Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Indiana

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IN32-1-6006; FRL-5180-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)

proposes to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision request

submitted by the State of Indiana for the purpose of bringing about the

attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for

particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a

nominal 10 micrometers (PM). The SIP revision request was submitted by

the State to satisfy certain Federal requirements for an approvable

nonattainment area PM SIP for the Lake County nonattainment area. This

area was designated nonattainment for PM and classified as moderate by

the Clean Air Act (Act), upon enactment of the 1990 Amendments (amended

Act). The amended Act requires that States make plan submittals by

November 15, 1991, for those areas designated nonattainment and

classified as moderate for PM upon enactment (the ``initial moderate

nonattainment areas'').

DATES: Comments on this SIP revision request and on USEPA's proposed

rulemaking action must be received by May 1, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: J. Elmer Bortzer,

Chief, Regulation Development Section, Regulation Development Branch

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

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Pohlman, Regulation Development

Branch, Regulation Development Section (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-3299.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The air quality planning requirements for moderate PM nonattainment

areas are set out in Title I of the amended Act.1 The USEPA has

issued a ``General Preamble'' describing USEPA's preliminary views on

how USEPA intends to review SIPs and SIP revisions submitted under

Title I of the amended Act, including those State submittals containing

moderate PM nonattainment area SIP requirements (see generally 57 FR

13498, April 16, 1992). The reader should refer to the General Preamble

for a more detailed discussion of the interpretations of Title I

advanced in this proposed rule and the supporting rationale. In this

proposed rule on the Indiana moderate PM SIP submittal for the Lake

County nonattainment area, USEPA is proposing to apply the

interpretations as expressed in the General Preamble, taking into

consideration the special factual issues presented.

\1\The 1990 Amendments to the Act made significant changes to

the air quality planning requirements for areas that do not meet (or

that significantly contribute to ambient air quality in a nearby

area that does not meet) the PM national ambient air quality

standards (see Pub. L. No. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399). References

herein are to the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

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

Part D of Title I contains the provisions applicable to

nonattainment areas. Moderate PM nonattainment areas must meet the

applicable requirements set out in Subparts 1 (sections 171-179B of the

Act) and 4 (sections 188-190 of the Act) of Part D. Subpart 1 contains

provisions generally applicable to all nonattainment areas and Subpart

4 contains provisions specifically applicable to PM nonattainment

areas. At times, Subparts 1 and 4 overlap or conflict. USEPA has

attempted to clarify the relationship among these various provisions in

the General Preamble and, as appropriate, in this proposed rule.

Under Part D, those States containing initial moderate PM

nonattainment areas were required to submit, among other things, the

following provisions by November 15, 1991:

1. Provisions to assure that reasonably available control measures

(RACM) (including such reductions from existing sources in the area as

may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably

available control technology--RACT) shall be implemented;

[[Page 16592]]

2. Either a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the

plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no

later than December 31, 1994, or a demonstration that attainment by

that date is impracticable;

3. Quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3 years

and which demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP) toward

attainment by December 31, 1994; and

4. Control requirements applicable to major stationary sources of

PM precursors, except where the Administrator determines that such

sources do not contribute significantly to PM levels which exceed the

NAAQS in the area. See sections 172(c), 188, and 189 of the Act.

II. Analysis of State Submittal

Section 110(k) of the Act sets out provisions governing USEPA's

review of SIP submittals (see 57 FR 13565-13566). In this proposed

rule, USEPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision request submitted

to USEPA on June 16, 1993, and supplemented on December 9, 1993,

September 8, 1994, and November 17, 1994, for the Lake County

nonattainment area. The submittal repeals rules 326 Indiana

Administrative Code (IAC) 5-1-6, 6-1-10, and 6-1-11. The submittal

contains the following new or revised rules:

