Federal Highway Funding Assistance Limitations and Emissions Offset Requirements; Indiana

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IN33-1-6049; FRL-4826-5]

Federal Highway Funding Assistance Limitations and Emissions

Offset Requirements; Indiana

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 Indiana under the discretionary

sanction authority provided under the Clean Air Act, as amended in

1990, (CAA or Act) for failure by the State to submit a complete SIP

revision for an enhanced motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M)

program as required by the Act for certain ozone nonattainment areas.

On December 2, 1992, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management

(IDEM), acting as the governor's designee, submitted a commitment

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

Act and the I/M rule by November 15, 1993. The committal SIP provides

for the adoption and implementation of an enhanced I/M program meeting

all requirements of USEPA's I/M regulations and includes an

implementation schedule. On September 9, 1993, USEPA proposed to

disapprove this SIP revision and on November 29, 1993, USEPA

disapproved 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 Indiana legislature

adjourned on June 30, 1993, without taking necessary action to provide

for implementation of an enhanced I/M program. On December 30, 1993,

USEPA 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 or its commitment to

adopt and implement an enhanced I/M program 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 provisions of the Act.

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

15, 1994. The USEPA will hold three public hearings on February 16, 18,

and 22.

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 public hearings will be held in Indiana as follows: February

16, 1994 in Valparaiso, (Porter County) at the Porter County

Administration Center on 155 Indiana Avenue in Suite 205 at 11 a.m. to

4 p.m.; February 18, 1994 in New Albany (Floyd County) at the New

Albany Courthouse on West First and Spring Streets in the third floor

assembly room at 11 a.m. to 4 p.m.; and February 22, 1994 in

Indianapolis (Marion County) at the Indiana Government Center South on

402 West Washington Street in the auditorium at 11 a.m. to 4 p.m.

Copies of Indiana's 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 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 enhanced I/M

program by November 15, 1992. In Indiana, the State must implement a

basic I/M program in the urbanized areas of Clark and Floyd counties;

it must implement an enhanced I/M program in the urbanized areas of

Lake and Porter counties.

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 ``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 December 2, 1992, the State of Indiana submitted a committal SIP

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

October 22, 1992, in Gary, Indiana. The submittal included a schedule

of implementation and a commitment to the timely adoption and

implementation of an I/M program in the Lake, Porter, Clark, and Floyd

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

M regulation and the amended Act by November 15, 1993.

On June 30, 1993, the Indiana legislature adjourned without taking

the necessary action to enable Indiana to adopt and implement the I/M

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

and Porter Counties. 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 August 17,

1993, USEPA sent a letter to Governor Bayh of Indiana and to the

Regional Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration advising

them 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. After review of the committal SIP,

USEPA proposed to disapprove the commitment on September 9, 1993 (58 FR

47415), and on November 29, 1993 USEPA disapproved this SIP revision

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 Indiana General Legislative session. On November 15, 1993, the

State of Indiana 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, enhanced I/M programs

play an important role in the ability of Lake and Porter Counties to

comply with the CAA requirements 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 and/or CO nonattainment areas are located is

required to provide an attainment demonstration showing that its SIP,

as revised, will provide for attainment of the 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 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 Lake and Porter areas

in Indiana will have difficulty meeting the 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 of enhanced I/M, however, are fully creditable towards meeting

the RFP requirement. Enhanced I/M 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 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 enhanced I/M program 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 findings\1\ 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 Indiana, EPA is using its discretionary authority

under section 110(m) to propose early sanctions\3\ based on Indiana's

failure to submit a complete SIP to improve its I/M program. EPA is

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

submittal of enhanced I/M programs as a measure 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 proposed SIP revision was a failure 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 USEPA's

discretionary authority to impose the sanctions proposed in this notice

under section 110(m). Further, on November 29, 1993, USEPA disapproved

Indiana's committal SIP revision because the State had failed to meet

its commitment.

