Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 20139

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate.

Through submission of this state

implementation plan or plan revision,

the State and any affected local or tribal

governments have elected to adopt the

program provided for under Part D of

the Clean Air Act. These rules may bind

State, local, and tribal governments to

perform certain actions and also require

the private sector to perform certain

duties. The rules being approved by this

action will impose no new requirements

because affected sources are already

subject to these regulations under State

law. Therefore, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments or to

the private sector result from this action.

EPA has also determined that this

direct-final action does not include a

mandate that may result in estimated

costs of $100 million or more to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate or to the private sector.

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by a July 10,

1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from Executive Order

12866 review.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compounds.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the

State Implementation Plan for the State of

California was approved by the Director of

the Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated: April 18, 1996.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

Subpart F of 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 F—California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding paragraphs (c)(196)(i)(C)(2),

(215)(i)(A)(5), and (225)(i)(D) to read as

follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of Plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(196) * * *

(i) * * *

(C) * * *

(2) Rules 325 & 326, adopted on

January 25, 1994 and December 14,

1993, respectively.

* * * * *

(215) * * *

(i) * * *

(A) * * *

(5) Rule 1124, adopted January 13,

1995.

* * * * *

(225) * * *

(i) * * *

(D) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air

Pollution Control District.

(1) Rule 4602, adopted June 15, 1995.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 96–11205 Filed 5–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–W

40 CFR Part 52

[OH93–1–7290a; FRL–5467–3]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Ohio

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving the

Particulate Matter contingency measures

State implementation plan (SIP)

revisions submitted by the State of Ohio

on July 17, 1995. This submittal

addresses the Federal Clean Air Act

requirement to submit contingency

measures for particulate matter with an

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal

to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM) for

the areas designated as nonattainment

for the PM National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS). In Ohio,

Cuyahoga County and portions of

Jefferson County are designated as

nonattainment for PM. Contingency

measures are emission reductions which

are to be implemented, with no further

action, in the event that an area fails to

meet air quality standards. This

submittal would result in an emissions

reduction of 34 pounds of PM per hour

in Cuyahoga County, and 2.9 pounds of

PM per hour in Jefferson County if

implementation of the contingency

measures becomes necessary.

DATES: This action is effective on July 5,

1996, unless EPA receives adverse or

critical comments by June 5, 1996. If the

effective date is delayed, timely notice

will be published in the Federal

Register.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the revision

request 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 David Pohlman at (312)

886–3299 before visiting the Region 5

Office.)

Written comments should be sent to:

J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Regulation

Development Section, Air Programs

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Pohlman (312) 886–3299.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

In Ohio, Cuyahoga County and

portions of Jefferson County are

designated as nonattainment for PM and

classified as moderate under sections

107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a) of the Clean Air

Act. See 56 FR 56694 (Nov. 6, 1991); 40

CFR 81.336. The air quality planning

requirements for moderate PM

nonattainment areas are set out in

subparts 1 and 4 of part D, Title I of the

Clean Air Act. The EPA has issued a

‘‘General Preamble’’ describing EPA’s

preliminary views on how EPA intends

to review SIPs and SIP revisions

submitted under Title I of the Clean Air

Act, including those State submittals

containing moderate PM nonattainment

area SIP requirements (see generally 57

FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR

18070 (April 28, 1992)). Because EPA is

describing its interpretations here only

in broad terms, the reader should refer

to the General Preamble for a more

detailed discussion of the

interpretations of Title I advanced in

this action and the supporting rationale.

Those States containing initial

moderate PM nonattainment areas were

required to submit contingency

measures by November 15, 1993 (see 57

FR 13543). This contingency plan

supplements the attainment plan, and

must include measures that become

effective, without further action by the

State or EPA, upon a determination by

EPA that the area has failed to achieve

reasonable further progress (RFP) or to

attain the PM NAAQS by the applicable

statutory deadline. See section

172(c)(9)of the Clean Air Act and 57 FR

13510–13512 and 13543–13544.

