

Congressional intent as evidenced by

the plain language of section 182(f), the

structure of the Title I ozone subpart as

a whole, and relevant legislative history.

By contrast, in developing and

implementing its NOX exemption

policies, the EPA has sought an

approach that reasonably accords with

that intent. Section 182(f), in addition to

imposing control requirements on major

stationary sources of NOX similar to

those that apply for such sources of

VOC, also provides for an exemption (or

limitation) from application of these

requirements if, under one of several

tests, the EPA determines that in certain
19520 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

areas NOX reductions would generally

not be beneficial. In subsection

182(f)(1), Congress explicitly

conditioned action on NOX exemptions

on the results of an ozone precursor

study required under section 185B.

Because of the possibility that reducing

NOX in a particular area may either not

contribute to ozone attainment or may

cause the ozone problem to worsen,

Congress included attenuating language,

not just in section 182(f) but throughout

the Title I ozone subpart, to avoid

requiring NOX reductions where it

would be nonbeneficial or

counterproductive. In describing these

various ozone provisions (including

section 182(f)), the House Conference

Committee Report states in pertinent

part: ‘‘[T]he Committee included a

separate NOX/VOC study provision in

section [185B] to serve as the basis for

the various findings contemplated in the

NOX provisions. The Committee does

not intend NOX reduction for

reduction’s sake, but rather as a measure

scaled to the value of NOX reductions

for achieving attainment in the

particular ozone nonattainment area.’’

H.R. Rep. No. 490, 101st Cong., 2d Sess.

257–258 (1990). As noted in response to

an earlier comment by these same

commenters, the command in

subsection 182(f)(1) that the EPA ‘‘shall

consider’’ the 185B report taken together

with the time frame the Act provides

both for completion of the report and for

acting on NOX exemption petitions

clearly demonstrate that Congress

believed the information in the

completed section 185B report would

provide a sufficient basis for the EPA to

act on NOX exemption requests, even

absent the additional information that

would be included in affected areas’

attainment or maintenance

demonstrations. However, while there is

no specific requirement in the Act that

EPA actions granting NOX exemption

requests must await ‘‘conclusive

evidence’’, as the commenters argue,

there is also nothing in the Act to

prevent the EPA from revisiting an

approved NOX exemption if warranted

due to better ambient information.

In addition, the EPA believes (as

described in the EPA’s December 1993

guidance) that section 182(f)(1) of the

CAA provides that the new NOX

requirements shall not apply (or may be

limited to the extent necessary to avoid

excess reductions) if the Administrator

determines that any one of the following

tests is met:

(1) In any area, the net air quality

benefits are greater in the absence of

NOX reductions from the sources

concerned;

(2) In nonattainment areas not within

an ozone transport region, additional

NOX reductions would not contribute to

ozone attainment in the area; or

(3) In nonattainment areas within an

ozone transport region, additional NOX

reductions would not produce net ozone

air quality benefits in the transport

region.

Based on the plain language of section

182(f), the EPA believes that each test

provides an independent basis for

receiving a full or limited NOX

exemption.

Only the first test listed above is

based on a showing that NOX reductions

are ‘‘counter-productive.’’ If one of the

tests is met (even if another test is

failed), the section 182(f) NOX

requirements would not apply or, under

the excess reductions provision, a

portion of these requirements would not

apply.

Comment: Two commenters stated

that the health and environmental

benefits of decreasing NOX as well as

the likelihood of concomitant reduction

in other criteria pollutants (e.g., CO, SO2

and particulates), provide other reasons

to control NOX, independent of their

impact on ozone formation. One

commenter listed various negative

health and environmental impacts of

NOX and stated that although Houston

does not exceed the NAAQS for

nitrogen dioxide (NO2), current ambient

levels are believed to be unsafe. In

addition, the federal standard, 53 parts

per billion (ppb) annual average, is

meaningless without a short-term

standard.

Response: The EPA agrees that high

NOX emissions can contribute to air

pollution problems independent of their

role in ozone formation; however, the

EPA disagrees that the NOX controls

required under section 182(f) of the

CAA should be implemented in the

Houston or Beaumont area regardless of

their impact on ozone. Ambient

concentrations of NO2 in Houston and

Beaumont are significantly below the

federal NAAQS for NO2 (in 1993, the

annual average NO2 concentration was

24 ppb in Houston and 10 ppb in

Beaumont, as compared with the federal

standard of 53 ppb). Therefore, based on

current federal standards, the EPA does

not believe the NO2 levels in Houston or

Beaumont are unsafe.

