Approval of a Section 182(f) Exemption; Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IL99-01-6621, IN46-01-6622, MI33-01-6626, WI47-01-6627; FRL-5165-1]

Approval of a Section 182(f) Exemption; Illinois, Indiana,

Michigan, and Wisconsin

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On July 13, 1994, the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,

and Wisconsin (the States) submitted to the EPA a petition (the

petition) for an exemption from the requirements of section 182(f) of

the Clean Air Act (Act). The States, acting through the Lake Michigan

Air Directors Consortium (LADCo), are petitioning for an exemption from

the Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) and New Source

Review (NSR) requirements for major stationary sources of oxides of

nitrogen (NOx). In the Lake Michigan Ozone Study (LMOS) modeling

domain, the RACT requirements apply to major stationary sources of

NOx located in areas currently classified as moderate and above

nonattainment for ozone. The NSR requirements apply to major stationary

sources of NOx located in areas currently classified as marginal

and above nonattainment for ozone. The petition also seeks an exemption

from the transportation and general conformity requirements for

NOx in all ozone nonattainment areas in the modeling domain.

Although the petition does not specifically request an exemption from

the Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) program requirements, the approval of

the petition will impact the I/M NOx [[Page 12181]] requirements

for ozone nonattainment areas in the modeling domain. In this

rulemaking, EPA is proposing to approve the petition based upon its

demonstration that additional NOx reductions would not contribute

to attainment of the National ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for

ozone in any nonattainment area within the LMOS modeling domain. The

EPA is reserving the right, however, to reverse this approval if

subsequent modeling, such as may be available through the final

attainment demonstration, or any other subsequent modeling data

demonstrate an ozone attainment benefit from NOx emission

controls.

DATES: Comments on the petition and on the proposed EPA action must be

received by April 5, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments shall be sent to: Carlton T. Nash, Chief,

Regulation Development Section, Air Toxics and Radiation Branch (AT-

18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois, 60604.

Copies of the petition are available for inspection at the

following address: (It is recommended that you telephone Daniel Meyer

at (312) 886-9401, before visiting the Region 5 office.) U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division,

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois, 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Meyer, Regulation Development

Section, Air Toxics and Radiation Branch (AT-18J), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois, 60604.

(312) 886-9401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Part D of the Act establishes the State Implementation Plan (SIP)

requirements for nonattainment areas. Subpart 2, part D of the Act

establishes additional provisions for ozone nonattainment areas. At

section 182(b)(2) of this subpart, the Act requires the application of

RACT regulations for major stationary volatile organic compound (VOC)

sources located in moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas as well

as in ozone transport regions. States are required to submit RACT

regulations by November 15, 1992 and sources are required to achieve

compliance with these RACT regulations by May 31, 1995. At section

182(a)(2)(C), the Act requires the application of NSR regulations for

major new or modified VOC sources located in marginal and above ozone

nonattainment areas as well as in ozone transport regions. States are

required to adopt revised NSR regulations by November 15, 1992. At

section 182(f), the Act requires States to apply the same requirements

to major stationary sources of NOx as are applied to major

stationary sources of VOC. Therefore, the RACT and NSR requirements

also apply to major stationary sources of NOx.

The EPA ``State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to

the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air

Act Amendments of 1990'' (57 FR 55628), November 25, 1992 (NOx

Supplement), discusses in detail the section 182(f) requirements. For

sources outside of an ozone transport region, these requirements do not

apply to NOx sources if: (1) The EPA determines that net air

quality benefits are greater in the absence of NOx emissions

reductions; or (2) the EPA determines that additional reductions of

NOx emissions would not contribute to attainment of the NAAQS for

ozone in the area. Where any one of the tests is met (even if the other

test is failed), the NOx RACT and NSR requirements of section

182(f) would not apply.

In addition to determining the applicability of NOx reductions

under RACT and NSR, the section 182(f) exemption process may also

determine the applicability of NOx reductions under the Act's

conformity requirements, which assure conformity with approved SIPs.