326 IAC 1-2-32.1*.................. ``Gooseneck cap'' definition

326 IAC 1-2-34.1*.................. ``Jumper pipe'' definition

326 IAC 1-2-62.1*.................. ``Quench car'' definition

326 IAC 1-2-63.1*.................. ``Quench reservoir'' definition

326 IAC 1-2-63.2*.................. ``Quench tower'' definition

326 IAC 5-1-1*..................... Applicability of rule

326 IAC 5-1-2*..................... Visible emission limitations

326 IAC 5-1-3*..................... Temporary exemptions

326 IAC 5-1-4*..................... Compliance determination

326 IAC 5-1-5*..................... Violations

326 IAC 5-1-7*..................... State implementation plan

revisions

326 IAC 6-1-10.1(a-k).............. Lake County PM10 emissions

requirements

326 IAC 6-1-10.2................... Lake County PM10 coke battery

emissions requirements

326 IAC 6-1-11.1................... Lake County fugitive particulate

matter control requirements

326 IAC 11-3-2(a-f and i)*......... Emission limitations

326 IAC 11-3-4*.................... Compliance determination

While some of these rules apply strictly to Lake County, others

(marked above with an asterisk) are intended to have state-wide

applicability. The USEPA is proposing to approve the rules marked above

with an asterisk for the entire state of Indiana. The others are being

approved for sources in Lake County only.

Public comments are solicited on the requested SIP revision and on

USEPA's proposed rulemaking action. The USEPA will consider any

comments received during the public comment period before taking final

action on the requested SIP revision. Presented below are the SIP

requirements under which the submittal was reviewed, and the results of

USEPA's review.

1. Procedural Requirements

The Act requires States to observe certain procedural requirements

in developing implementation plans for submission to USEPA. Section

110(a)(2) of the Act provides that each implementation plan submitted

by a State must be adopted after reasonable notice and public

hearing.2

\2\Also, Section 172(c)(7) of the Act requires that plan

provisions for nonattainment areas meet the applicable provisions of

Section 110(a)(2).

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

The USEPA also must determine whether a submittal is complete and

therefore warrants further USEPA review and action (see section

110(k)(1) and 57 FR 13565). The USEPA's completeness criteria for SIP

submittals are set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V (1991), as amended

by 57 FR 42216 (August 26, 1991). The USEPA attempts to make

completeness determinations within 60 days of receiving a submittal.

However, a submittal is deemed complete by operation of law if a

completeness determination is not made by USEPA 6 months after receipt

of the submission.

The State of Indiana held a public hearing on October 22, 1992, in

Gary, Indiana to receive public comment on the requested implementation

plan revision for the Lake County PM nonattainment area. Following the

public hearing the plan was adopted by the State on May 12, 1993, and

submitted to USEPA on June 16, 1993, as a SIP revision request.

Supplemental submittals were made with cover letters dated December 9,

1993, September 8, 1994, and November 17, 1994.

The SIP revision request was reviewed by USEPA to determine

completeness shortly after its submittal, in accordance with the

completeness criteria set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V (1991), as

amended by 57 FR 42216 (August 26, 1991). The submittal was found to be

complete and a letter dated July 13, 1993, was sent to the

Commissioner, Office of Air Management, Indiana Department of

Environmental Management (IDEM), indicating the completeness of the

submittal and the next steps to be taken in the review process.

2. Accurate Emissions Inventory

Section 172(c)(3) of the Act requires that nonattainment plan

provisions include a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of

actual emissions from all sources of relevant pollutants in the

nonattainment area. Further, for the attainment demonstration, the SIP

must contain a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of

allowable emissions in the area. Because the submission of an emissions

inventory is necessary to an area's attainment demonstration (or

demonstration that the area cannot practicably attain), the emissions

inventory must be received with the submission (see 57 FR 13539).

The emissions inventory information was compiled from data supplied

by individual companies, permit applications in the IDEM files, and

information from personnel at local agencies. The emissions inventory

contains information on approximately 900 point and area sources. The

Lake County PM emissions inventory is dominated by industrial sources,

including metal manufacturers, mineral product manufacturers, and food/

agricultural facilities. For further information on the emissions

inventory, see the Technical Support Document available at the above

address.

