Federal Highway Funding Assistance Limitations and Emissions Offset Requirements; Illinois

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IL83-1-6155; FRL-4826-3]

Federal Highway Funding Assistance Limitations and Emissions

Offset Requirements; Illinois

AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is proposing

this action to impose sanctions on Illinois under the discretionary

authority provided to the Agency under the Clean Air Act, as amended in

1990, (CAA or Act) for failure by the State to meet its commitment to

adopt a basic and enhanced motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/

M) program as required by the Act for certain ozone nonattainment

areas. On November 11, 1992, the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency (IEPA), acting as the governor's designee, submitted a

commitment to adopt (Committal SIP) an I/M program to meet the

requirements of the Act and the I/M rule by November 15, 1993. The

committal SIP provides for the adoption and implementation of a basic

and enhanced I/M program meeting all requirements of US EPA's I/M

regulations and includes an implementation schedule. On December 2,

1993, US EPA proposed to disapprove this SIP revision based on the

failure by the State to meet milestones contained in the committal

SIP's implementation schedule pertaining to the enactment of necessary

legislative authority. A full SIP revision including State legislative

authority to implement the program was required by November 15, 1993.

The Illinois General Assembly adjourned on November 4, 1993, for the

second time this year without taking necessary action to provide for

implementation of the basic and enhanced I/M programs.

On December 30, 1993, EPA Region 5 issued a letter finding that the

State had failed to submit the SIP revision required under sections 110

and 182 of the Act. Due to the failure of the State to submit a

complete SIP revision fulfilling either the requirements of the Act and

its commitment to adopt and implement the required I/M programs as

promised in its committal SIP, USEPA proposes to exercise its

discretionary authority under the Act to apply a statewide highway

funding limitation sanction and a 2 for 1 growth offset sanction in all

areas required to have a permit program under the new source review

provision of the Act.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action are to be submitted by March

15, 1994. The USEPA will hold two public hearings on March 2 and 4,

1994.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed rule should be addressed to: J.

Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Regulation Development Section, Regulation

Development Branch (5AR-18J), United States Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

The hearings will be held in Illinois as follows: March 2, 1994 in

Chicago, at the Harold Washington Library on 400 S. State Street in the

multipurpose room at 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.; and March 4, 1994 in

Collinsville, at the Holiday Inn on 1000 Eastport Plaza Drive at 10

a.m. to 4 p.m.

Copies of Illinois' I/M Committal SIP submittal, USEPA's proposals

and rulemakings, and other documents pertinent to this proposed rule

are available at the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, Regulation Development

Branch, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francisco J. Acevedo, Environmental

Engineer, Regulation Development Section, Regulation Development Branch

(5AR-18J), United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6061. Anyone

wishing to come to Region 5 offices should first contact Francisco J.

Acevedo.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. I/M Program requirements

Pursuant to the 1977 amendments to the Act, vehicle I/M programs

were mandated for certain areas with long standing air quality

problems. The 1990 amendments to the Act expanded the role of I/M

programs as an attainment strategy and required USEPA to develop

different performance standards for ``basic'' and ``enhanced'' I/M

programs. The performance standard is the minimum amount of emission

reductions a program must achieve, based on a model or benchmark

program design. In addition, the amended Act directed USEPA to address

requirements for specific design elements and program implementation

issues for both basic and enhanced I/M programs. The amended Act

requires states containing nonattainment areas to make changes to

improve existing I/M programs or implement new ones. Section

182(a)(2)(B) of the Act directed USEPA to publish updated guidance for

state I/M programs, taking into consideration findings of the

Administrator's audits and investigations of these programs. The Act

further requires each area required by the Act to have an I/M program

to incorporate this guidance into the SIP. Based on these requirements,

USEPA promulgated an I/M regulation on November 5, 1992. (57 FR 52950)

Under section 182(c)(3) of the Act, areas designated as serious or

worse ozone nonattainment areas with 1980 populations of 200,000 or

more, in addition to metropolitan statistical areas with populations of

100,000 or more in the northeast ozone transport region, are required

to meet USEPA requirements for ``enhanced'' I/M programs. These areas

were required to submit a SIP revision to incorporate an I/M program by

November 15, 1992. In Illinois, the State must implement I/M programs

in the urbanized areas of the Chicago and East St. Louis ozone

nonattainment areas.