II. Analysis of State Submittal

The Ohio Environmental Protection

Agency (OEPA) submitted a requested

SIP revision to the EPA with a letter

dated July 17, 1995. The submittal
20140 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

contained Findings and Orders for

facilities which identified reasonably

available PM emissions reductions as

contingency measures pursuant to Ohio

Administrative Code Rule 3745–17–14.

Specifically, Findings and Orders for

the following facilities were included:

Ford Motor Company, Cleveland

Casting Plant, T & B Foundry Company,

International Mill Service, Luria

Brothers, United Ready Mix.

A. Procedural Requirements

The Act requires States to observe

certain procedural requirements in

developing implementation plans and

plan revisions for submission to EPA.

Section 110(a)(2) of the Act provides

that each implementation plan

submitted by a State must be adopted

after reasonable notice and public

hearing. Section 110(l) of the Act

similarly provides that each revision to

an implementation plan submitted by a

State under the Act must be adopted by

such State after reasonable notice and

public hearing. Also section 172(c)(7) of

the Act requires that plan provisions for

nonattainment areas meet the applicable

provisions of section 110(a)(2).

The EPA also must determine

whether a submittal is complete and

therefore warrants further EPA review

and action (see Section 110(k)(1) and 57

FR 13565). The EPA’s completeness

criteria for SIP submittals are set out at

40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The EPA

attempts to make completeness

determinations within 60 days of

receiving a submission. However, a

submittal is deemed complete by

operation of law if a completeness

determination is not made by EPA six

months after receipt of the submission.

The State of Ohio, after providing

adequate notice, held a public hearing

on May 31, 1995, regarding the PM

contingency measures. Following the

public hearing, the final Findings and

Orders were signed by the Director of

the Ohio Environmental Protection

Agency (OEPA) on July 10, 1995.

The submittal was reviewed by EPA

to determine completeness in

accordance with the completeness

criteria set out at 40 CFR part 51,

appendix V. The submittal was found to

be complete and a letter dated July 20,

1995, was sent to the State indicating

the completeness of the submittals and

the next steps to be taken in the review

process.

B. Contingency Measures

The Clean Air Act requires States

containing PM nonattainment areas to

adopt contingency measures that will

take effect without further action by the

State or EPA upon a determination by

EPA that an area failed to make RFP or

to timely attain the applicable NAAQS,

as described in section 172(c)(9). See

generally 57 FR 13510–13512 and

13543–13544. Pursuant to section

172(b), the Administrator has

established a schedule providing that

states containing initial moderate PM

nonattainment areas shall submit SIP

revisions containing contingency

measures no later than November 15,

1993. (See 57 FR 13543, n. 3.)

The General Preamble further

explains that contingency measures for

PM should consist of other available

control measures, beyond those

necessary to meet the core moderate

area control requirements to implement

reasonably available control measures

and to assure attainment (see Clean Air

Act sections 172(c)(1), and 189(a)(1) (A)

and (C). Based on the statutory

structure, EPA believes that contingency

measures must, at a minimum, provide

for continued progress toward the

attainment goal during an interim

period between any prospective

determination that the SIP has failed to

achieve RFP or provide for timely

attainment of the NAAQS and the

additional formal air quality planning

following the determination (57 FR

13511). PM contingency measures are

also addressed in a memo from the

Acting Chief of the Sulfur Dioxide/

Particulate Matter Programs Branch, Air

Quality Management Division to the Air

Branch Chiefs of EPA Regions 1–10

dated August 20, 1991. This memo

suggests that PM contingency emissions

reductions for moderate nonattainment

areas should represent one year’s RFP.

For example, reductions equal to 25

percent of the total reduction in actual

emissions in the SIP control strategy

would be appropriate for a moderate

nonattainment area since the control

strategy must generally be implemented

within a 3 to 4-year period between SIP

development and the attainment date.

Section 172(c)(9) of the Act specifies

that contingency measures shall ‘‘take

effect * * * without further action by

the State, or the [EPA] Administrator.’’