The EPA is mandated to periodically

re-evaluate the NAAQS for each criteria

pollutant based on the best information

available. The EPA is currently

reviewing the NO2 standard and will

evaluate concerns over the standard

through a separate rulemaking process.

As part of that effort, in October 1994,

the EPA issued a draft paper for public

review and comment entitled, ‘‘Review

of National Ambient Air Quality

Standards for Nitrogen Dioxide,

Assessment of Scientific and Technical

Information, OAQPS Staff Paper,’’

concerning the NO2 standard, and

expects to propose rulemaking action in

late 1995. If the EPA finds, based on its

review, that the NO2 standard should be

revised, then at that time the Agency

will implement NOX control

requirements in areas that become

nonattainment for NO2 under the

revised standard.

In addition, as discussed in an earlier

response, section 182(f)(1)(A)

specifically provides for an exemption

in cases where NOX emission reductions

would not contribute to attainment of

the NAAQS for ozone in the area. The

TNRCC has demonstrated for the

relevant time period in its petition and

in the EPA’s proposed action that the

NOX reductions required by section

182(f) would not contribute to attaining

the ozone NAAQS in either area.

Finally, for the purposes of reducing

acid rain deposition, certain NOX

sources will still be required to reduce

NOX emissions under Title IV of the

CAA. For these reasons, the EPA does

not believe that the NOX controls

required under section 182(f) of the

CAA should be implemented in the

Houston or Beaumont areas regardless

of their impact on ozone.

Comment: One commenter stated that

Houston is not at risk of over controlling

emissions, and that it is important to

front end load emission reductions now

so that control strategies would have

time to work.

Response: The TNRCC petition for a

temporary NOX exemption relies not on

an excess emission reduction test, but

on modeling which indicates that NOX

reductions would be detrimental to

attaining the ozone standard. The EPA

agrees that where NOX reductions

would be beneficial to attaining the

ozone standard, they should be pursued

expeditiously; however, for Houston

and Beaumont, the State’s modeling

demonstration shows that NOX

reductions will not contribute to

attainment of the ozone NAAQS. As

discussed in a previous response,

Congress clearly understood that in

certain areas, NOX reductions may not

be beneficial, and for this reason,

included a provision to exempt such

areas from NOX control requirements.

Comment: One commenter argued

that regardless of the impact NOX

controls might have in the Houston area,

NOX controls should be required in the

Beaumont nonattainment area, since

point source emissions are a significant
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 19521

source of NOX in that area and large

NOX reductions would guarantee ozone

reductions.

Response: The EPA disagrees with

this comment. As discussed in the

EPA’s proposed approval notice for the

temporary NOX exemption for Houston

and Beaumont (see 59 FR 64640), and

the EPA’s Technical Support Document

for the proposed action, the TNRCC

modeled substantial reductions of VOC,

NOX and both VOC and NOX in

Beaumont and showed that ozone levels

were lowest under the VOC-only

reduction scenario. The State’s petition

therefore demonstrates that NOX

reductions would not be beneficial to

attainment of the ozone standard in the

Beaumont area.

Comment: One commenter stated that

there is no congestion management plan

as required by federal transportation law

and that the EPA has allowed the State

to illegally wait two additional years

before submitting a plan.

Response: The EPA disagrees with

this comment for two reasons. First, it

does not accurately reflect the current

status of the transportation congestion

management plan (which is a program

implemented under the Intermodal

Surface Transporation Efficiency Act

(ISTEA) by the U.S. Department of

Transportation (DOT)) in the Houston

and Beaumont areas. Contrary to the

commenter’s statement, it is the EPA’s

understanding that a congestion

management plan for Houston and

Beaumont was submitted in accordance

with the DOT regulatory requirements

specified in title 23 of the Code of

Federal Regulations in § 500.509 (see 58

FR 63442, December 1, 1993).

Second, the EPA’s approval of the

NOX exemption petition does not

adversely impact the requirements and

implementation of the transportation

congestion management plan required

by the DOT. The EPA supports this

program and believes that it will, at a

minimum, identify the congestion

problems in the area and will lead to

development of a traffic management

plan which would have positive air

quality benefits for the area. This

program is being implemented by the

DOT (which is a separate Federal

agency from the EPA) under authority of

the ISTEA. Contrary to the commenter’s

statement, the EPA’s action on the NOX

exemption petition will not result in a

two year delay in the submission of the

transportation congestion management

plan.

