[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 32 (Friday, February 15, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4407-4411]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02543]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0799; FRL-9989-58-Region 4]


Air Plan Approval; Kentucky; Regional Haze Plan and Prong 4 
(Visibility) for the 1997 Ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 
NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to take 
the following four actions regarding the Kentucky State Implementation 
Plan (SIP): Approve Kentucky's November 16, 2018, SIP submittal seeking 
to change reliance from the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to the 
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) for certain regional haze 
requirements; convert EPA's limited approval/limited disapproval of 
Kentucky's regional haze plan to a full approval; remove EPA's Federal 
Implementation Plan (FIP) for Kentucky which replaced reliance on CAIR 
with reliance on CSAPR to address the deficiencies identified in the 
limited disapproval of Kentucky's regional haze plan; and approve the 
visibility prong of Kentucky's infrastructure SIP submittals for the 
1997 Ozone, 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), 2010 Sulfur Dioxide 
(SO2), and 2012 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 18, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA-R04-
OAR-2018-0799 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot 
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment 
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any 
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment 
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment 
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general 
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory 
Management Section, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Notarianni can be reached by telephone 
at (404) 562-9031 or via electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Regional Haze Plans and Their Relationship With CAIR and CSAPR

    Section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requires 
states to submit regional haze plans that contain such measures as may 
be necessary to make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility 
goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major 
stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and 
operate Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) as determined by the 
state. Under the Regional Haze Rule (RHR), states are directed to 
conduct BART determinations for such ``BART-

[[Page 4408]]