EPA has interpreted this requirement (in

the General Preamble at 57 FR 13512) to

mean that no further rulemaking

activities by the State or EPA would be

needed to implement the contingency

measures. In general, EPA expects all

actions needed to effect full

implementation of the measures to

occur within 60 days after EPA notifies

the State of its failure to attain the

standard or make RFP.

The EPA recognizes that certain

actions, such as notification of sources,

modification of permits, etc., may be

needed before some measures could be

implemented. However, States must

show that their contingency measures

can be implemented with minimal

further administrative action on their

part and with no additional rulemaking

action such as public hearing or

legislative review.

Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Rule

3745–17–14 (approved by the EPA on

May 27, 1994, 59 FR 27464) requires

principal facilities in the PM

nonattainment areas to submit control

strategies and compliance schedules to

the OEPA which would reduce

particulate emissions by 15 and 25

percent. OAC Rule 3745–17–14 also

requires that the control strategies and

compliance schedules be approved by

the Director of the OEPA (as Findings

and Orders) and submitted to the EPA

as a revision to the Ohio PM SIP. The

rule further specifies that the

requirements of the Findings and Orders

are to be implemented by each facility

upon receipt of a formal determination

and notification by the OEPA or the

EPA that the area is not in compliance

with the NAAQS. Whether the 15

percent or the 25 percent control

strategy would be implemented will

depend on the severity of any actual

violations.

The OEPA received contingency plans

from the affected facilities and worked

with them to finalize those plans. The

OEPA found various situations with

respect to the availability of additional

particulate emission reductions to meet

the levels required in OAC Rule 3745–

17–14. Some of the affected facilities do

not have any significant reductions of

PM emissions available, while others

have some available reductions, but not

enough to meet the required levels in

OAC Rule 3745–17–14. Others have

sufficient reductions available to fully

meet the requirements. As a result, some

affected facilities are not being required

to commit to any contingency measure

reductions.

The facilities which fully satisfy Rule

3745–17–14, are the Ford Motor

Company’s Cleveland Casting Plant, and

the T & B Foundry Company. Ohio has

issued Final Findings and Orders which

incorporate the contingency plans for

these sources.

The facilities which have some

reductions available, but not enough to

fully meet the required levels in OAC

Rule 3745–17–14 are International Mill

Service, Luria Brothers, and United

Ready Mix (formerly Harval). Ohio has

issued Final Findings and Orders which

incorporate the contingency measures.

Ohio also submitted fact sheets for these

sources which explain why further

reductions are not available.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 20141

The facilities which have no

significant particulate emission

reductions that are reasonably available

are Granger Materials, Boyas Excavating,

Cuyahoga Foundry Company,

Drummond Dolomite (formerly

Cleveland Builders Supply),

Independence Excavating, Kenmore

Asphalt Products (formerly Lake Erie

Asphalt Products), Ohio Aluminum

Industries, Schloss Paving Company,

Standard Lafarge Company (formerly

Standard Slag Company), Stein,

Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation

(2 facilities: Mingo Junction and

Steubenville).

In addition, two facilities, Boyas

Excavating, and Satralloy, have shut

down. LTV Steel Company (East Side

and West Side) will have rule revisions

that require no actual emission

reductions. EPA guidance calls for

contingency measures only in

proportion to the actual reductions

obtained by the nonattainment area.

Because LTV has zero emissions

reductions associated with the initial

PM attainment plan, it was not required

to commit to any contingency measure

reductions.

While Ohio’s Rule 3745–17–14

requires contingency emission

reductions of the magnitude called for

by the EPA (25% of the actual

reductions in the SIP control plan), it

was found that some sources were not

able to reasonably obtain such

reductions. Ohio carefully analyzed the

facilities’ contingency plans to ensure

that all reasonably available measures

are included. The EPA agrees that Ohio

has obtained a sufficient level of

reductions to provide for a reasonable

level of continued progress toward the

attainment goal during an interim

period between any prospective

determination that the SIP has failed to

achieve RFP or provide for timely

attainment of the NAAQS and the

additional formal air quality planning

following the determination. Ohio’s PM

contingency plan is, therefore,

approvable by the EPA.