Comment: Two commenters requested

that the EPA consider extending the

section 182(f) NOX exemption and the

NOX RACT compliance deadlines past

the EPA’s proposed deadlines of

December 31, 1996 and May 31, 1997,

respectively. One commenter stated that

the EPA’s revised ozone attainment

planning policy points to the possible

extension of modeling completion

deadlines into 1997.

Response: The EPA believes that it is

appropriate to maintain the NOX

exemption period and the RACT

compliance deadline as originally

proposed by the EPA. The State of Texas

has not requested that the exemption

period or compliance dates be extended,

nor did it make such a request during

the public comment period for the

EPA’s proposed approval of the State’s

section 182(f) petition. In addition, the

EPA has not received from the State any

request that the COAST modeling

schedule described in the State’s

petition has been delayed or would

need to be modified. The EPA therefore

believes that the rationale (as explained

in the notice of proposed rulemaking

(see 59 FR 64643)), for the December 31,

1996, and May 31, 1997, dates

concerning the exemption period and

the RACT compliance deadline,

respectively, is still valid, and is

independent of the EPA’s revised ozone

attainment planning policy. Should the

EPA subsequently receive a revised

section 182(f) petition for the Houston

and Beaumont areas, we will evaluate it

at that time for consistency with the

CAA and the EPA’s guidance on section

182(f) exemptions.

III. Effective Date

This rulemaking is effective as of

April 12, 1995. The Administrative

Procedure Act (APA) 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1),

permits the effective date of a

substantive rule to be less than thirty

days after publication of the rule if the

rule ‘‘relieves a restriction.’’ Since the

approval of the section 182(f)

exemptions for the Houston and

Beaumont areas is a substantive rule

that relieves the restrictions associated

with the CAA title I requirements to

control NOX emissions, the NOX

exemption approval may be made

effective upon signature by the EPA

Administrator.

IV. Final Action

The EPA is taking final action to

approve the section 182(f) petition

submitted by the State of Texas

requesting a temporary NOX exemption

for the Houston and Beaumont ozone

nonattainment areas. The temporary

exemption automatically expires on

December 31, 1996, without further

notice from the EPA. Approval of the

temporary exemption waives the federal

requirements for NOX RACT, NSR,

conformity, and I/M for the period of

the temporary exemption.

The State had previously adopted and

submitted to the EPA complete NOX

RACT, NSR, conformity, and I/M rules.

During the temporary exemption, the

EPA will not act upon the State’s NOX

RACT rules. The EPA plans to act upon

the State’s NOX NSR and conformity

provisions in separate rulemaking

actions because those provisions are

contained in broader rules that also

control VOC emissions; however, during

the period of the temporary exemption,

the State’s NOX NSR and conformity

requirements are not federally

applicable. The EPA previously

approved the State’s I/M rules (see 59

FR 43046, August 22, 1994).

Upon the expiration of the temporary

exemption, (1) the requirements

pertaining to NOX RACT, NSR,

conformity, and I/M will again become

applicable, except that the NOX RACT

implementation date applicable to the

Houston and Beaumont nonattainment

areas under section 182(f) shall be as

expeditious as practicable but no later

than May 31, 1997, unless (2) the State

has received a permanent NOX

exemption from the EPA prior to that

time. The EPA will begin rulemaking

action on the State’s NOX RACT SIP

upon the expiration of the temporary

exemption if the State has not received

a permanent NOX exemption by that

time.

Regulatory Process

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., the 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, the EPA may

certify that the rule will not have a

significant economic 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.

Approvals of NOX exemption

petitions under section 182(f) of the

CAA do not create any new

requirements. Therefore, because the

Federal approval of the petition does

not impose any new requirements, the

EPA certifies that it does not have a

significant impact on affected small

entities. 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 the EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds

(Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427
19522 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

U.S. 246, 256–66 (S. Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2)).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the appropriate circuit by

June 19, 1995. Filing a petition for

reconsideration by the Administrator of

this final rule does not affect the finality

of this rule for the purposes of judicial

review nor does it extend the time

within which a petition for judicial

review may be filed, and shall not

postpone the effectiveness of such rule

or action. This action may not be

challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this action from review

under Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic

compounds.