The I/M regulation establishes minimum performance standards for

basic and enhanced I/M programs as well as requirements for the

following: Network type and program evaluation; adequate tools and

resources; test frequency and convenience; vehicle coverage; test

procedures and standards; test equipment; quality control; waivers and

compliance via diagnostic inspection; motorist compliance enforcement;

motorist compliance enforcement program oversight; quality assurance;

enforcement against contractors, stations and inspectors; data

collection; data analysis and reporting; inspector training and

licensing or certification; public information and consumer protection;

improving repair effectiveness; compliance with recall notices; on-road

testing; SIP revisions; and implementation deadlines.

For enhanced I/M programs, all requirements must be implemented by

January 1, 1995 except that areas switching from an existing test-and-

repair network to a test-only network may phase in that change between

January 1995 and January 1996.

Each state required to implement an I/M program was required to

submit by November 15, 1992, a SIP revision (here and after referred to

as the ``I/M committal SIP'') including two elements: (1) A commitment

from the Governor or his/her designee to the timely adoption and

implementation of an I/M program meeting all the requirements of the I/

M regulation; and (2) a schedule for adoption of the program, with

interim milestones including passage of enabling statutory or other

legal authority and adoption of final regulations. Acceptance of I/M

committal SIPs in lieu of full SIPs was justified by the fact that

states could not have been expected to begin development of an I/M

program meeting the requirements of the Act and the I/M regulation

until the I/M regulation was adopted as a final rule, which did not

occur until November 5, 1992. A complete SIP revision which contained

all of the elements identified in the adoption schedule, including the

authorizing legislation and implementing regulations, was to be

submitted no later than November 15, 1993.

On November 11, 1992, the State of Illinois submitted a committal

SIP to USEPA. A public hearing on this submittal was held by the State

on October 27, 1992, in Springfield, Illinois. The submittal included a

schedule of implementation and a commitment to the timely adoption and

implementation of an I/M program in the Chicago and East St. Louis

ozone nonattainment areas meeting all the requirements of the I/M

regulation and the amended Act by November 15, 1993.

On July 13, 1993, the Illinois General Assembly adjourned without

taking the necessary action to enable Illinois to adopt and implement

the I/M provisions mandated by the amended Act and the final I/M rule

in Chicago and East St. Louis ozone nonattainment areas. Failure to

provide such authority prevented the State from submitting a complete

SIP revision containing all the required elements of the program by

November 15, 1993. On September 28, 1993, USEPA sent a letter to

Illinois Governor Edgar advising him that USEPA had decided to exercise

its discretionary authority under section 110(m) of the Act to impose

sanctions at any time once a finding of SIP deficiency is made if

necessary legislation was not adopted during the October 1993 veto

session of the Illinois General Assembly. The Illinois General Assembly

reconvened on October 12, 1993, for the fall veto session. During this

session which adjourned November 4, 1993, the legislature failed for

the second time to enact the legislation needed to implement the

required I/M program meeting the requirements of the Act in the State

of Illinois. After review of the committal SIP, USEPA proposed to

disapprove the commitment on December 2, 1993 (58 FR 63547), based on

the failure by the State to meet interim and final milestones in the

schedule contained in the SIP submittal pertaining to the enactment of

necessary authority to implement I/M requirements during the 1993

Illinois General Legislative session. On November 15, 1993, the State

of Illinois failed to meet its commitment to USEPA by failing to submit

a full SIP revision for I/M program implementation.

Beyond being a specific mandate of the Act, I/M programs play an

important role in the ability of the Chicago and East St. Louis ozone

nonattainment areas to comply with the requirements of the Act for

achieving the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone,

as well as the Act's requirements for reasonable further progress (RFP)

reductions for ozone. The Act provides that each state in which all or

part of certain classifications for ozone nonattainment areas are

located is required to provide an attainment demonstration showing that

its SIP, as revised, will provide for attainment of the ozone NAAQS by

the applicable attainment date(s). The Act further requires that each

state in which all or part of a serious, severe, or extreme ozone

nonattainment area is located shall submit SIP revisions that will

reduce VOC emissions by November 15, 1996 by at least 15% of the 1990

baseline emissions. If the reductions identified in the SIP revisions

are less than 15% of baseline emissions, the State may obtain a waiver

under section 182(b)(1)(A)(ii); this requires the State to make several

demonstrations, including one that the plan reflecting the lesser

amount includes all measures that can feasibly be implemented in the

area in light of technological achievability. The Chicago and East St.