C. Enforceability

All measures and other elements in

the SIP must be enforceable by the State

and EPA (see Sections 172(c)(6),

110(a)(2)(A) and 57 FR 13556). The EPA

criteria addressing the enforceability of

SIPs and SIP revisions were stated in a

September 23, 1987 memorandum (with

attachments) from J. Craig Potter,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation, et al. (see 57 FR 13541). State

implementation plan provisions also

must contain a program to provide for

enforcement of control measures and

other elements in the SIP (see section

110(a)(2)(C)).

The Final Findings and Orders issued

by OEPA are clearly written, and are

legally enforceable by OEPA. The Final

Findings and Orders will be enforceable

by the EPA upon their approval as a SIP

revision. The EPA believes that the

State’s existing air enforcement program

will be adequate to enforce PM

contingency plans.

III. Final Action

The EPA approves Ohio’s PM

contingency measure rules, submitted

by OEPA on July 17, 1995. This

submittal addressed PM contingency

measure plans that were due on

November 15, 1993. The State’s PM

contingency measures are included in

Final Findings and Orders issued by the

OEPA. Previously approved OAC Rule

3745–17–14 requires that facilities

implement the contingency measures

upon receipt of a formal determination

and notification by the OEPA or the

EPA that the area is not in compliance

with the NAAQS.

The EPA is publishing this action

without prior proposal because EPA

views this action as a noncontroversial

revision and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, EPA is publishing

a separate document in this Federal

Register publication, which constitutes

a ‘‘proposed approval’’ of the requested

SIP revision and clarifies that the

rulemaking will not be deemed final if

timely adverse or critical comments are

filed. The ‘‘direct final’’ approval shall

be effective on July 5, 1996, unless EPA

receives adverse or critical comments by

June 5, 1996. If EPA receives comments

adverse to or critical of the approval

discussed above, EPA will withdraw

this approval before its effective date by

publishing a subsequent Federal

Register document which withdraws

this final action. All public comments

received will then be addressed in

subsequent rulemaking. Please be aware

that EPA will institute another comment

period on this action only if warranted

by significant revisions to the

rulemaking based on any comments

received in response to today’s action.

Any parties interested in commenting

on this action should do so at this time.

If no such comments are received, EPA

hereby advises the public that this

action will be effective on July 5, 1996.

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by a July 9, 1995,

memorandum from Mary D. Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. The Office of Management

and Budget has exempted this

regulatory action from Executive Order

12866 review.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting, allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. EPA

shall consider each request for revision

to the SIP in light of specific technical,

economic, and environmental factors

and in relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’) (signed

into law on March 22, 1995) requires

that the EPA prepare a budgetary impact

statement before promulgating a rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in expenditure by State,

local, and tribal governments, in

aggregate, or by the private sector, of

$100 million or more in any one year.

Section 203 requires the EPA to

establish a plan for obtaining input from

and informing, educating, and advising

any small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely affected by the

rule.

Under section 205 of the Unfunded

Mandates Act, the EPA must identify

and consider a reasonable number of

regulatory alternatives before

promulgating a rule for which a

budgetary impact statement must be

prepared. The EPA must select from

those alternatives the least costly, most

cost-effective, or least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule, unless the EPA explains why

this alternative is not selected or the

selection of this alternative is

inconsistent with law.

Because this final rule is estimated to

result in the expenditure by State, local,

and tribal governments or the private

sector of less than $100 million in any

one year, the EPA has not prepared a

budgetary impact statement or

specifically addressed the selection of

the least costly, most cost-effective, or

least burdensome alternative. Because

small governments will not be

significantly or uniquely affected by this

rule, the EPA is not required to develop

a plan with regard to small

governments. This rule only approves

the incorporation of existing state rules

into the SIP. It imposes no additional

requirements.

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
20142 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 88 / Monday, May 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act

do not create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP-approval does

not impose any new requirements, I

certify that it does not have a significant

impact on any small entities affected.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-State relationship under the

Act, preparation of a regulatory

flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of the State action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. EPA., 427

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

7410(a)(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by July 5, 1996.