The general and transportation conformity requirements are found at

section 176(c) of the Act. The conformity requirements apply on an

areawide basis in all nonattainment areas, including the

nonclassifiable ozone nonattainment areas. The EPA's transportation

conformity final rule1 and general conformity final rule2

reference the section 182(f) exemption process as a means for exempting

an affected area from NOx conformity requirements. The approval of

an areawide section 182(f) petition will exempt marginal and above

ozone nonattainment areas from the NOx conformity requirements of

the Act. See the May 27, 1994, memorandum entitled, ``Section 182(f)

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Exemptions--Revised Process and Criteria,''

from John Seitz, Director of the Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards.

\1\''Criteria and Procedures for Determining Conformity to State

or Federal Implementation Plans of Transportation Plans, Programs,

and Projects Funded or Approved under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal

Transit Act'' November 24, 1993 (58 FR 62188).

\2\''Determining Conformity of General Federal Actions to State

or Federal Implementation Plans; Final Rule'' November 30, 1993 (58

FR 63214).

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

Under the I/M program final rule (57 FR 52950), November 5, 1992,

the section 182(f) petition is also referenced to determine

applicability of NOx reductions. The I/M program requirement for

moderate ozone nonattainment areas is found at section 182(b)(4), and

the I/M program requirement for serious and above ozone nonattainment

areas is found at section 182(c)(3). Basic I/M testing programs must be

designed such that no increase in NOx occurs as a result of the

program. If a petition is granted to an area required to implement a

basic I/M program, the basic I/M NOx requirement may be omitted.

Enhanced I/M testing programs must be designed to reduce NOx

emissions consistent with the enhanced I/M performance standard. If a

petition is granted to an area required to implement an enhanced I/M

program, the NOx emission reductions are not required, but the

program must be designed to offset NOx emission increases

resulting from the repair of vehicles due to hydrocarbon and carbon

monoxide failures.

The EPA believes that all approvable petitions should be approved

only on a contingent basis. As described in the NOx Supplement,

the EPA would rescind a NOx petition in cases where NOx

reductions were later found to be beneficial in the area's attainment

demonstration. Therefore, a modeling- based exemption would last only

as long as the area's modeling continued to demonstrate attainment

without the additional NOx reductions required by section 182(f).

The EPA would also rescind the exemption if other data, including new

photochemical grid modeling, demonstrates an ozone attainment benefit

from NOx emission controls. If EPA later determines that NOx

reductions are beneficial in an area initially exempted, the area would

be removed from exempt status and would be required to adopt the

NOx RACT and NSR rules, except to the extent that the new modeling

shows NOx reductions to be ``excess reductions.'' In addition, the

area would no longer be exempt from the NOx reduction requirements

under the Act's I/M and conformity programs. In the rulemaking action

rescinding the exempt status, the EPA would specify a schedule for a

State to adopt the NOx RACT and NSR rules and for sources to

comply with the NOx RACT emission limits. In addition, the

rulemaking action would also describe how a State must comply with the

I/M and conformity program requirements. For conformity, the effect of

a recision is that subsequent Federal actions will [[Page 12182]] have

to demonstrate that they conform, although projects that had begun

because of the exemption would be allowed to go forward. See

``Conformity; General Preamble for Exemption from Nitrogen Oxides

Provisions,'' 59 FR 31238 (June 17, 1994).

If EPA grants a petition for an exemption from the section 182(f)

NOx requirements, a State may impose NOx restrictions for

other reasons. If, however, the EPA grants the petition based upon a

finding that NOx reductions are counterproductive, the State must

justify how the SIP continues to be adequate for achieving ozone

attainment given its NOx reductions. Although a section 182(f)

petition may determine the applicability of SIP requirements pertaining

to NOx emission reductions and controls, the petition is not a

SIP, nor is it a revision to a SIP. Therefore, a petition is not

required to undergo a public hearing, nor must a petition be submitted

by a Governor of a State or his designee. See ``Conformity; General

Preamble for Exemption from Nitrogen Oxides Provisions,'' 59 FR 31238

(June 17, 1994).