The USEPA is proposing to approve the emissions inventory because

it is generally accurate and comprehensive, and provides a sufficient

basis for determining the adequacy of attainment demonstration for this

area consistent with the requirements of sections 172(c)(3) and

110(a)(2)(k) of the Act.

3. RACM (Including RACT)

As noted above, the State must submit provisions for initial

moderate PM nonattainment areas to assure that RACM (including RACT)

are implemented (see sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C)). The General

Preamble contains a detailed discussion of USEPA's interpretation of

the RACM (including RACT) requirement (see 57 FR 13539-13545 and 13560-

13561). The USEPA's interpretation of this requirement is set out here

only in broad terms.

The State should first identify available control measures and

evaluate them for their reasonableness in light of the feasibility of

the controls and the [[Page 16593]] attainment needs of the area. A

State may reject an available control measure if the measure is

technologically infeasible or the cost of the control is unreasonable.

The State must demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS as expeditiously as

practicable but no later than December 31, 1994, unless the State

demonstrates that attainment by that date is impracticable. Therefore,

if a State adopts less than all available measures but demonstrates,

adequately and appropriately, that RFP and attainment of the PM NAAQS

is assured, and application of all such available measures would not

result in attainment any faster, then a plan which requires

implementation of less than all available measures may be approved as

meeting the RACM requirement. As a suggested starting point, USEPA has

identified reasonably available control measures for sources of

fugitive dust, residential wood combustion, and prescribed burning (see

57 FR 18072-18074, April 28, 1992). The State should add to the list of

available measures in an area any measures that public commenters

demonstrate may well be reasonably available in a particular

circumstance.

The RACT for a particular source is similarly determined. The

USEPA's longstanding definition of RACT is the lowest emission

limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the

application of control technology that is reasonably available

considering technological and economic feasibility (see 57 FR 13541).

Thus, USEPA recommends that available control technology be applied to

those existing sources in the area that are reasonable to control in

light of the attainment needs of the area and the feasibility of

controls.3

\3\USEPA has issued technological and economic parameters that

should be considered in determining RACT for a particular source

(see 57 FR 18073-74).

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

A State should submit a reasoned justification for partial or full

rejection of any available control measure (including any available

control technology) that explains, with appropriate documentation, why

each rejected control measure is infeasible or otherwise unreasonable

and, therefore, does not constitute RACM (or RACT) for the area. In

those PM nonattainment areas where mobile sources significantly

contribute to the PM air quality problem, States also must address the

section 108(f) transportation control measures (see 57 FR 13561).

The limitations on point sources in Lake County include source-

specific emissions limits in terms of pounds per ton (lb/ton), pounds

per hour (lbs/hr), pounds per Million British Thermal Units (lb/MMBTU),

and grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf). There are also

source-specific opacity limits ranging from 5-20 percent on certain

sources in the nonattainment area. These limits are listed in Title 326

Indiana Administrative Code (326 IAC) 6-1-10.1. Compliance with these

emissions limits is to be determined using Title 40 of the Code of

Federal Regulations, part 60 (40 CFR part 60), appendix M, Methods 201

and 201A for PM; 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Methods 5, 5A, 5D, 5E or

17 for Total Suspended Particulate; and 40 CFR part 60, appendix A,

Method 9 for opacity limits. Other limitations on point sources include

emission limits on coke ovens located in Lake County (326 IAC 6-1-10.2)

and a general 20 percent opacity limit for all sources in the

nonattainment area (326 IAC 5-1-2).

Limitations on sources of fugitive emissions in Lake County include

a 10 percent opacity limit for paved roads and parking lots, unpaved

roads and parking lots, and wind erosion from storage piles (326 IAC 6-

1-11.1(d)). Subsection (e) of this rule also requires sources to submit

control plans which will achieve compliance with the limitations of

subsection (d). These plans are to include maps and descriptions of

facilities, descriptions of the proposed control measures and practices

to be implemented, and a schedule for achieving compliance with the

rule.