Dated: April 12, 1995.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart SS—Texas

2. Section 52.2308 is amended by

adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:

§ 52.2308 Area-wide nitrogen oxides (NOX)

exemptions.

* * * * *

(d) The TNRCC submitted to the EPA

on August 17, 1994, with supplemental

information submitted on August 31,

1994, and September 9, 1994, a petition

requesting that the Houston and

Beaumont ozone nonattainment areas be

temporarily exempted from the NOX

control requirements of section 182(f) of

the CAA. The Houston nonattainment

area consists of Brazoria, Chambers, Fort

Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty,

Montgomery, and Waller counties. The

Beaumont nonattainment area consists

of Hardin, Jefferson, and Orange

counties. The exemption request was

based on photochemical grid modeling

which shows that reductions in NOX

would not contribute to attaining the

ozone NAAQS. On April 12, 1995, the

EPA approved the State’s request for a

temporary exemption. Approval of the

temporary exemption waives the federal

requirements for NOX Reasonably

Available Control Technology (RACT),

New Source Review (NSR), conformity,

and vehicle inspection and maintenance

(I/M) for the period of the temporary

exemption. The temporary exemption

automatically expires on December 31,

1996, without further notice from the

EPA. Based on the rationale provided in

the notice of proposed rulemaking on

this action, upon the expiration of the

temporary exemption, the requirements

pertaining to NOX RACT, NSR,

conformity, and I/M will again become

applicable, except that the NOX RACT

implementation date applicable to the

Houston and Beaumont nonattainment

areas under section 182(f) shall be as

expeditious as practicable but no later

than May 31, 1997, unless the State has

received a permanent NOX exemption

from the EPA prior to that time.

[FR Doc. 95–9567 Filed 4–18–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 144–4–6973b; FRL–5194–6]

California State Implementation Plan

Revision Interim Final Determination

that State has Corrected Deficiencies

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Interim final determination.

SUMMARY: Elsewhere in today’s Federal

Register, EPA has published a notice of

proposed rulemaking fully approving

revisions to the California State

Implementation Plan. The revisions

include a rule from the South Coast Air

Quality Management District

(SCAQMD): SCAQMD Rule 1153,

Commercial Bakery Ovens. Based on the

proposed full approval, EPA is making

an interim final determination by this

action that the State has corrected the

deficiency for which sanctions clocks

were activated on September 29, 1993.

This action will defer the application of

the offset sanctions and defer the

application of the highway sanctions.

Although the interim final action is

effective upon publication, EPA will

take comment. If no comments are

received on EPA’s proposed approval of

the State’s submittal, EPA will finalize

its determination that the State has

corrected the deficiency that started the

sanctions clocks by publishing a final

action in the Federal Register. If

comments are received on EPA’s

proposed approval and this interim final

action, EPA will publish a final action

taking into consideration any comments

received.

DATES: Effective Date: April 19, 1995.

Comments: Comments must be

received by May 19, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent

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.

The State submittal and EPA’s

analysis for that submittal, which are

the basis for this action, are available for

public review at the above address and

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:

Christine Vineyard, Rulemaking Section

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

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105. Telephone: (415)

744–1197.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On May 13, 1991, the State submitted

SCAQMD Rule 1153, Commercial

Bakery Ovens, which EPA disapproved

in part on September 29, 1993. 58 FR

50850. EPA’s disapproval action started

an 18-month clock for the imposition of

one sanction (followed by a second

sanction 6 months later) and a 24-month

clock for promulgation of a Federal

Implementation Plan (FIP). The State

subsequently submitted a revised rule

on February 24, 1995. The revised rule

was adopted by the SCAQMD on

January 13, 1995. In the Proposed Rules

section of today’s Federal Register, EPA

has proposed full approval of the State

of California’s submittal of SCAQMD

Rule 1153, Commercial Bakery Ovens.

Based on the proposed approval set

forth in today’s Federal Register, EPA

believes that it is more likely than not

that the State has corrected the original

disapproval deficiency. Therefore, EPA

is taking this interim final rulemaking

action, effective on publication, finding

that the State has corrected the

deficiency. However, EPA is also

providing the public with an

opportunity to comment on this final

action. If, based on any comments on

this action and any comments on EPA’s

proposed full approval of the State’s

submittal, EPA determines that the

State’s submittal is not fully approvable