II. Summary of Submittal

The LMOS is a regional modeling project that was initiated by the

States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin, with assistance

from the EPA, to deal with the ozone problem in the Lake Michigan air

basin as a whole. A major goal of the study is to develop a

comprehensive modeling system that the four States would use to support

a regional control strategy that would be implemented through revisions

to their ozone attainment SIPs. The Lake Michigan air basin, which

constitutes the LMOS modeling domain, contains a number of generally

contiguous nonattainment areas including several major urban

nonattainment areas, including Chicago, Milwaukee, and Grand Rapids,

and many smaller, less-dense nonattainment areas generally downwind of

the large urban centers. The entire domain is affected by ozone

concentrations that are transported into the area. These ozone

concentrations are estimated to be as high as 80-100 parts per billion

(ppb). Additionally, within the domain itself, ozone precursor

emissions generated in the urban centers upwind travel downwind,

resulting in significant downwind ozone levels. It is because of these

meteorological characteristics that the ozone problem in the Lake

Michigan area is considered to be a very broad regional phenomenon

requiring a regional solution. Consequently, the preliminary control

strategy simulations pursued in the ozone study consisted of an

approach that assumed across-the-board reductions in VOC and NOx

emissions throughout the region as a whole in order to provide

information on the most effective control path to pursue toward

attainment.

The petition, which is part of a July 13, 1994 submittal from LADCo

to the EPA, seeks to exempt major stationary sources of NOx within

ozone nonattainment areas classified as marginal and above in the LMOS

modeling domain from the RACT requirements of section 182(b)(2) and the

NSR requirements under section 182(a)(2)(C). The petition for an

exemption from NOx RACT and NSR applies to the following counties:

(1) Within Illinois, the Counties of Cook, DuPage, Grundy (Aux Sable

and Gooselake Townships), Kane, Kendall (Oswego Township), Lake,

McHenry, and Will; (2) within Indiana, the Counties of Elkhart, Lake,

Porter, and St. Joseph; (3) within Michigan, the Counties of Kent,

Muskegon, and Ottawa; and (4) within Wisconsin, the Counties of Door,

Kenosha, Kewaunee, Manitowoc, Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, Sheboygan,

Walworth, Washington, and Waukesha.

Pursuant to 40 CFR part 93, subpart A; 40 CFR part 51, subpart T;

40 CFR part 93, subpart B; and 40 CFR part 51, subpart W, the petition

seeks an exemption from the transportation and general conformity

requirements for NOx in all ozone nonattainment areas within the

LMOS modeling domain. The areas include the above Counties as well as

the following Michigan Counties: Allegan, Barry, Bay, Berrien, Branch,

Calhoun, Cass, Clinton, Eaton, Gratiot, Genesee, Hillside, Ingham,

Ionia, Jackson, Kalamazoo, Lenawee, Midland, Montcalm, St. Joseph,

Saginaw, Shiawasse, and Van Buren.

Pursuant to 40 CFR part 51, subpart S, an approved petition allows

for an exemption from the NOx requirements of the basic I/M

requirements for moderate ozone nonattainment areas. These Counties

include: (1) Within Indiana, the Counties of Elkhart, and St. Joseph;

(2) within Michigan, the Counties of Kent, Muskegon, and Ottawa; and

(3) within Wisconsin, the Counties of Door, Kewaunee, Manitowoc,

Sheboygan, Walworth, Washington, and Waukesha. Also pursuant to subpart

S, an approved petition allows for an exemption from the NOx

requirements of the enhanced I/M requirements for serious and above

ozone nonattainment areas. These Counties include: (1) Within Illinois,

the Counties of Cook, DuPage, Grundy (Aux Sable and Gooselake

Townships), Kane, Kendall (Oswego Township), Lake, McHenry, and Will;

(2) within Indiana, the Counties of Lake and Porter; and (3) within

Wisconsin, the Counties of Kenosha, Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine,

Washington, and Waukesha.