eligible'' sources that may be anticipated to cause or contribute to 
any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than requiring 
source-specific BART controls, states also have the flexibility to 
adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative program as long 
as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress towards 
improving visibility than BART. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). EPA provided 
states with this flexibility in the RHR, adopted in 1999, and further 
refined the criteria for assessing whether an alternative program 
provides for greater reasonable progress in two subsequent rulemakings. 
See 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999); 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005); 71 FR 60612 
(October 13, 2006).
    EPA demonstrated that CAIR would achieve greater reasonable 
progress than BART in revisions to the regional haze program made in 
2005.\1\ See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). In those revisions, EPA 
amended its regulations to provide that states participating in the 
CAIR cap-and-trade programs pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or 
states that remain subject to a CAIR FIP need not require affected 
BART-eligible electric generating units (EGUs) to install, operate, and 
maintain BART for emissions of SO2 and nitrogen oxides 
(NOX). As a result of EPA's determination that CAIR was 
``better-than-BART,'' a number of states in the CAIR region, including 
Kentucky, relied on the CAIR cap-and-trade programs as an alternative 
to BART for EGU emissions of SO2 and NOX in 
designing their regional haze plans. These states also relied on CAIR 
as an element of a long-term strategy (LTS) for achieving their 
reasonable progress goals (RPGs) for their regional haze programs. 
However, in 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the District 
of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) remanded CAIR to EPA without vacatur 
to preserve the environmental benefits provided by CAIR. North Carolina 
v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 8, 2011 (76 FR 
48208), acting on the D.C. Circuit's remand, EPA promulgated CSAPR to 
replace CAIR and issued FIPs to implement the rule in CSAPR-subject 
states.\2\ Implementation of CSAPR was scheduled to begin on January 1, 
2012, when CSAPR would have superseded the CAIR program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ CAIR created regional cap-and-trade programs to reduce 
SO2 and NOX emissions in 27 eastern states 
(and the District of Columbia), including Kentucky, that contributed 
to downwind nonattainment or interfered with maintenance of the 1997 
8-hour ozone NAAQS or the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    \2\ CSAPR requires 28 eastern states to limit their statewide 
emissions of SO2 and/or NOX in order to 
mitigate transported air pollution unlawfully impacting other 
states' ability to attain or maintain four NAAQS: The 1997 ozone 
NAAQS, the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour 
PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The CSAPR 
emissions limitations are defined in terms of maximum statewide 
``budgets'' for emissions of annual SO2, annual 
NOX, and/or ozone-season NOX by each covered 
state's large EGUs. The CSAPR state budgets are implemented in two 
phases of generally increasing stringency, with the Phase 1 budgets 
applying to emissions in 2015 and 2016 and the Phase 2 budgets 
applying to emissions in 2017 and later years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to the D.C. Circuit's 2008 ruling that CAIR was ``fatally 
flawed'' and its resulting status as a temporary measure following that 
ruling, EPA could not fully approve regional haze plans to the extent 
that they relied on CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement and the 
requirement for a LTS sufficient to achieve the state-adopted RPGs. On 
these grounds, on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642), EPA promulgated a FIP to 
replace reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR to address the 
deficiencies in Kentucky's regional haze plan.\3\ EPA had already 
finalized a limited disapproval of Kentucky's regional haze plan on 
March 30, 2012 (77 FR 19098) due to the deficiencies created by the 
plan's reliance on CAIR for certain regional haze requirements.\4\ In 
the same March 30, 2012, action, EPA also finalized a limited approval 
of the Commonwealth's regional haze plan as meeting the remaining 
applicable regional haze requirements set forth in the CAA and the RHR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Throughout this document, references to Kentucky's (or the 
Commonwealth's) ``regional haze plan'' refer to Kentucky's original 
June 25, 2008, regional haze SIP submittal, as later amended in a 
SIP revision submitted on May 28, 2010.
    \4\ On May 11, 2012, EPA published a final rule correcting an 
inadvertent error in the March 30, 2012, rule regarding the entry 
for Kentucky's regional haze plan in the table of non-regulatory 
provisions at 40 CFR 52.920(e). See 77 FR 27626.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the June 7, 2012, action, EPA also amended the RHR to provide 
that participation by a state's EGUs in a CSAPR trading program for a 
given pollutant--either a CSAPR federal trading program implemented 
through a CSAPR FIP or an integrated CSAPR state trading program 
implemented through an approved CSAPR SIP revision--qualifies as a BART 
alternative for those EGUs for that pollutant. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). 
Since EPA promulgated this amendment, numerous states covered by CSAPR 
have come to rely on the provision through either SIPs or FIPs.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In 2012, EPA promulgated FIPs relying on CSAPR participation 
for BART purposes for several states, including Kentucky. See e.g., 
77 FR33654. EPA has also approved SIPs from several states relying 
on CSAPR participation for BART purposes. See, e.g., 82 FR 47393 
(October 12, 2017) (Alabama); 82 FR 47930 (October 13, 2017) 
(Georgia); and 83 FR 48237 (September 24, 2018) (South Carolina and 
Tennessee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR in the D.C. 
Circuit, and on August 21, 2012, the court issued its ruling, vacating 
and remanding CSAPR to EPA and ordering continued implementation of 
CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 
2012). The D.C. Circuit's vacatur of CSAPR was reversed by the United 
States Supreme Court on April 29, 2014, and the case was remanded to 
the D.C. Circuit to resolve remaining issues in accordance with the 
high court's ruling. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 
1584 (2014). On remand, the D.C. Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most 
respects, but invalidated without vacating some of the CSAPR budgets to 
a number of states. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 
118 (D.C. Cir. 2015). The remanded budgets included the Phase 2 
SO2 emissions budgets for four states and the Phase 2 ozone-
season NOX budgets for 11 states. This litigation ultimately 
delayed implementation of CSAPR for three years, from January 1, 2012, 
when CSAPR's cap-and-trade programs were originally scheduled to 
replace the CAIR cap-and-trade programs, to January 1, 2015. Thus, the 
rule's Phase 2 budgets that were originally promulgated to begin on 
January 1, 2014, began on January 1, 2017. EPA has now taken all 
actions necessary to address the remanded CSAPR budgets.
    On September 29, 2017 (82 FR 45481), EPA issued a final rule 
affirming the continued validity of the Agency's 2012 determination 
that participation in CSAPR meets the RHR's criteria for an alternative 
to the application of source-specific BART.\6\ In that action, EPA 
determined that changes to CSAPR's geographic scope resulting from the 
actions EPA has taken in response to the D.C. Circuit's budget remand 
do not affect the continued validity of participation in CSAPR as a 
BART alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Legal challenges to this rule are pending. Nat'l Parks 
Conservation Ass'n v. EPA, No. 17-1253 (D.C. Cir. filed November 28, 
2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Kentucky's November 16, 2018, SIP submittal seeks to correct the 
deficiencies identified in the March 30, 2012, limited disapproval of 
its regional haze plan by replacing reliance on CAIR with reliance on 
CSAPR. EPA is proposing to approve Kentucky's request that EPA amend 
the Commonwealth's regional haze plan by replacing its reliance on CAIR 
with CSAPR. EPA is proposing to approve

[[Page 4409]]

this SIP submittal and amend the SIP accordingly.