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)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Particulate matter.

Dated: April 19, 1996.

Valdas V. Adamkus,

Regional Administrator.

For the reasons stated in the

preamble, 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 KK—Ohio

2. Section 52.1870 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(109) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1870 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(109) On July 17, 1995, Ohio

submitted a Particulate Matter (PM)

contingency measures State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

request. The submittal includes Final

Findings and Orders for 5 companies.

The Findings and Orders provide PM

emission reductions which will take

effect if an area fails to attain the

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

for PM.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

Director’s Final Findings and Orders

for Ford Motor Company (Cleveland

Casting Plant), T&B Foundry Company,

International Mill Service, Luria

Brothers, and United Ready Mix, issued

by the Ohio Environmental Protection

Agency on July 10, 1995.

[FR Doc. 96–11200 Filed 5–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[UT18–1–6778a; FRL–5468–8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans; Utah;

Emission Statement Regulation, Ozone

Nonattainment Area Designation,

Definitions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the revision

to the Utah State Implementation Plan

(SIP) that was submitted by the

Governor of Utah on November 12,

1993, for the purpose of implementing

an emission statement program for

stationary sources within the Salt Lake

and Davis Counties (SLDC) ozone

nonattainment area. The emission

statement inventory regulation, Utah Air

Conservation Regulation (UACR) R307–

1–3.5.4., was submitted by the State to

satisfy the Clean Air Act (CAA), as

amended in 1990, requirements for an

emission statement program to be part

of the SIP for Utah. EPA’s approval will

serve to make the emission statement

inventory regulation federally

enforceable. In addition, EPA is

approving other minor changes

involving definitions in UACR R307–1–

1. and the ozone nonattainment area

designation definition in UACR R307–

1–3.3.3.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule will be

effective July 5, 1996, unless adverse

comments are received in writing on or

before June 5, 1996. If the effective date

is delayed, timely notice will be

published in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to: Richard R. Long,

Director, Air Program (8P2–A), United

States Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite

500, Denver, Colorado 80202–2466.

Copies of the documents relevant to

this action are available for public

inspection between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00

p.m., Monday through Friday at the

following office: United States

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 8, Air Program, 999 18th Street,

Suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202–

2466.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim

Russ, Air Program (8P2–A), United

States Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite

500, Denver, Colorado 80202–2466,

Telephone number: (303) 312–6479.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

110(a)(2)(H)(i) of the CAA provides the

State the opportunity to update its SIP

as needed or to address new statutory

requirements. The State is utilizing this

authority of the CAA to include its

emission statement inventory regulation

as part of the SIP, to revise the ozone

nonattainment area designation

definition, and perform minor definition

changes.

I. Background

The air quality planning and SIP

requirements for ozone nonattainment

and transport areas are set out in

subparts I and II of Part D of Title I of

the CAA. EPA previously published a

‘‘General Preamble’’ describing EPA’s

preliminary views on how EPA intends

to review SIPs and SIP revisions

submitted under Title I of the CAA

(refer to 57 FR 13498, dated April 16,

1992, ‘‘General Preamble for the

Implementation of Title I of the Clean

Air Act Amendments of 1990; Proposed

Rule’’, 57 FR 18070, dated April 28,

1992, ‘‘General Preamble for the

Implementation of Title I of the Clean

Air Act Amendments of 1990;

Supplemental; Proposed Rule’’, and 57

FR 55620, dated November 25, 1992,

‘‘Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the

General Preamble for the

Implementation of Title I of the Clean

Air Act Amendments of 1990’’). EPA

also issued guidance describing the

requirements for emission statement

programs, as discussed in this action,

entitled ‘‘Guidance on the

Implementation of an Emission

Statement Program’’, dated July, 1992.

Section 182 of the CAA sets out a

graduated control program for ozone

nonattainment areas. Section 182(a)

describes requirements applicable to

Marginal nonattainment areas. These

requirements are also made applicable

to all other ozone nonattainment area