Louis ozone nonattainment areas in Illinois will have difficulty

meeting the applicable RFP requirements because credit for certain pre-

1990 CAA programs, such as the federal motor vehicle control program

and basic I/M is not allowed. The additional benefits resulting from

implementing an I/M program that meets the requirements of the final

November 5, 1992, I/M regulation, however, are fully creditable towards

meeting the RFP requirement. An I/M program is one of the most powerful

tools available to areas in terms of providing expeditious reductions

in both VOC and NOx, both of which are precursors of ozone.

Finally, a federally approvable basic and enhanced I/M program

represents one of the most cost-effective air quality control

strategies available. Without an effective I/M program, attainment of

the ozone air quality standard is virtually impossible, and without

appropriate enabling legislation, an I/M program meeting final USEPA I/

M regulations cannot be implemented.

II. Sanctions Under the Clean Air Act

This sanction action is being proposed under USEPA's discretionary

authority contained in section 110(m) of the Act. The predicate

findings and types of sanctions are in section 179. The two sanctions

available to USEPA for application under section 110(m), as provided in

section 179(b), are: (1) A prohibition on the funding of certain

highway projects; and (2) an increase in the emission offset

requirement for new and modified major stationary sources. The highway

funding sanction prohibits the approval by the Secretary of

Transportation of any projects or the awarding by the Secretary of any

grants, under Title 23 of the U.S. Code, other than projects or grants

for safety and certain other categories of projects listed in section

179(b)(1). The offset sanction requires that, when states apply the

emission offset requirement of section 173 to new or modified sources,

the ratio of emission reductions to increased emissions must be at

least 2 to 1.

Section 179(a) of the Act sets forth the findings1 which

provide USEPA with discretion under section 110(m) to impose one or

both of the sanctions specified under section 179(b). The four findings

are: (1) A state has failed, for a nonattainment area, to submit a SIP

or an element of the SIP, or that the SIP or SIP element submitted

fails to meet the completeness criteria of section 110(k); (2) USEPA

disapproves a SIP submission for a nonattainment area based on the

submission's failure to meet one or more plan elements required by the

Act; (3) a state has not made any other submission required by the Act

or has made a submission that does not meet the completeness criteria

or has made a required submission that is disapproved by USEPA for not

meeting the Act's requirements; or (4) a requirement of an approved

plan is not being implemented.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\Section 179(a) refers to Agency findings, disapprovals, and

determinations. These will all be referred to by the one term

``findings.''

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under section 179(a), unless the state corrects the deficiency, one

of the two sanctions listed in section 179(b) must be imposed 18 months

after a finding is made, and the second must be imposed 6 months after

the first sanction is imposed, if the deficiency remains

uncorrected.2 In addition, USEPA may apply both sanctions after 18

months if the Administrator finds a lack of good faith on the part of

the state.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\On October 1, 1993, U.S. EPA proposed a rule governing the

order in which the sanctions shall apply under section 179 of the

Act. 58 FR 51270. The rule proposes that the offset sanction apply

first and the highway funding sanction apply second. According to

the proposed rule, U.S. EPA may change this sequence of sanctions

through individual notice-and-comment rulemaking. This proposed

sequencing applies only to mandatory sanctions that apply under

section 179(a) and does not govern sanctions imposed under section

110(m).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although section 179(a) establishes mandatory deadlines for the

application of sanctions at certain points after a finding of

deficiency, section 110(m) provides USEPA with the discretion to impose

section 179(b) sanctions at any time (or at any time after) a section

179(a) finding. Likewise, although mandatory sanctions under section

179 are limited to the area with the deficiency, section 110(m)

authorizes USEPA to apply discretionary sanctions to any portion of the

state that USEPA deems reasonable and appropriate to ensure that the

requirements of the Act are met. See 57 FR 44534, 44536-44537. However,

the Act requires USEPA to establish by rule criteria to ensure that

such sanctions are not applied on a statewide basis where one or more

political subdivisions covered by the applicable implementation plan

are principally responsible for the deficiency.