B. Infrastructure SIPs

    By statute, plans meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) 
and (2) of the CAA are to be submitted by states within three years (or 
less, if the Administrator so prescribes) after promulgation of a new 
or revised NAAQS to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and 
enforcement of the new or revised NAAQS. EPA has historically referred 
to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the 
requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure 
SIP'' submissions. Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to address 
basic SIP elements such as monitoring, basic program requirements, and 
legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance 
of the newly established or revised NAAQS. More specifically, section 
110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for 
infrastructure SIP submissions. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific 
elements that states must meet for the infrastructure SIP requirements 
related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. The contents of an 
infrastructure SIP submission may vary depending upon the data and 
analytical tools available to the state, as well as the provisions 
already contained in the state's implementation plan at the time in 
which the state develops and submits the submission for a new or 
revised NAAQS.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 
110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct 
components, commonly referred to as ``prongs,'' that must be addressed 
in infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are 
codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that prohibit 
any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from 
contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another 
state (prong 1) and from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in 
another state (prong 2). The third and fourth prongs, which are 
codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that prohibit 
emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required 
to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in another state 
(prong 3) or from interfering with measures to protect visibility in 
another state (prong 4). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to 
include provisions ensuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the 
Act, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement.
    Through this action, EPA is proposing to approve the prong 4 
portions of Kentucky's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 1997 
ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS, as discussed in section III of this notice. All 
other applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for these SIP 
submissions have been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings. A 
brief background regarding the NAAQS relevant to this proposal is 
provided below. For comprehensive information on these NAAQS, please 
refer to the Federal Register notices cited in the following 
subsections.
1. 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
    On July 16, 1997, EPA promulgated a new NAAQS for ozone based on 8-
hour average concentrations. The 8-hour averaging period replaced the 
previous 1-hour averaging period, and the level of the NAAQS was 
changed from 0.12 parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm. See 62 FR 38856 
(July 18, 1997). States were required to submit infrastructure SIP 
submissions for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS to EPA no later than July 
16, 2000. For the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, EPA is proposing to approve 
the prong 4 element of the infrastructure SIP submission submitted by 
Kentucky on December 13, 2007.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA approved portions of Kentucky's December 13, 2007, 1997 
8-hour ozone infrastructure submission in a separate action. See 76 
FR 41088 (July 13, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS
    On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the 1-hour primary SO2 
NAAQS to an hourly standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) based on a 3-
year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum 
concentrations. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). States were required 
to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than June 2, 2013. For the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS, EPA is proposing to approve prong 4 of the 
infrastructure SIP submission submitted by Kentucky on April 26, 
2013.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ EPA approved portions of Kentucky's April 26, 2013, 
SO2 infrastructure submission in a separate action. See 
81 FR 87817 (December 6, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. 2010 1-Hour NO2 NAAQS
    On January 22, 2010, EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for 
NO2 at a level of 100 ppb, based on a 3-year average of the 
98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum 
concentrations. See 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010). States were required 
to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 1-hour 
NO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than January 22, 2013. For the 
2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS, EPA is proposing to approve the prong 
4 element of the infrastructure SIP submission submitted by Kentucky on 
April 26, 2013.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ EPA approved portions of Kentucky's April 26, 2013, 
NO2 infrastructure submission in separate actions. See 81 
FR 83152 (November 21, 2016) and 80 FR 14019 (March 18, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
    On December 14, 2012, EPA revised the annual primary 
PM2.5 NAAQS to 12.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\). 
See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013). States were required to submit 
infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS to 
EPA no later than December 14, 2015. For the 2012 PM2.5 
NAAQS, EPA is proposing to approve prong 4 of the infrastructure SIP 
submission submitted by Kentucky on February 8, 2016.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ EPA approved portions of Kentucky's February 8, 2016, 
PM2.5 infrastructure submission in separate actions. See 
82 FR 37012 (August 8, 2017) and 83 FR 48387 (September 25, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What are the prong 4 requirements?

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires a state's implementation 
plan to contain provisions prohibiting sources in that state from 
emitting pollutants in amounts that interfere with any other state's 
efforts to protect visibility under part C of the CAA (which includes 
sections 169A and 169B). EPA most recently issued guidance for 
infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 2013 (2013 Guidance).\11\ The 2013 
Guidance states that these prong 4 requirements can be satisfied by 
approved SIP provisions that EPA has found to adequately address any 
contribution of that state's sources that impacts the visibility 
program requirements in other states. The 2013 Guidance also states 
that EPA interprets this prong to be pollutant-specific, such that the 
infrastructure SIP submission need only address the potential for 
interference with protection of visibility caused by the pollutant 
(including precursors) to which the new or revised NAAQS applies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 
110(a)(2),'' Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2013 Guidance lays out how a state's infrastructure SIP 
submission may satisfy prong 4. One way that a state can meet the 
requirements is via confirmation in its infrastructure SIP submission 
that the state has an approved regional haze plan that fully

