Control Strategy: Ozone (OINF3); Tennessee

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[TN-167-9627a; FRL-5529-3]

Control Strategy: Ozone (O3); Tennessee

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving an exemption request from the oxides of

nitrogen (NOX) reasonably available control technology (RACT) and

conformity requirements of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA)

for the five county Middle Tennessee (Nashville) moderate ozone

(O3) nonattainment area. The request for a NOX RACT and

conformity exemption was submitted on March 21, 1995, by the State of

Tennessee through the Tennessee Department of Environment and

Conservation (TDEC). The exemption request is based upon the

[[Page 36503]]

most recent three years of monitoring data, which demonstrate that

additional reductions of NOX would not contribute to attainment of

the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

DATES: This final rule is effective September 9, 1996 unless adverse or

critical comments are received by August 12, 1996. If the effective

date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the Federal

Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: William Denman;

Stationary Source Planning Unit; Regulatory Planning and Development

Section; Air Programs Branch; Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management

Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4; 345 Courtland

Street NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30365.

A copy of the exemption request is available for inspection at the

following locations (it is recommended that you contact William Denman

at (404) 347-3555 extension 4208 before visiting the Region 4 office).

United States Environmental Protection Agency; Air, Pesticides, and

Toxics Management Division; Air Programs Branch; Regulatory Planning

and Development Section; Stationary Source Planning Unit; 345 Courtland

Street NE; Atlanta, Georgia 30365.

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Air

Pollution Control, L & C Annex, 9th Floor, 401 Church Street,

Nashville, Tennessee 37243-1531, 615/532-0554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Denman; Stationary Source

Planning Unit; Regulatory Planning and Development Section; Air

Programs Branch; Air Pesticides and Toxics Management Division; U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency; 345 Courtland Street NE, Atlanta,

Georgia 30365. Reference file TN-167-9627a.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The air quality planning requirements for

the reduction of NOX emissions are set out in section 182(f) of

the CAA, which requires states with nonattainment areas of moderate and

above to require the same provisions for major stationary sources of

NOX as apply to major stationary sources of volatile organic

compounds (VOCs). One of the requirements of major sources of VOCs is

RACT. Therefore, per section 182 of the CAA, RACT is also a requirement

for major sources of NOX. However, under section 182(f)(1)(A) of

the CAA, an exemption from the NOX requirement may be granted for

nonattainment areas outside an ozone transport region if additional

reductions of NOX would not contribute to attainment. The NOX

RACT exemption request is based upon the most recent three years of

monitoring data, which demonstrate that additional reductions of

NOX would not contribute to attainment of the NAAQS.

The criteria established for the evaluation of a NOX RACT

exemption request from the section 182(f) requirements are set forth in

an EPA memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, dated May 27, 1994, entitled, ``Section 182(f)

Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Exemptions--Revised Process and Criteria;''

an EPA memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, dated December 16, 1993, entitled, ``Guideline

for Determining the Applicability of Nitrogen Oxide Requirements Under

Section 182(f),'' dated December 16, 1993; and an EPA memorandum from

John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,

dated February 8, 1995, entitled, ``Section 182(f) Nitrogen Oxides

(NOX) Exemptions--Revised Process and Criteria.'' The February 8,

1995, memorandum referenced above decouples the section 182(f)

exemptions from NOX transport issues. In an area that did not

implement the section 182(f) NOX requirements, but did attain the

O3 standard as demonstrated by ambient air monitoring data

(consistent with 40 CFR Part 58 and recorded in the EPA's Aerometric

Information Retrieval system (AIRS)), it is clear that the additional

NOX reductions required by section 182(f) would not contribute to

attainment of the NAAQS in that area.

On November 14, 1994, the State of Tennessee submitted to EPA

Region 4 a request to redesignate the Middle Tennessee (Nashville)

moderate O3 nonattainment area to attainment. The redesignation

request is currently under review and will be addressed in a separate

rulemaking. On March 21, 1995, the State of Tennessee requested an

exemption from the NOX RACT and NOX conformity requirements

in section 182(f) of the CAA for the Middle Tennessee ozone

nonattainment area. The exemption request is based upon ambient air

monitoring data from 1992, 1993, and 1994. The five county Middle

Tennessee nonattainment area was determined to have attained the

National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone in the Federal

Register on August 8, 1995, (60 FR 40291) in accordance with EPA

guidance issued on May 10, 1995, and has continued to monitor

attainment to date. This guidance relieved certain nonattainment areas

with ``clean air data'' from some CAA requirements. Therefore, this

area is meeting the O3 NAAQS standard in the entire five county

Middle Tennessee area for the relevant three year period. Because the

Middle Tennessee area is meeting the O3 NAAQS, this exemption

request for the area meets the applicable requirements contained in the

EPA policy and guidance documents referenced above.