On September 28, 1992, USEPA proposed criteria under section 110(m)

that it would use when proposing statewide sanctions to determine if

one or more political subdivisions is principally responsible for a SIP

deficiency. 57 FR 44534. These proposed criteria are discussed later in

this notice. With regard to Illinois, USEPA is using its discretionary

authority under section 110(m) to propose early sanctions3 based

on Illinois' failure to submit a complete I/M program. USEPA is taking

this action for two reasons: (1) Congress required timely submittal of

I/M programs as a measure central to allowing the State's metropolitan

areas to meet CAA deadlines and any legislative delay threatens the

State's ability to meet those deadlines, and (2) enhanced I/M is the

single most effective air pollution control measure available. Delayed

legislative approval of an acceptable I/M program places a

disproportionate burden for cleaning the air on the State's major

industrial sources.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\U.S. EPA issued a letter on December 30, 1993, finding that

the state's failed to submit a SIP revision as required by the Act.

Mandatory sanctions under section 179(a) were triggered by issuance

of the letter notifying the state of the finding of the deficiency.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed Sanctions

A. Finding Under Section 179(a)

As stated previously, on December 30, 1993, USEPA Region 5 issued a

letter notifying the State of its failure to submit a complete SIP

revision on November 15, 1993, as required by the Act. USEPA's letter

constitutes a finding under section 179(a) that triggers EPA's

discretionary authority to impose the sanctions proposed in this notice

under section 110(m). Further, on December 2, 1993, USEPA proposed to

disapprove the I/M committal SIP containing Illinois' commitment to

adopt and submit both basic and enhanced I/M programs meeting the

requirements of the Act and USEPA's I/M regulation by November 15,

1993. Illinois has now failed to adopt and submit such programs.

If sufficient progress has not been made by Illinois toward the

implementation of an approvable I/M program to be operational on or

before January 1, 1995, EPA hereby announces its intention to impose

sanctions on May 15, 1994.

B. Rationale and Approach for Section 110(m) Sanctions

Section 110(m) of the Act allows USEPA to apply the Federal highway

funding assistance limitations and the 2:1 emission offset sanction at

any time (or at any time after) it makes a finding under section

179(a). Based on its finding dated December 30, 1993, USEPA is

proposing to impose both the Federal highway funding assistance

limitations and 2:1 emission offset sanctions. USEPA believes that the

imposition of both sanctions is appropriate because of Illinois'

failure to submit a complete SIP revision to enhance its existing

vehicle I/M program. In the absence of improved vehicle I/M, the

ability of the State's metropolitan areas to meet the CAA deadlines for

attaining healthy air quality is severely compromised. As previously

noted, I/M programs are the single most effective air pollution control

measures available and delayed legislative approval of an acceptable

program further burdens major industrial sources of air pollution with

responsibility for cleaning the air.

Under section 110(m), USEPA may apply sanctions to any portion of

the state it determines is reasonable and appropriate. During the 24

months following the finding, USEPA may not impose the sanctions

statewide if one or more political subdivisions within the state is

principally responsible for the deficiency that is the basis for

sanctions. USEPA has proposed criteria for determining when a political

subdivision is principally responsible (57 FR 44534, September 28,

1992). The criteria provide that a political subdivision is principally

responsible if: (1) It has the legal authority to perform the required

activity; (2) it has traditionally performed, or has been delegated the

responsibility to perform, the required activity; (3) it has received,

where appropriate, adequate funding, or authority to obtain funding,

from the state to perform the required activity; (4) it has agreed to

perform (and has not revoked the agreement), or is required by state

law to accept responsibility for performing, the required activity; and

(5) it has failed to perform the required activity. A ``political

subdivision'' is defined as the representative body that is responsible

for adopting and/or implementing air pollution controls for any

combination of political subdivisions created by, or pursuant to,

Federal or State law. If no political subdivision meets all 5 criteria,

USEPA may use its discretion to determine whether it is reasonable and

appropriate to apply sanctions on a statewide basis.

In this notice, USEPA is proposing to use the above proposed

criteria to determine if it may impose sanctions statewide for Illinois

because of the failure to comply with the I/M committal SIP revision

adopting an I/M program. USEPA believes that the first criterion has

not been met by any political subdivision. Only the Illinois General

Assembly, composed of representatives from all portions of the State of

Illinois, has the authority to revise the state statute to provide for

a basic and enhanced I/M program meeting the CAA and USEPA

requirements. Once the legislature has acted, only state government

agencies can adopt any implementing regulations. While individual air

pollution control districts or air quality management districts may

request implementation of the state I/M program within their districts

once that program is adopted, this authority is meaningless unless the

State has first established an appropriate program through legislation

and regulations. Since the State legislature has not enacted the

legislation required to provide the legal authority for an I/M program

meeting the CAA and USEPA requirements an I/M program meeting such

requirements is not available to areas within the State that require

the program.