[[Page 4410]]

meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 or 40 CFR 51.309. 40 CFR 51.308 
and 51.309 specifically require that a state participating in a 
regional planning process include all measures needed to achieve its 
apportionment of emission reduction obligations agreed upon through 
that process. A fully approved regional haze plan will ensure that 
emissions from sources under an air agency's jurisdiction are not 
interfering with measures required to be included in other air 
agencies' plans to protect visibility.
    Alternatively, in the absence of a fully approved regional haze 
plan, a state may meet the requirements of prong 4 through a 
demonstration in its infrastructure SIP submission that emissions 
within its jurisdiction do not interfere with other air agencies' plans 
to protect visibility. Such an infrastructure SIP submission would need 
to include measures to limit visibility-impairing pollutants and ensure 
that the reductions conform with any mutually agreed regional haze RPGs 
for mandatory Class I areas in other states.

III. What is EPA's analysis of how Kentucky addressed prong 4 and 
regional haze?

    The Commonwealth's December 13, 2007, 1997 8-hour ozone submission; 
April 26, 2013, 2010 1-hour NO2 and 2010 1-hour 
SO2 submission; and February 8, 2016, 2012 annual 
PM2.5 submission rely on Kentucky's regional haze plan to 
satisfy its prong 4 requirements. However, EPA has not fully approved 
Kentucky's regional haze plan as the Agency issued a limited 
disapproval of the plan on March 30, 2012 (77 FR 19098), due to its 
reliance on CAIR. Kentucky submitted a SIP revision on November 16, 
2018, to replace reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR for certain 
regional haze provisions.
    EPA is proposing to approve the Commonwealth's November 16, 2018, 
SIP revision replacing reliance on CAIR with CSAPR, and to convert 
EPA's previous action on Kentucky's regional haze plan from a limited 
approval/limited disapproval to a full approval because final approval 
of the SIP revision would correct the deficiencies that led to EPA's 
limited approval/limited disapproval of the Commonwealth's regional 
haze plan. Specifically, EPA's approval of Kentucky's November 16, 
2018, SIP revision would satisfy the SO2 and NOX 
BART requirements; the Commonwealth's reasonable progress obligations 
with respect to SO2 emissions from EGUs formerly subject to 
CAIR; and, in part, the requirement that the Commonwealth's LTS contain 
the measures necessary to achieve reasonable progress. Thus, EPA is 
also proposing to remove EPA's FIP for Kentucky which replaced reliance 
on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR to address the deficiencies identified 
in the limited disapproval of Kentucky's regional haze plan. Because a 
state may satisfy prong 4 requirements through a fully approved 
regional haze plan, EPA is therefore also proposing to approve the 
prong 4 portion of Kentucky's December 13, 2007, 1997 8-hour ozone 
submission; April 26, 2013, 2010 1-hour NO2 and 2010 1-hour 
SO2 submission; and February 8, 2016, 2012 annual 
PM2.5 submission.

IV. Proposed Action

    As described above, EPA is proposing to take the following actions: 
(1) Approve Kentucky's November 16, 2018, SIP submission to change 
reliance from CAIR to CSAPR in its regional haze plan; (2) convert 
EPA's limited approval/limited disapproval of Kentucky's regional haze 
plan to a full approval; (3) remove EPA's FIP for Kentucky which 
replaced reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR to address the 
deficiencies identified in the limited disapproval of Kentucky's 
regional haze plan; and (4) approve the prong 4 portion of Kentucky's 
December 13, 2007, 1997 8-hour ozone submission; April 26, 2013, 2010 
1-hour NO2 and 2010 1-hour SO2 submission; and 
February 8, 2016, 2012 annual PM2.5 submission. All other 
applicable infrastructure requirements for the infrastructure SIP 
submissions have been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided they meet the criteria of the CAA. These actions merely 
propose to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and remove 
a FIP and do not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by 
state law. For that reason, these proposed actions:
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Are not Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory actions because these actions are either exempted or 
not significant under Executive Order 12866;
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not economically significant regulatory actions based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or 
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed 
actions do not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will they impose substantial 
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental 
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.


[[Page 4411]]


    Dated: February 5, 2019.
Mary S. Walker,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2019-02543 Filed 2-14-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P