If sufficient progress has not been made by Indiana 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 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 Indiana's failure to adopt

legislation to enhance its existing vehicle inspection and maintenance

program. In the absence of an improved vehicle inspection and

maintenance program, the ability of the State's metropolitan areas to

meet the Clean Air Act deadlines for attaining healthy air quality is

severely compromised. As previously noted, enhanced vehicle inspection

and maintenance is the single most effective air pollution control

measure 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 highway sanction statewide for

Indiana because of the failure to submit a complete enhanced I/M

program.

USEPA believes that the first criterion has not been met by any

political subdivision. Only the Indiana legislature, composed of

representatives from all portions of the State of Indiana, has the

authority to revise the state statute to provide for an enhanced I/M

program meeting the CAA and EPA 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 enhanced I/M program meeting the CAA and

USEPA requirements, the program is not available to areas within the

State that require the program.

Since no political subdivision within the State has met the first

criterion, EPA believes that no political subdivision is principally

responsible for the failure to have an enhanced I/M program. Therefore,

EPA is not prohibited from imposing sanctions statewide. As noted

above, the State legislature bears the ultimate responsibility to adopt

the requisite legislative authority and IDEM, 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 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 in the

following ozone nonattainment counties: Lake, Porter, Clark, Floyd,

Marion, St. Joseph, Elkhart, and Vanderburgh. The 2:1 emission offset

would apply to all new or modified major stationary sources for

volatile organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen that are locating to

or located in each of these areas. USEPA proposes to impose the offset

sanction in the manner described in the proposed action on the

sequencing of sanctions (58 FR 51270, 51275-51277 (Oct. 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 Indiana legislature and signature by the Governor of

legislation which USEPA preliminary determines provides legal authority

for an 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 of Indiana submits a

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

completely lift section 110(m) sanctions upon its 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 U.S.

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

occurrence of the events described, U.S. EPA 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 the imposition of sanctions. See 5 U.S.C.

Sec. 553(b)(B). Therefore, no proposed action for removal will be

issued. Consistent with U.S. EPA's intent to impose discretionary

sanctions only on those areas that lack legislative authority U.S.

EPA believes that it is in the public interest to remove, at least

temporarily, these discretionary sanctions as expeditiously as

possible once the State of Indiana has enacted legislative

authority.

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

As an alternative, EPA proposes that the basis for the

discretionary sanctions is EPA's disapproval of Indiana's committal

SIP. If the EPA's disapproval of the committal SIP is the basis for the

discretionary sanctions, such sanctions would be tolled in the same

manner as if the finding of failure to submit were the basis; however,

if the disapproval is the 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 Indiana. 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 EPA's obligation to impose mandatory sanctions

under section 179(a). The mandatory sanctions clock for Indiana was

triggered on November 29, 1993 by EPA's disapproval of Indiana's

committal SIP. Therefore, one mandatory sanction shall apply 18 months

after USEPA's final disapproval of the committal 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 and until

such deficiency has been corrected. Moreover, if the State does not

adopt and USEPA does not approve regulations providing for an I/M

program within the 18-month and additional 6-month periods following

the effective date of EPA's disapproval, the sanctions will

automatically apply on those areas of the State that were required to

have but do not have such a USEPA-approved I/M program under the

amended Act. See 58 FR 51270 (October 1, 1993).

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, this action has been informally submitted to OMB for

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. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.

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. For reasons cited below, USEPA has not completed a regulatory

flexibility analysis for this rule.

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.

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, EPA cannot further analyze the

economic impacts of this action on small entities. The statements in

this package constitute EPA'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, if 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 (NSR) 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 Indiana 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 Indiana:

Clark....................................... ......... VOC, NOx

Elkhart..................................... ......... VOC, NOx

Floyd....................................... ......... VOC, NOx

Lake........................................ ......... VOC, NOx

Marion...................................... ......... VOC, NOx

Porter...................................... ......... VOC, NOx

St. Joseph.................................. ......... VOC, NOx

Vanderburgh................................. ......... VOC, NOx

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

* * * * *

(2) * * *

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

Date

Affected area sanction

applies

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

*****

State of Indiana:

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

[FR Doc. 94-1131 Filed 1-21-94; 10:00 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-5O-P