The December 1993 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

guidance document, ``Guideline for Determining the Applicability of

Nitrogen Oxide Requirements under Section 182(f),'' (Guideline),

recommends the use of photochemical grid modeling for testing the

contribution of NOx emission reductions to attainment of the ozone

standard. This approach simulates conditions over the modeling domain

that may be expected at the attainment deadline for three emission

reduction scenarios: (1) Substantial VOC reductions; (2) substantial

NOx reductions; and (3) both VOC and NOx reductions. If the

areawide predicted maximum one-hour ozone concentration for each day

modeled under scenario (1) is less than or equal to those from

scenarios (2) and (3) for the corresponding days, the section 182(f)

NOx emissions reduction requirements may not apply.

As noted above, section 182(f)(1) of the Act provides that the new

NOx requirements of subpart 2 of part D of the Act shall not apply

for the ozone nonattainment areas within the LMOS modeling domain if,

among other tests, EPA determines that additional NOx emission

reductions would not contribute to attainment of the ozone standard in

the ozone nonattainment areas covered by the petition. The States' have

utilized the Urban Airshed Model (UAM-V), a photochemical grid model

approved by EPA for LADCo's section 182(f) and attainment

demonstrations, to demonstrate that NOx emission reductions would

not contribute to attainment. To conduct the modeling analysis, LADCo

followed these steps: (a) Emissions were projected to the year 1996

(the attainment deadline for the moderate nonattainment areas) and to

the year 2007 (the attainment deadline for the severe nonattainment

areas) from the 1990 base year; (b) a 40 percent VOC emission reduction

beyond that achieved as a result of emission controls mandated by the

Act was assumed to be necessary to attain the ozone standard in the

LMOS modeling domain; (c) a 40 percent NOx emission reduction

beyond the projected emission levels was assumed for all anthropogenic

NOx emissions; (d) a 40 percent VOC emission reduction and a 40

percent NOx reduction beyond projected emission levels were

assumed for all anthropogenic VOC and NOx emissions;

[[Page 12183]] and (e) the ozone modeling results for (b), (c), and (d)

were compared considering the domain-wide peak ozone concentrations and

temporal and spatial extent of ozone concentrations above 120 ppb. In

addition, ozone impacts resulting from increasing new source growth

NOx emissions were analyzed.

For all modeled days using 1996 and 2007 conditions, domain-wide

peak ozone concentrations for ``VOC-only'' controls were found to be

lower than or equal to those for ``NOx-only'' controls or those

for ``VOC plus NOx'' controls. The ``VOC-only'' control scenario

leads to the smallest areas with predicted peak ozone concentrations

exceeding 120 ppb. In addition, the NOT2x point source growth is

not expected to exacerbate the nonattainement problem.

III. Analysis of Submittal

As stated earlier in this document, for purposes of their NOx

exemption submission, the LMOS States elected to rely on the statutory

test provided in section 182(f)(1)(A), which requires a demonstration

that NOx reductions would not contribute to attainment of the

ozone NAAQS ``in the area''. Under the EPA Guideline, this would

ordinarily mean that the demonstration should show that in a single

nonattainment area NOx emissions reductions from sources in the

same nonattainment area would not contribute to attainment. However,

the EPA Guideline goes on to encourage petitioners relying on modeling

under the contribute to attainment test to include consideration of the

entire modeling domain for two key reasons. First, because the test

focuses on the effects of NOx reductions on attainment, to fully

realize those effects, the attainment control strategy often needs to

extend beyond the geographic bounds of the designated nonattainment

area. This is especially warranted for the nonattainment areas in the

Lake Michigan air basin given the meteorological indications noted

previously. Second, when photochemical grid modeling is utilized for

this demonstration, it is generally advisable, as a technical matter,

to use a modeling domain larger than the designated nonattainment area

in order to consider multi-day episodes, to establish realistic

boundary conditions, and to accommodate the geometry of the model grid

cells. Again, as noted previously, the location of the nonattainment

areas and the meteorology characteristic of the Lake Michigan area made

it reasonable for the LMOS study to analyze domain-wide precursor

effects rather than attempting to identify such effects in each

individual nonattainment area. Because of this, the modeling protocol

lacks the type of precision that would make it capable, for example, of

analyzing particularized, individual local area effects. However, a

region-wide modeling assessment may--and, in the case of the LMOS

modeling, clearly did--include consideration of general, directional

effects in specific areas.