Since no political subdivision within the State has met the first

criterion, USEPA believes that no political subdivision is principally

responsible for the failure to have an I/M program that meets final

USEPA regulations. Therefore, USEPA is not prohibited from imposing

sanctions statewide. As noted above, the State legislature bears the

ultimate responsibility to adopt the requisite legislative authority

and IEPA, not the individual air quality districts, must subsequently

adopt adequate regulations. Since the State does bear the ultimate

responsibility, USEPA believes that it is reasonable and appropriate

for USEPA to impose the highway sanction on the entire State.

The 2:1 offset sanction requirements apply only to new or modified

major stationary sources located in or to be located in areas that are

required to have a permit program pursuant to section 173. Thus, USEPA

is proposing to impose the 2:1 emission offset sanction only in those

areas in which it will have an effect, i.e., the following ozone

nonattainment counties: Cook, Lake, Kane, DuPage, Will, McHenry,

Madison, Monroe, St. Clair, Grundy (Aux Sable and Gooselake Townships

only), and Kendall (Oswego Township only). The 2:1 emission offset

would apply to all new or modified major stationary sources of VOC and

NOx that are locating to or located in each of these areas. USEPA

proposes to impose the offset sanctions in the manner described in the

proposed action on the sequencing of sanctions (58 FR 51270, 51275-

51277 (October 1, 1993)).

C. Removal of Discretionary Sanctions

USEPA is proposing to temporarily lift (i.e., toll)4 the

highway and offset sanctions imposed under section 110(m) upon the

passage by the Illinois General Assembly and signature by the Governor

of legislation which USEPA preliminary determines provides legal

authority for a basic and enhanced I/M program meeting the requirements

of the CAA and the I/M regulations. USEPA proposes to notify the State

of this tolling by a letter to the Governor and the public by a notice

published in the notice section of the Federal Register. The section

110(m) sanctions would not be completely lifted until the State submits

a complete enhanced I/M program. USEPA will take action to completely

lift section 110(m) sanctions upon a determination that the State has

submitted a complete enhanced I/M program.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ As a general rule, an Agency must go through rulemaking to

remove or alter a requirement imposed through rulemaking. While

USEPA intends to issue a notice tolling the 110(m) sanctions upon

the occurrence of the events described, USEPA will use the good

cause exception to the otherwise applicable requirement for proposed

rulemaking. EPA believes there is good cause to toll the sanctions

once the state takes the action which cures the deficiency that

resulted in imposition of sanctions. See 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(b)(B).

Therefore, no proposed action for removal will be issued. Consistent

with USEPA's intent to impose discretionary sanctions only on those

areas that lack legislative authority, USEPA believes that it is in

the public interest to remove, at least temporarily, these

discretionary sanctions as expeditiously as possible once the State

of Illinois has enacted legislative authority.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As an alternative, if EPA takes final action disapproving

Illinois's committal SIP prior to taking final action imposing

sanctions, EPA proposes that such disapproval be the basis for imposing

the discretionary sanctions. In such case, the sanctions would be

tolled in the same manner; however, if the disapproval is the final

basis for imposing the sanctions such sanctions would not be completely

lifted until EPA formally approves an enhanced I/M program for the

State of Illinois. In such a case, EPA would take action to lift the

sanctions at the same time as EPA took final action approving the

State's I/M program.

USEPA's action imposing or tolling the section 110(m) sanctions

will in no manner affect USEPA's obligation to impose mandatory

sanctions under section 179(a) where one mandatory sanction shall apply

18 months after USEPA's finding of failure to submit a complete SIP and

the second mandatory sanction shall apply 6 months later. Sanctions

under section 179(a) apply to the areas for which the deficiency

exists. If the State does not adopt and submit to USEPA a complete

submittal providing for an I/M program within the 18-month and

additional 6-month periods, the sanctions will automatically apply on

those areas of the State that were required to have but do not have

such a complete I/M program under the amended Act. See 58 FR 51270

(October 1, 1993). Moreover, if EPA takes final action disapproving

Illinois's I/M committal SIP, a second sanctions clock will be

triggered and Illinois must not only submit an I/M program, but EPA

must also approve that program within the relevant time frames to stop

the mandatory sanctions clock and avoid sanctions based on the final

disapproval.

IV. Regulatory Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the

Agency 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. The Order defines

``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a

rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or

adversely effect in a material way the economy, a sector of the

economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public

health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an

action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,

user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients

thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in

the Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been

determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action.''