However, some NOX reductions were either obtained prior to the

area attaining the ozone standard or have been determined to be

necessary for maintenance. Specifically, those reductions obtained

prior to attaining the standard were from major source tangentially-

fired coal burning boilers subject to Tennessee's rule for the

regulation of nitrogen oxides (1200-3-27-.03(1)(b)). The NOX

reductions necessary for maintenance are from two natural gas pumping

stations located in the nonattainment area.

Tennessee submitted its chapter for regulating nitrogen oxides

(1200-3-27) in submittals to EPA dated June 14, 1993, and May 26, 1994,

and revised the submittals on July 29, 1994, and February 23, 1996.

Tennessee held a public hearing for the operating permits issued for

the two natural gas pumping stations on April 29, 1996. These two

sources must be controlled to demonstrate maintenance. The Tennessee

Air Pollution Control Board (TAPCB) met to take action on these permits

on May 9-10, 1996. After approval by the TAPCB, the permits will be

officially submitted to EPA. EPA will act on the NOX controls

which obtained emission reductions prior to the area attaining the

standard and those necessary for maintaining the ozone standard either

prior to or concurrently with the ozone redesignation request. The

approval of this exemption does not exempt sources from any State

Implementation Plan (SIP) approved NOX control requirements.

Until this area is designated attainment, the continuation of the

section 182(f) exemption granted herein is contingent upon continued

monitoring and continued maintenance of the O3 NAAQS in the entire

Middle Tennessee nonattainment area. If there is a violation of the

O3 NAAQS in any portion of the Middle Tennessee nonattainment

area, the exemption will no longer be applicable as of the date of any

such determination. Should this occur, EPA will provide notice in the

Federal Register. A determination that the NOX exemption no longer

applies would mean that the NOX RACT requirement is immediately

applicable to the affected area and the exemption

[[Page 36504]]

from NOX conformity is no longer valid. EPA believes some

reasonable period of notice is necessary to provide major stationary

sources subject to the RACT requirement time to purchase, install, and

operate any required controls. Accordingly, the State may provide

sources a reasonable time period to meet the RACT emission limits after

the EPA determination that NOX RACT requirement is necessary. EPA

expects the time period to be as expeditious as practicable, but in no

case longer than 24 months. The approval of this exemption from federal

NOX requirements in no way exempts sources from any NOX

controls required by the State.

This approval of the State of Tennessee's request for an exemption

from the NOX RACT requirement of the CAA as amended in 1990 is

being acted on as a direct final rule making without a prior proposal

for approval because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial

amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. The National Resources

Defense Council (NRDC), Sierra Defense Club, and Environmental Defense

Fund (EDF) submitted adverse comments to Mary Nichols on August 24,

1994, regarding all Federal Register notices proposing to approve

section 182(f) NOX exemption requests. The EPA responded to the

adverse comments as set forth below.

NRDC Comment 1: Certain commenters argued that NOX exemptions

are provided for in two separate parts of the CAA, section 182(b)(1)

and section 182(f). Because the NOX exemption tests in subsections

182(b)(1) and 182(f)(1) include language indicating that action on such

requests should take place ``when [EPA] approves a plan or plan

revision,'' these commenters conclude that all NOX exemption

determinations by the EPA, including exemption actions taken under the

petition process established by subsection 182(f)(3), must occur during

consideration of an approvable attainment or maintenance plan, unless

the area has been redesignated as attainment. These commenters also

argue that even if the petition procedures of subsection 182(f)(3) may

be used to relieve areas of certain NOX requirements, exemptions

from the NOX conformity requirements must follow the process

provided in subsection 182(b)(1), since this is the only provision

explicitly referenced by section 176(c), the CAA's conformity

provisions.

EPA Response: Section 182(f) contains very few details regarding

the administrative procedure for acting on NOX exemption requests.