Review of the modeling results by EPA show a very definite

directional signal that general, across-the-board NOx emission

reduction controls in the ozone nonattainment areas throughout the LMOS

modeling domain would not contribute to attainment, but, in fact, would

exacerbate peak ozone concentrations. Specifically, the LMOS modeling

runs demonstrate that reductions in NOx emissions result in

increases in the domain-wide peak ozone concentrations, in the areal

coverage of hours greater than 120 ppb (the current ozone standard),

and in the number of hours greater than 120 ppb. Nitrogen oxide

reductions also increased hourly ozone concentrations within and

immediately downwind of the major urban areas of Chicago, Milwaukee,

Gary, and Grand Rapids. Additional model sensitivity tests involving

alternative VOC:NOx emissions ratios and alternative photolysis

rates produced similar results. In addition, independent analyses of

the LMOS field data also conclude that NOx controls would increase

ozone concentrations in and downwind of Chicago. In light of all this

evidence in support of the conclusion that application of NOx

controls in the nonattainment areas throughout the LMOS domain would be

counterproductive, EPA believes the LADCo States have made an

acceptable case for approval of their NOx exemption petition.

However, data provided to the EPA to date by LADCo indicate that

some adjustments in the modeling results may be expected when certain

aspects of the modeling are subject to more detailed inputs.

Specifically, the LMOS analysis projected emissions for conditions

expected in the attainment years of 1996 (for Moderate areas) and 2007

(for Severe areas with a design value between 0.190 and 0.280 ppm).

However, the analysis did not rely on source category-specific emission

projection factors, but instead used simple, region-wide adjustment

factors for point, area, and mobile (motor vehicular) sources to

account for both known controls (i.e., 15 percent reasonable further

progress and other mandatory Clean Air Act Amendment controls) and for

growth. Therefore, some changes in the modeling results are to be

expected if area-specific and source category-specific emission

projection factors are used. And, in fact, these more detailed

projection factors will be used in the final demonstration of

attainment for the LMOS domain. It should be noted, however, that

nothing in the data presented, and in the analysis of that data, leads

EPA to believe either that these adjusted modeling results will reverse

the directional signal provided by the modeling done to date, or alter

the preliminary conclusion that NOx reductions in the

nonattainment areas throughout the domain would not contribute to

attainment of the ozone NAAQS.

Finally, although this document earlier points out that the version

of the photochemical grid model utilized in the LMOS study (UAM-V) was

approved by EPA for LADCo's section 182(f) and attainment

demonstrations, it is noted here by EPA that the Lake Michigan States

and LADCo had not completed the appropriate validation process for the

UAM-V modeling system utilized in the LMOS study at the time the

NOx exemption petition was submitted. In this regard, the EPA

Guideline states that an assessment of the model's performance and a

copy of the modeling protocol should be included in States' NOx

exemption analysis ``for informational purposes.'' On the basis of that

guidance, the use of the UAM-V model by LADCo to support the section

182(f) ``contribute to attainment'' test is acceptable. In any event,

however, the validation process has now been completed, and a model

validation report has been submitted to EPA by LADCo. With respect to

the emission projection factors, it is also likely that some

adjustments in the modeling results may be expected based on the

completed validation process. However, as in the previous case, nothing

in the existing modeling data, or in the analyses, leads EPA to believe

that any subsequent adjustments would be sufficient to reverse the

directional indication that NOx reductions in the nonattainment

areas throughout the LMOS modeling domain would not contribute to

attainment of the ozone NAAQS.