Nevertheless, after reviewing information regarding this action, OMB

has waived review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA

must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of

any proposed or final rule on small entities. Alternatively, USEPA may

certify that the rule will not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of less than 50,000.

The USEPA cannot reliably predict the impact of these restrictions

because of the exemptions authorized for certain highway projects

related to mass transit, public safety, and those that have beneficial

air quality impacts. Careful review and evaluation of each project is

necessary to determine whether or not a project is exempt.

If USEPA takes final action on this proposal, the 2:1 emission

offset requirement will apply to major new sources and major

modifications to existing sources of VOC and NOx, in the Illinois

ozone areas subject to the section 173 offset requirement.

Major stationary sources of VOC and NOx with emissions are

generally not small entities. Also, the 2:1 emission offset requirement

does not prevent growth and modification but sets a higher offset

standard than the current offset required. It is not expected that a

large number of small entities will be affected by the emission offset

requirement. In the past, when USEPA has made efforts to quantify the

impact of the Act's rules on the construction and modification of

sources, USEPA has been unable to do so due, in part, to the need to

obtain information on future plans for business growth. This

information is difficult to obtain, as businesses are understandably

reluctant to make their plans public.

The USEPA is also proposing to impose Federal highway funding

assistance limitations statewide. This limitation could affect a number

of government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than

50,000 since government entities often apply for and receive federal

funding under Title 23, United States Code, for road improvement

projects. Although a great many projects are exempted under section

179(b)(1)(B), a number of projects are expected to be affected if the

USEPA takes final action. For the reasons stated above, USEPA cannot

further analyze the economic impacts of this action on small entities.

The statements in this package constitute USEPA's full regulatory

Flexibility analysis.

C. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

This rule does not contain any information collection requirements

which require OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.). Should the highway sanctions become effective, the

Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) is required

to determine which projects or grants should not be affected by the

sanction and which, therefore, are exempt. This determination will be

based on information readily available in existing documentation

gathered for the purpose of evaluating the environmental, social, and

economic impacts of different alternatives for transportation projects.

These analyses are already required for the preparation of

environmental assessments and impact statements under the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Historically, exemption determinations

by USDOT for sanctions have been based on such NEPA documentation and

have not necessitated additional information gathering and analysis by

the states. In addition, since under NEPA, final environmental

documents must be approved by USDOT, in most cases the NEPA

documentation will already be in USDOT's possession. Therefore, USEPA

does not believe that the highway sanctions, when applied, will impose

an additional information collection burden on the states.

When the offset sanction applies, sources subject to it will not

incur an additional information collection burden because sources are

already required under section 173 offset requirements to obtain an

emission offset from between 1 to 1 and 1.5 to 1 (depending on the

classification of the nonattainment area in which they are located).

Should the offset sanction apply, it would not impose an additional

information collection burden because sources will not have to provide

additional information in the application beyond that which they would

already have to provide in the absence of the sanction. (For the

information collection burden of new requirements of the amended Act

for nonattainment new source review and prevention of significant

deterioration, an information collection request is being prepared to

support rulemaking changes to parts 51 and 52.)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Motor vehicle pollution, Nitrogen oxide, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: January 7, 1994.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

40 CFR part 52 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart A--[Amended]

2. Section 52.32, as proposed to be added in a document published

elsewhere in this Federal Register, is amended by adding entries for

the State of Illinois in the tables in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (c)(2)

to read as follows:

Sec. 52.32 Discretionary sanction under section 110(m) of the Clean

Air Act.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(1) * * *

(i) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date

Affected area sanction Pollutant(s)

applies affected

------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****

State of Illinois:

Cook........................................ ......... VOC, NOX

DuPage...................................... ......... VOC, NOX

Grundy

--Aux Sable Township...................... ......... VOC, NOX

--Gooselake Township...................... ......... VOC, NOX

Kane........................................ ......... VOC, NOX

Kendal

--Oswego Township......................... ......... VOC, NOX

Lake........................................ ......... VOC, NOX

Madison..................................... ......... VOC, NOX

McHenry..................................... ......... VOC, NOX

Monroe...................................... ......... VOC, NOX

St. Clair................................... ......... VOC, NOX

Will........................................ ......... VOC, NOX

------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

(2) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Affected area Date sanction applies

------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * *

State of Illinois

------------------------------------------------------------------------

...............................

------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 94-1129 Filed 1-21-94; 10:00 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P