The absence of specific guidelines by Congress leaves EPA with

discretion to establish reasonable procedures, consistent with the

requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

The EPA disagrees with the commenters regarding the process for

considering exemption requests under section 182(f), and instead

believes that subsections 182(f)(1) and 182(f)(3) provide independent

procedures by which the EPA may act on NOX exemption requests. The

language in subsection 182(f)(1), which indicates that the EPA should

act on NOX exemptions in conjunction with action on a plan or plan

revision, does not appear in subsection 182(f)(3). And, while

subsection 182(f)(3) references subsection 182(f)(1), the EPA believes

that this reference encompasses only the substantive tests in paragraph

(1) [and, by extension, paragraph (2)], not the procedural requirement

that the EPA act on exemptions only when acting on SIPs. Additionally,

paragraph (3) provides that ``person[s]'' (which section 302(e) of the

CAA defines to include States) may petition for NOX exemptions

``at any time,'' and requires the EPA to make its determination within

six months of the petition's submission. These key differences lead EPA

to believe that Congress intended the exemption petition process of

paragraph (3) to be distinct and more expeditious than the longer plan

revision process intended under paragraph (1).

Section 182(f)(1) appears to contemplate that exemption requests

submitted under these paragraphs are limited to States, since States

are the entities authorized under the Act to submit plans or plan

revisions. By contrast, section 182(f)(3) provides that ``person[s]''

may petition for a NOX determination ``at any time'' after the

ozone precursor study required under section 185B of the Act is

finalized, and gives EPA a limit of 6 months after filing to grant or

deny such petitions. Since individuals may submit petitions under

paragraph (3) ``at any time'' this must include times when there is no

plan revision from the State pending at EPA. The specific time frame

for EPA action established in paragraph (3) is substantially shorter

than the time frame usually required for States to develop and for EPA

to take action on revisions to a SIP. These differences strongly

suggest that Congress intended the process for acting on personal

petitions to be distinct--and more expeditious--from the plan-revision

process intended under paragraph (1). Thus, EPA believes that paragraph

(3)'s reference to paragraph (1) encompasses only the substantive tests

in paragraph (1) [and, by extension, paragraph (2)], not the

requirement in paragraph (1) for EPA to grant exemptions only when

acting on plan revisions.

With respect to major stationary sources, section 182(f) requires

States to adopt NOX NSR and RACT rules, unless exempted. These

rules were generally due to be submitted to EPA by November 15, 1992.

Thus, in order to avoid the CAA sanctions, areas seeking a NOX

exemption would need to submit their exemption request for EPA review

and rulemaking action several months before November 15, 1992. In

contrast, the CAA specifies that the attainment demonstrations are not

due until November 1993 or 1994 (and EPA may take 12-18 months to

approve or disapprove the demonstration). For marginal ozone

nonattainment areas (subject to NOX NSR), no attainment

demonstration is called for in the CAA. For maintenance plans, the CAA

does not specify a deadline for submittal of maintenance

demonstrations. Clearly, the CAA envisions the submittal of and EPA

action on exemption requests, in some cases, prior to submittal of

attainment or maintenance demonstrations.

The CAA requires conformity with regard to federally-supported

NOX generating activities in relevant nonattainment and

maintenance areas. However, EPA's conformity rules explicitly provide

that these NOX requirements would not apply if EPA grants an

exemption under section 182(f). In response to the comment that section

182(b)(1) should be the appropriate vehicle for dealing with exemptions

from the NOX requirements of the conformity rule, EPA notes that

this issue has previously been raised in a formal petition for

reconsideration of EPA's final transportation conformity rule and in

litigation pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit on the substance of both the transportation and

general conformity rules. The issue, thus, is under consideration

within EPA, but at this time remains unresolved. Additionally,

subsection 182(f)(3) requires that NOX exemption petition

determinations be made by the EPA within six months. The EPA has stated

in previous guidance that it intends to meet this statutory deadline as

long as doing so is consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act.

The EPA, therefore, believes that until a resolution of this issue is

achieved, the applicable rules governing this issue are those that

appear in EPA's final conformity regulations, and EPA remains bound by

their existing terms.

[[Page 36505]]

NRDC Comment 2: Three years of ``clean'' data fail to demonstrate

that NOX reductions would not contribute to attainment. EPA's

policy erroneously equates the absence of a violation for one three-

year period with ``attainment.''

EPA Response: The EPA has separate criteria for determining if an

area should be redesignated to attainment under section 107 of the CAA.

The section 107 criteria are more comprehensive than the CAA requires

with respect to NOX exemptions under section 182(f).