The USEPA has reviewed the State's explanation and associated

documentation and concluded that it adequately justifies the control

measures to be implemented. By this notice, USEPA is proposing to

approve the control strategy.

4. Attainment Demonstration

As noted above, the State must submit a demonstration for initial

moderate PM nonattainment areas (including air quality modeling)

showing that the plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously as

practicable but no later than December 31, 1994 (see section

189(a)(1)(B) of the Act). Alternatively, the State must show that

attainment by December 31, 1994 is impracticable. In the General

Preamble, USEPA indicated that the attainment demonstrations for the

initial moderate areas must follow existing modeling guidelines for PM

or, if appropriate, may be developed consistent with the supplemental

attainment demonstration policy issued for initial areas (see 57 FR

13539).

IDEM began the Lake County modeling study in 1989, using version

88348 of the Industrial Source Complex Short Term model (ISCST). An

updated version of ISCST, 90346, was used for the final runs. Version

93109 of the Industrial Source Complex Long Term model (ISCLT2) was

used to determine annual average concentrations. Version 93109 is the

most recent version of ISCLT2, and the versions of ISCST used by the

State were current at the time of application. Therefore, their use is

approvable by USEPA. Future SIP revision requests submitted to USEPA

must demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS through modeling performed in

accordance with current USEPA modeling guidance.

IDEM modeled a total of 540 sources, all with emissions greater

than one ton per year. Smaller sources were excluded from the modeling.

Direction-specific building dimensions were input for facilities which

chose to provide the information. The annual concentrations modeled

represent the actual hours of operation of sources which contributed

significantly to high annual concentrations.

Average background concentrations for each wind sector were derived

from measurements taken at ten local PM monitors during the years 1990

through 1992. The monitors were located in Lake County, Indiana; Porter

County, Indiana; and Cook County, Illinois. While the background

concentrations were developed so as not to include measurements

directly influenced by the emissions from large facilities, monitors

within the modeled area were expected to account for the influence of

small sources which were not included in the modeled source inventory.

IDEM arrived at an average annual background concentration of 23

micrograms per cubic meter (g/m3).

IDEM ran the models with five years of meteorological data (1984-

1988) from the Hammond and Whiting Towers, which are located in Lake

County. IDEM's final receptor network focused on hot spots pinpointed

by earlier modeling runs. Receptors were also placed in Illinois in

order to assess interstate impacts. Modeling showed that the Indiana

sources did not violate the NAAQS in Illinois.

The final modeling shows that the Lake County PM nonattainment area

will attain the 24-hour PM standard. The highest sixth high predicted

24-hour concentration is 149.9 g/m3 (the 24-hour PM

standard is 150 g/m3). The final modeling also predicts

attainment of the annual PM standard. The highest 5-year average

predicted PM concentration is 47.7 g/m3 (the standard is

50 g/m3). [[Page 16594]]

To have attained the PM NAAQS, an area must have an average of no

more than 1.0 expected exceedance of the 24-hour PM NAAQS per year for

the previous 3 years at any monitor. In addition, the average of the

annual PM concentrations for the previous 3 years at any monitor must

be below the annual standard.

A preliminary review of the Lake County air quality monitoring data

indicates that the area is attaining the PM NAAQS. No monitor in the

Lake County area has shown an exceedance of the annual PM NAAQS in the

last 3 years. In addition, the worst-case monitor in the Lake County PM

nonattainment area shows an average of 0.75 expected exceedance per

year for 1992, 1993, and 1994. The USEPA will make a formal

determination of the attainment status of the Lake County PM

nonattainment area at a later date.

5. PM Precursors

The control requirements which are applicable to major stationary

sources of PM must also apply to major stationary sources of PM

precursors unless the USEPA determines such sources do not contribute

significantly to PM levels which exceed the National Ambient Air

Quality Standards in that area (see section 189(e) of the Act). PM

precursors are pollutants emitted as gases that undergo chemical

transformations to become particulate, and principally include sulfates

and nitrates. The control requirements that apply to major stationary

sources in PM nonattainment areas generally include the following:

reasonably available control technology, which applies in moderate PM

nonattainment areas; best available control technology, which applies

in serious PM nonattainment areas; and control requirements under the

applicable new source review provisions, such as the lowest achievable

emission rate. The General Preamble (see 57 FR 13539-13540 and 13541-

13542) contains a lengthy discussion on control requirements for PM

precursors in moderate nonattainment areas and on the type of technical

information USEPA will rely on in making any determinations under

section 189(e).