In summary, then, the EPA believes that the modeling data contained

in the LADCo NOx exemption petition demonstrates that, for the

nonattainment areas throughout the LMOS domain in general, additional

reductions of NOx would not contribute to attainment of the ozone

standard. However, other data submitted to EPA [[Page 12184]] offer the

possibility that subsequent adjustments to the modeling results due to

the completed model validation process, as well as the inclusion of

area-specific and source category-specific emissions projection

factors, may result in changes that could alter the conclusions

presently reached with respect to the effects of NOx reductions on

nonattainment areas within the domain. Although this result seems

highly unlikely, it does remain a possibility. In light of the above,

EPA has concluded that the LADCo exemption demonstration is adequate to

support the granting of a NOx waiver. Therefore, pursuant to

section 182(f)(3) of the Act, and based on the results provided by the

modeling data that is available at this time, and on the modeling

analyses' conformance to the criteria contained in relevant EPA

guidance, including the Guideline, the EPA proposes to approve the

LADCo NOx exemption petition. The EPA reserves the right to

reverse this approval to the extent necessary if subsequent modeling

results, such as may be available through the final attainment

demonstration submittal, or through any other subsequent modeling data,

demonstrate that additional NOx emission reductions will

contribute to attainment of the ozone NAAQS in all or part of any

nonattainment areas within the LMOS modeling domain. For a more

detailed analysis of the petition, please see the August 22, 1994

technical support document entitled ``Technical Review of a Four State

Request for a Section 182(f) Exemption from Oxides of Nitrogen

(NOx) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) and New

Source Review (NSR) Requirements.''

IV. Implication of Action

The EPA is proposing to approve the LADCo petition. If granted, the

approval will exempt ozone nonattainment areas in the LMOS modeling

domain from any applicable NOx requirements set forth in the Act,

such as those for NOx RACT, NSR, I/M, and conformity. Therefore,

the sanctions clocks currently underway for the applicable ozone

nonattainment areas in the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and

Wisconsin for failing to submit a complete NOx RACT SIP will be

stopped upon final approval of the exemption. The EPA reserves the

right, however, to reverse the proposed approval if subsequent

modeling, such as may be available through the final attainment

demonstration, or any other subsequent modeling data, demonstrate an

ozone attainment benefit from NOx emission controls within all or

part of the ozone nonattainment areas within the LMOS modeling domain.

In that case, the EPA would notify the States that the exemption no

longer applies for the relevant nonattainment areas, and would also

provide notice to the public in the Federal Register.

There are also consequences if the EPA disapproves the petition.

The requirement to submit NOx RACT rules and implement the NSR,

conformity, and I/M NOx requirements for the LMOS modeling domain

area remain in place. Therefore, the sanctions clocks currently

underway for the applicable ozone nonattainment areas in the States of

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin for failing to submit a

complete NOx RACT SIP will not be stopped. As provided under

section 179(a) of the Act, if the State did not make a complete

submittal within 18 months after the finding of failure to submit, the

EPA would be required to impose the requirements to provide two-to-one

NSR offsets. If the State had not corrected its deficiency within 6

months after imposing the offset sanction, the EPA would impose a

second sanction related to Federal highway funding restrictions. Any

sanction the EPA imposes must remain in place until the EPA determines

that the State has corrected the deficiency. In addition, the finding

of failure to submit would trigger the 24-month clock for the EPA to

impose a Federal Implementation Plan as provided under section

110(c)(1) of the Act.

V. Request for Public Comments

Interested parties are invited to submit comments on this petition

and on EPA's proposed rulemaking action. Public comments received by

the date indicated above will be considered in the development of the

final rule.

VI. Regulatory Process

The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this rule from the

requirements of section 6 of Executive Order 12866. 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,

under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the EPA may certify that the rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities. See 46 FR 8709. Small entities include small businesses,

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

jurisdiction over populations of less than 50,000.

Because any type of approval of a section 182(f) petition 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 State action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Oxides of Nitrogen, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

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

Dated: February 27, 1995.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95-5402 Filed 3-3-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-F