Under section 182(f)(1)(A), an exemption from the NOX

requirements may be granted for nonattainment areas outside an ozone

transport region if EPA determines that ``additional reductions of

[NOX] would not contribute to attainment'' of the ozone NAAQS in

those areas. In some cases, an ozone nonattainment area might attain

the ozone standard, as demonstrated by 3 years of adequate monitoring

data, without having implemented the section 182(f) NOX provisions

over that 3-year period. The EPA believes that, in cases where a

nonattainment area is demonstrating attainment with 3 consecutive years

of air quality monitoring data without having implemented the section

182(f) NOX provisions, it is clear that the section 182(f) test is

met since ``additional reductions of [NOX] would not contribute to

attainment'' of the NAAQS in that area. The EPA's approval of the

exemption, if warranted, would be granted on a contingent basis (i.e.,

the exemption would last for only as long as the area's monitoring data

continue to demonstrate attainment).

NRDC Comment 3: The CAA does not authorize any waiver of the

NOX reduction requirements until conclusive evidence exists that

such reductions are counter-productive.

EPA Response: EPA does not agree with this comment since it ignores

Congressional intent as evidenced by the plain language of section

182(f), the structure of the Title I ozone subpart as a whole, and

relevant legislative history. By contrast, in developing and

implementing its NOX exemption policies, EPA has sought an

approach that reasonably accords with that intent. Section 182(f), in

addition to imposing control requirements on major stationary sources

of NOX similar to those that apply for such sources of VOC, also

provides for an exemption (or limitation) from application of these

requirements if, under one of several tests, EPA determines that in

certain areas NOX reductions would generally not be beneficial. In

subsection 182(f)(1), Congress explicitly conditioned action on

NOX exemptions on the results of an ozone precursor study required

under section 185B. Because of the possibility that reducing NOX

in a particular area may either not contribute to ozone attainment or

may cause the ozone problem to worsen, Congress included attenuating

language, not just in section 182(f) but throughout the Title I ozone

subpart, to avoid requiring NOX reductions where it would be

nonbeneficial or counterproductive. In describing these various ozone

provisions (including section 182(f), the House Conference Committee

Report states in pertinent part: ``[T]he Committee included a separate

NOX/VOC study provision in section [185B] to serve as the basis

for the various findings contemplated in the NOX provisions. The

Committee does not intend NOX reduction for reduction's sake, but

rather as a measure scaled to the value of NOX reductions for

achieving attainment in the particular ozone nonattainment area.'' H.R.

Rep. No. 490, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 257-258 (1990). As noted in

response to an earlier comment by these same commenters, the command in

subsection 182(f)(1) that EPA ``shall consider'' the 185B report taken

together with the time frame the Act provides both for completion of

the report and for acting on NOX exemption petitions clearly

demonstrate that Congress believed the information in the completed

section 185B report would provide a sufficient basis for EPA to act on

NOX exemption requests, even absent the additional information

that would be included in affected areas' attainment or maintenance

demonstrations. However, while there is no specific requirement in the

Act that EPA actions granting NOX exemption requests must await

``conclusive evidence,'' as the commenters argue, there is also nothing

in the Act to prevent EPA from revisiting an approved NOX

exemption if warranted due to better ambient information.

In addition, the EPA believes (as described in EPA's December 1993

guidance) that section 182(f)(1) of the CAA provides that the new

NOX requirements shall not apply (or may be limited to the extent

necessary to avoid excess reductions) if the Administrator determines

that any one of the following tests is met:

(1) in any area, the net air quality benefits are greater in the

absence of NOX reductions from the sources concerned;

(2) in nonattainment areas not within an ozone transport region,

additional NOX reductions would not contribute to ozone attainment

in the area; or

(3) in nonattainment areas within an ozone transport region,

additional NOX reductions would not produce net ozone air quality

benefits in the transport region.

Based on the plain language of section 182(f), EPA believes that

each test provides an independent basis for receiving a full or limited

NOX exemption. Only the first test listed above is based on a

showing that NOX reductions are ``counter-productive.'' If one of

the tests is met (even if another test is failed), the section 182(f)

NOX requirements would not apply or, under the excess reductions

provision, a portion of these requirements would not apply.

Pollution Probe (Ontario 9-27-94)

Air Quality Comment: Several commenters stated that the air quality

monitoring data alone does not support this exemption proposal. The air

quality levels are below EPA's definition of an exceedance of the ozone

NAAQS at 0.125 ppm, but are greater than the ozone NAAQS of 0.120 ppm.

EPA Response: For the reasons provided below, EPA does not agree

with the commenter's conclusion. As stated in 40 CFR 50.9, the ozone

``standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar

year with maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 parts per

million (235 ug/m3) is equal to or less than 1, as determined by

Appendix H.'' Appendix H references EPA's ``Guideline for

Interpretation of Ozone Air Quality Standards'' (EPA-450/4-79-003,

January 1979), which notes that the stated level of the standard is

taken as defining the number of significant figures to be used in

comparison with the standard. For example, a standard level of 0.12 ppm

means that measurements are to be rounded to two decimal places (0.005

rounds up to 0.01). Thus, 0.125 ppm is the smallest concentration value

in excess of the level of the ozone standard.