Filter analysis data from ambient monitors in Cook County, Illinois

(the data was collected in 1992) were used to assess the significance

of PM precursors in the Lake County, Indiana PM nonattainment area. The

monitors used are located at the Washington School and the Bright

School in the city of Chicago, Illinois. These monitors are located

approximately .6 and 1.75 miles, respectively, west of the Lake County

nonattainment area. Besides the close proximity, these sites are also

appropriate because the source mix in southeast Chicago closely

approximates that of the Lake County nonattainment area.

The mean sulfate concentration plus the mean nitrate concentration

for the Washington school and Bright school monitors were

13.1g/m3 and 14.9g/m3 respectively. This

compares to an average annual background PM concentration of

23g/m3 in the Lake County nonattainment area. This

illustrates the relative insignificance of the impact of PM precursors,

and supports representing PM precursor impacts as part of the

background concentration.

Further considerations also argue against applying the same control

requirements for precursor sources as for direct emission sources. The

climatology in northwest Indiana is such that precursor emission

control for a particular source would not have a significant effect

until far downwind. Title IV of the Clean Air Act mandates significant

particulate precursor emission reductions in Indiana, after which the

impacts of these sources on particulate matter concentrations will be

even less significant.

For these reasons, it is appropriate to conclude that precursors do

not contribute significantly to particulate matter concentrations in

the Lake County nonattainment area. This finding is based on the

current character of the area including, for example, the existing mix

of sources in the area. It is possible, therefore, that future growth

could change the significance of precursors in the area. The USEPA

intends to issue future guidance addressing such potential changes in

the significance of precursor emissions in an area.

6. Quantitative Milestones and Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)

The PM nonattainment area plan revisions demonstrating attainment

must contain quantitative milestones, which are to be achieved every 3

years, until the area is redesignated to attainment. The plan also must

demonstrate RFP, as defined in section 171(1), toward attainment by

December 31, 1994 (see section 189(c) of the Act). Reasonable further

progress is defined in section 171(1) as such annual incremental

reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required

by part D or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the

purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the

applicable date.

For the initial moderate PM nonattainment areas, the emissions

reductions progress made between the SIP submittal due date of November

15, 1991 and the attainment date of December 31, 1994, (only 46 days

beyond the November 15, 1994 milestone date) will satisfy the first

milestone requirement. The de minimis timing differential makes it

administratively impracticable to require separate milestone and

attainment demonstrations.

In implementing RFP for an initial moderate area, USEPA has

reviewed the attainment demonstration and control strategy for the area

to determine whether the initial milestones have been satisfied, and to

determine whether annual incremental reductions different from those

provided in the SIP may be necessary to ensure attainment of the PM

NAAQS by December 31, 1994 (see section 171(1)). As indicated,

Indiana's PM SIP submittal for the Lake County PM nonattainment area

shows that the PM NAAQS will be attained by December 31, 1994. Also, a

preliminary review of the monitored air quality data shows that the

area is in attainment of the PM NAAQS. Therefore, the RFP requirement

has been satisfied.

7. Enforceability

All measures and other elements in the SIP must be enforceable by

the State and USEPA. See sections 172(c)(6), 110(a)(2)(A) and 57 FR

13556. The USEPA criteria addressing the enforceability of SIPs and SIP

revisions were stated in a September 23, 1987 memorandum (with

attachments) from the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, et

al., entitled ``Review of State Implementation Plans and Revisions for

Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency,'' and with an attached memorandum

with the same date and title which contained more detailed guidance

from the Associate Enforcement Counsel for Air Enforcement, et al. (see

57 FR 13541).

The particular control measures contained in the SIP are addressed

above under the section headed ``RACM (including RACT).'' These control

measures apply to the types of activities identified in that

discussion, including, for example, grain loading limits, lb/ton

limits, and lb/MMBTU limits for point sources and opacity limits for

roadways and storage piles. The SIP provides that these control

measures apply to the Lake County nonattainment area.