The transportation conformity rule states that its NOX

provisions do not apply when the Administrator has determined under

section 182(f) of the Clean Air Act that ``additional reductions of

NOX would not contribute to attainment.'' On June 17, 1994, EPA

published in the Federal Register the general preamble for exemption

from nitrogen oxide provisions (59 FR 31238). It was clarified in this

notice that guidance for transportation conformity is intended to also

apply with respect to general conformity. In accordance with this

guidance, once EPA grants the NOX transportation conformity

exemption, the area is

[[Page 36506]]

relieved of the transportation conformity rule's requirements for

regional analysis of NOX emissions. However, once the maintenance

plan for the middle Tennessee ozone nonattainment area is approved, any

previously approved NOX conformity exemption no longer applies.

The area must then demonstrate as part of its conformity determinations

that the transportation plan and Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP)

are consistent with the motor vehicle emissions budget for NOX

where such a budget is established by the maintenance plan.

Final Action

The EPA is approving Tennessee's request to exempt the Middle

Tennessee moderate O3 nonattainment area from the section 182(f)

NOX RACT and NOX conformity requirements without a prior

proposal for approval because the Agency views this as a

noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. This

approval is based upon the evidence provided by Tennessee showing

compliance with the requirements outlined in the CAA and in applicable

EPA guidance. If a violation of the O3 NAAQS occurs in any portion

of the Middle Tennessee area while the area is designated

nonattainment, the exemption from the NOX RACT and NOX

conformity requirements of section 182(f) of the CAA in the applicable

area shall no longer apply.

This action is not a SIP revision and is not subject to the

requirements of section 110 of the CAA. The authority to approve or

disapprove exemptions from NOX requirements under section 182 of

the CAA was delegated to the Regional Administrator from the

Administrator in a memo dated July 6, 1994, from Jonathan Cannon,

Assistant Administrator, to the Administrator, titled, ``Proposed

Delegation of Authority: `Exemptions from Nitrogen Oxide Requirements

Under Clean Air Act section 182(f) and Related Provisions of the

Transportation and General Conformity Rules' Decision Memorandum.'' In

a separate document in this Federal Register publication, the EPA is

proposing to approve the request should adverse or critical comments be

filed. This action will be effective September 9, 1996 unless, by

August 12, 1996, adverse or critical comments are received.

If the EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn

before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will

withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be

addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the separate proposed

rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this

action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do

so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is

advised that this action will be effective September 9, 1996.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C.

7607(b)(1), petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed

in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by

September 9, 1996. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the

Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this

rule for purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within

which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not

postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See

section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(2).)

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 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. sections 603 and

604. Alternatively, EPA 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. This rule approves an exemption from a CAA requirement.

Therefore, I certify that it does not have a significant impact on any

small entities affected.

Unfunded Mandates

Under Sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform

Act of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22,

1995, EPA must undertake various actions in association with proposed

or final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to

State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate.

Through submission of this state implementation plan or plan

revision, the State and any affected local or tribal governments have

elected to adopt the program provided for under Section 182 of the CAA.

These rules may bind State, local and tribal governments to perform

certain actions and also require the private sector to perform certain

duties. EPA has examined whether the rules being approved by this

action will impose any new requirements. Since such sources are already

subject to these regulations under State law, no new requirements are

imposed by this approval. Accordingly, no additional costs to State,

local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from

this action, and therefore there will be no significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: June 18, 1996.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator.

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, is

amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart RR--Tennessee

2. Section 52.2237 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 52.2237 NOX RACT and NOX conformity exemption.

Approval--EPA is approving the section 182(f) oxides of nitrogen

(NOX) reasonably available control technology (RACT) and NOX

conformity exemption request submitted by the Tennessee Department of

Environment and Conservation on March 21, 1995, for the five county

middle Tennessee (Nashville) ozone moderate nonattainment area. This

approval exempts the area from implementing federal NOX RACT on

major sources of NOX and exempts Tennessee from NOX

conformity. This approval does not exempt sources from any State

required or State Implementation Plan (SIP) approved NOX controls.

If a violation of the ozone NAAQS occurs in the area, the exemption

from the requirement of section 182(f) of the CAA in the applicable

area shall not apply.

[FR Doc. 96-17644 Filed 7-10-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P