Upon initial review of Indiana's submittal, USEPA identified two

enforcement concerns. The first enforcement concern was related to the

20 percent opacity limit as it applies to [[Page 16595]] coal preheater

bypass stacks at U.S. Steel. A number of years ago, Indiana issued a

variance to these stacks under a previous State rule. The USEPA

requested IDEM's interpretation of how the variance relates to the new

rule. On November 17, 1994, IDEM submitted to USEPA a letter clarifying

this issue. In the letter, IDEM stated that ``no variance currently

exists for the U.S. Steel. Any variance from a previous, repealed rule

that existed prior to the adoption of 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(B) has been

superseded by the revised PM rule.'' Therefore, this issue has been

resolved.

The second enforcement concern was related to the shutdown of the

A. Metz Asphalt Company in Gary, Indiana. IDEM did not include this

source in the emissions inventory because it is not currently

operating, but the plant still has a limit in the State rules. The

USEPA was concerned about the enforceability of the shutdown, and the

possibility that the plant might resume operation. In a November 17,

1994, letter, IDEM assured USEPA that the A. Metz Asphalt Company has

not operated since 1989, and does not have a valid operating permit.

IDEM stated that restarting of operations at this plant would trigger

Indiana's new source review permitting process. Therefore, this issue

has been resolved.

8. Contingency Measures

As provided in section 172(c)(9) of the Act, all moderate

nonattainment area SIPs that demonstrate attainment must include

contingency measures. See generally 57 FR 13543-13544. Contingency

measures should consist of other available measures that are not part

of the area's control strategy. These measures were to have been

submitted by November 15, 1993, for initial moderate nonattainment

areas. These measures must take effect without further action by the

State or USEPA, upon a determination by USEPA that the area has failed

to make RFP or attain the PM NAAQS by the applicable statutory

deadline.

On January 25, 1994, a letter was sent to the State indicating that

the USEPA was making a finding that the State of Indiana had failed to

submit PM contingency measures for the Lake County PM nonattainment

area. The letter also stated that Indiana would have 18 months from the

date of the letter to make a complete submission of PM contingency

measures before USEPA would be mandated to impose sanctions as

identified in section 179(b) of the amended Act. The USEPA is currently

working with IDEM to develop the required PM contingency measures. The

USEPA will take separate rulemaking action on the contingency plan for

the Lake County nonattainment area.

III. USEPA's Proposed Rulemaking Action

USEPA is proposing to approve the plan revision submitted to USEPA

by the State of Indiana on June 16, 1993, and supplemented on December

9, 1993, September 8, 1994, and November 17, 1994, for the Lake County

PM nonattainment area. Among other things, the State of Indiana has

demonstrated through modeling that the Lake County moderate PM

nonattainment area will attain the PM NAAQS by December 31, 1994. In

addition, a preliminary review of the monitored air quality data for

the Lake County area shows that this area is in attainment of the

NAAQS.

As noted, additional submittals for the initial moderate PM

nonattainment areas are due at later dates. The USEPA will determine

the adequacy of any such submittals as appropriate.

USEPA is requesting comments on the requested SIP revision and this

proposed rule. As indicated at the outset of this dowment, USEPA will

consider any comments received by May 1, 1995.

This action has been classified as a Table 2 action by the Regional

Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on

January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by an October 4, 1993

memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for

Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget has exempted

this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.

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.

SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Act

do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements

that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP-

approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does

not have a significant impact on 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. The

Act forbids USEPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.

See Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A. , 427

U.S. 246, 256-66 (S. Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

Dated: March 21, 1995.

Valdas V. Adamkus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95-7718 Filed 3-30-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P